Biblical commentary the Old Testament/Volume IV. Poetical Books/Proverbs . First Collection Of Solomonic Proverbs

by Franz Delitzsch

THE BOOK OF PROVERBS.

FIRST COLLECTION OF SOLOMONIC PROVERBS

CHAP. X.-XXII. 16 (CONTINUED)

Chap. 18

Verse 1

This series of proverbs now turns from the fool to the separatist:
The separatist seeketh after his own pleasure;
Against all that is beneficial he showeth his teeth.
The reflexive נפרד has here the same meaning as the Rabbinical פּרשׁ מן־הצּבּוּר, to separate oneself from the congregation, Aboth ii. 5; נפרד denotes a man who separates himself, for he follows his own counsel, Arab. mnfrd (mtfrrd) brâyh, or jḥys almḥḥl (seorsum ab aliis secedens). Instead of לתּאוה, Hitzig, after Jerome, adopts the emendation לתאנה, “after an occasion” (a pretext), and by נפרד thinks of one pushed aside, who, thrown into opposition, seeks to avenge himself. But his translation of 1b, “against all that is fortunate he gnasheth his teeth,” shows how much the proverb is opposed to this interpretation. נפרד denotes one who willingly (Jdg 4:11), and, indeed, obstinately withdraws himself. The construction of יבקּשׁ with ל (also Job 10:6) is explained by this, that the poet, giving prominence to the object, would set it forward: a pleasure (תאוה, as Arab. hawan, unstable and causeless direction of the mind to something, pleasure, freak, caprice), and nothing else, he goes after who has separated himself (Fl.); the effort of the separatist goes out after a pleasure, i.e., the enjoyment and realization of such; instead of seeking to conform himself to the law and ordinance of the community, he seeks to carry out a separate view, and to accomplish some darling plan: libidinem sectatur sui cerebri homo. With this 1b accords. תּוּשׁיּה (vid., at Pro 2:7) is concretely that which furthers and profits. Regarding התגּלּע, vid., at Pro 17:14. Thus putting his subjectivity in the room of the common weal, he shows his teeth, places himself in fanatical opposition against all that is useful and profitable in the principles and aims, the praxis of the community from which he separates himself. The figure is true to nature: the polemic of the schismatic and the sectary against the existing state of things, is for the most part measureless and hostile.

Verse 2

Pro 18:2 2 The fool hath no delight in understanding; But only that his heart may reveal itself therein.
The verb חפץ forms the fut. יחפּץ as well as יחפּץ; first the latter from חפץ, with the primary meaning, to bow, to bend down; then both forms as intransitive, to bend oneself to something, to be inclined to something, Arab. 'ṭf. (Fl.). תּבוּנה is here the intelligence which consists in the understanding of one's own deficiency, and of that which is necessary to meet it. The inclination of the fool goes not out after such intelligence, but (כּי אם־; according to Ben-Naphtali, כי־אם) only that his heart, i.e., the understanding which he thinks that he already possesses, may reveal itself, show itself publicly. He thinks thereby to show himself in his true greatness, and to render a weighty service to the world. This loquacity of the fool, proceeding from self-satisfaction, without self-knowledge, has already, Pro 12:23, and often, been reprimanded.

Verse 3

The group beginning with Pro 18:3 terminates in two proverbs (Pro 18:6 and Pro 18:7), related to the concluding verse of the foregoing: 3 If a godless man cometh, then cometh also contempt; And together with disgrace, shame.
J. D. Michaelis, and the most of modern critics, read רשׁע; then, contempt etc., are to be thought of as the consequences that follow godlessness; for that קלון means (Hitzig) disgracefulness, i.e., disgraceful conduct, is destitute of proof; קלון always means disgrace as an experience. But not only does the Masoretic text punctuate רשׁע, but also all the old translators, the Greek, Aramaic, and Latin, have done so. And is it on this account, because a coming naturally seems to be spoken of a person? The “pride cometh, then cometh shame,” Pro 11:2, was in their recollection not less firmly, perhaps, than in ours. They read רשׁע, because בוּז does not fittingly designate the first of that which godlessness effects, but perhaps the first of that which proceeds from it. Therefore we adhere to the opinion, that the proverb names the fiends which appear in the company of the godless wherever he goes, viz., first בוז, contempt (Psa 31:19), which places itself haughtily above all due subordination, and reverence, and forbearance; and then, with the disgrace [turpitudo], קלון, which attaches itself to those who meddle with him (Isa 22:18), there is united the shame, הרפּה (Psa 39:9), which he has to suffer from him who has only always expected something better from him. Fleischer understands all the three words in the passive sense, and remarks, “עם־קלון חרפה, a more artificial expression for קלון וחרפה, in the Turkish quite common for the copula wāw, e.g., swylh ṭbrâk, earth and water, 'wrtylh âr, the man and the woman.” But then the expression would be tautological; we understand בוז and חרפה of that which the godless does to others by his words, and קלון of that which he does to them by his conduct. By this interpretation, עם is more than the representative of the copula.

Verse 4

Pro 18:4 4 Deep waters are the words from a man's mouth, A bubbling brook, a fountain of wisdom.
Earlier, we added to hominis the supplement sc. sapientis, but then an unnecessary word would be used, and that which is necessary omitted. Rather it might be said that אישׁ is meant in an ideal sense; but thus meant, אישׁ, like גּבר, denotes the valiant man, but not man as he ought to be, or the man of honour; and besides, a man may be a man of honour without there being said of him what this proverb expresses. Ewald comes nearer the case when he translates, “deep waters are the heart-words of many.” Heart-words - what an unbiblical expression! The lxx, which translates λόγος ἐν καρδίᾳ, has not read דברי לב, but דבר בלב (as Pro 20:5, עצה בלב־). But that “of many” is certainly not a right translation, yet right in so far as אישׁ (as at Pro 12:14) is thought of as made prominent: the proverb expresses, in accordance with the form of narrative proverbs which present an example, what occurs in actual life, and is observed. Three different things are said of the words from a man's mouth: they are deep waters, for their meaning does not lie on the surface, but can be perceived only by penetrating into the secret motives and aims of him who speaks; they are a bubbling brook, which freshly and powerfully gushes forth to him who feels this flow of words, for in this brook there never fails an always new gush of living water; it is a fountain or well of wisdom, from which wisdom flows forth, and whence wisdom is to be drawn. Hitzig supposes that the distich is antithetic; מים עמקּים, or rather מי מעמקּים, “waters of the deep,” are cistern waters; on the contrary, “a welling brook is a fountain of wisdom.” But עמק means deep, not deepened, and deep water is the contrast of shallow water; a cistern also may be deep (cf. Pro 22:14), but deep water is such as is deep, whether it be in the ocean or in a ditch. 4b also does not suggest a cistern, for thereby it would be indicated that the description, דברי פי־אישׁ, is not here continued; the “fountain of wisdom” does not form a proper parallel or an antithesis to this subject, since this much rather would require the placing in contrast of deep and shallow, of exhausted (drained out) and perennial. And: the fountain is a brook, the well a stream - who would thus express himself! We have thus neither an antithetic nor a synonymous (lxx after the phrase ἀναπηδῶν, Jerome, Venet., Luth.), but an integral distich before us; and this leads us to consider what depths of thought, what riches of contents, what power of spiritual and moral advancement, may lie in the words of a man.

Verse 5

Pro 18:5 5 To favour the person of the godless is not good, And to oppress the righteous in judgment.
As Pro 18:4 has one subject, so Pro 18:5 has one predicate. The form is the same as Pro 17:26. שׂאת פּני (cf. Pro 24:23), προσωποληψία, acceptio personae, is this, that one accepts the פני, i.e. the personal appearance of any one (πρόσωπον λαμβάνει), i.e., regards it as acceptable, respectable, agreeable, which is a thing in itself not wrong; but in a judge who ought to determine according to the facts of the case and the law, it becomes sinful partiality. הטּות, in a forensic sense, with the accus. of the person, may be regarded in a twofold way: either as a turning aside, מדּין, Isa 10:2, from following and attaining unto the right, or as an oppression, for the phrase הטּה משׁפּט [to pervert justice] (cf. Pro 17:23) is transferred to the person who experiences the oppression = perversion of the law; and this idea perhaps always underlies the expression, wherever, as e.g., Mal 3:5, no addition brings with it the other. Under Pro 17:15 is a fuller explanation of לא־טוב.

Verse 6

Pro 18:6 6 The lips of the fool engage in strife, And his mouth calleth for stripes.
We may translate: the lips of the fool cause strife, for בּוא ב, to come with anything, e.g., Psa 66:13, is equivalent to bring it (to bring forward), as also: they engage in strife; as one says בּוא בדמים: to be engaged in bloodshed, 1Sa 25:26. We prefer this intrant (ingerunt se), with Schultens and Fleischer. יבאוּ for תּבאנה, a synallage generis, to which, by means of a “self-deception of the language” (Fl.), the apparent masculine ending of such duals may have contributed. The stripes which the fool calleth for (קרא ל, like Pro 2:3) are such as he himself carries off, for it comes a verbis ad verbera. The lxx: his bold mouth calleth for death (פיו ההמה מות יקרא); למהלמות has, in codd. and old editions, the Mem raphatum, as also at 19:29; the sing. is thus מהלוּם, like מנוּל to מנעליו, for the Mem dagessatum is to be expected in the inflected מהלם, by the passing over of the ō into ǔ.

Verse 7

Pro 18:7 7 The mouth of the fool is to him destruction, And his lips are a snare to his soul.
As Pro 18:6 corresponds to Pro 17:27 of the foregoing group, so this Pro 18:7 corresponds to Pro 17:28. Regarding מחתּה־לּו, vid., Pro 13:3. Instead of פי כּסיל, is to be written פּי־כסיל, according to Torath Emeth, p. 40, Cod. 1294, and old editions.

Verse 8

A pair of proverbs regarding the flatterer and the slothful: 8 The words of the flatter are as dainty morsels, And they glide down into the innermost parts.
An “analogy, with an epexegesis in the second member” (Fl.), which is repeated in Pro 26:22. Ewald, Bertheau, Hitzig, and others, are constrained to interpret המו as introducing a contrast, and in this sense they give to מתלהמים all kinds of unwarrantable meanings. Ewald translates: a burning (להם, cogn. להב), and offers next: as whispering (להם, cogn. רעם, נהם); Ch. B. Michaelis, Bertheau, and others: as sporting (להם, cogn. להה); Hitzig: like soft airs (להם, cogn. Arab. hillam, flaccus, laxus). All these interpretations are without support. The word להם has none of all these significations; it means, as the Arab. lahima warrants, deglutire. But Böttcher's explanation also: “as swallowed down, because spoken with reserve,” proceeds, like those others, from the supposed syntactically fine yet false supposition, that 8b is an antithetic “dennoch” [tamen]. In that case the poet would have written והם ירדים (cf. והוא, as the beginning of a conditional clause, Pro 3:29; Pro 23:3). But והוא, והם, with the finite following, introduces neither here nor at Deu 33:3; Jdg 20:34; Psa 95:10, cf. Gen 43:23, a conditional clause. Thus 8b continues the clause 8a by one standing on the same line; and thus we do not need to invent a meaning for כמתלהמים, which forms a contrast to the penetrating into the innermost parts. The relation of the parts of the proverb is rightly given by Luther:
The words of the slanderer are stripes,
And they go through the heart of one.
He interprets להם as transposed from הלם (Rashi and others); but stripes cannot be called מתלהמים - they are called, 6b, מהלמות. This interpretation of the word has always more support than that of Symmachus: ὡς ἀκέραιοι; Jerome: quasi simplicia; Aquila, xxvi. 22: γοητικοί; which last, as also that of Capellus, Clericus, and Schultens: quasi numine quodam afflata, seems to support itself on the Arab. âhm iv. inspirare. But in reality âhm does not mean afflare; it means deglutire, and nothing else. The Jewish lexicographers offer nothing worth considering; Kimchi's חלקים, according to which the Venet. translates μαλθακιζόμενοι, is fanciful; for the Talm. הלם, striking = hitting, suitable, standing well, furnishes no transition to “smooth” and “soft.” Immanuel compares âhm = בלע; and Schultens, who is followed by Gesenius and others, has already, with perfect correctness, explained: tanquam quae avidissime inglutiantur. Thus also Fleischer: things which offer themselves to be eagerly gulped down, or which let themselves be thus swallowed. But in this way can one be truly just to the Hithpa.? The Arab. âlthm (stronger form, âltkm, according to which van Dyk translates mthl uḳam ḥlwt, like sweet morsels) means to swallow into oneself, which is not here appropriate. The Hithpa. will thus have here a passive signification: things which are greedily swallowed. Regarding נרגּן from רגן, vid., at Pro 16:28. המו refers to the words of the flatterer, and is emphatic, equivalent to aeque illa, etiam illa, or illa ipsa. ירד is here connected with the obj. accus. (cf. Pro 1:12) instead of with אל, Pro 7:27. חדרי, penetralia, we had already at Pro 7:27; the root-word is (Arab.) khdr, to seclude, to conceal, different from ḥdr, demittere, and ḥkhr (cogn. חזר), to finish, circumire. בּטן is the inner part of the body with reference to the organs lying there, which mediate not only the life of the body, but also that of the mind - in general, the internal part of the personality. The lxx does not translate this proverb, but has in its stead Pro 19:15, in a different version, however, from that it gives there; the Syr. and the Targ. have thereby been drawn away from the Hebr. text.

Verse 9

Pro 18:9 9 He also who showeth himself slothful in his business, Is a brother to him who proceedeth to destroy.
The Hithpa. התרפּה signifies here, as at Pro 24:10, to show oneself slack, lazy, negligent. מלאכה is properly a commission for another, as a king has a messenger, ambassador, commissioner to execute it; here, any business, whether an undertaking in commission from another, or a matter one engages in for himself. He who shows himself slack therein, produces in his way, viz., by negligence, destruction, as truly as the בּעל משׁחית, who does it directly by his conduct. Thus one is named, who is called, or who has his own delight in it, to destroy or overthrow. Jerome, incorrectly limiting: sua opera dissipantis. Hitzig well compares Mat 12:30. In the variation, Pro 28:24, the destroyer is called אישׁ משׁחית, the connection of the words being adject.; on the contrary, the connection of בעל משׁחית is genit. (cf. Pro 22:24; Pro 23:2, etc.), for משׁחית as frequently means that which destroys = destruction. Von Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 2, 403) understands 'אישׁ מ of the street robber, 'בעל מ of the captain of robbers; but the designation for the latter must be 'שׂר מ, though at 1Ki 11:24 he is called by the name שׂר גּדוּד. The form of the word in the proverb here is more original than at 38:24. There חבר [companion] is used, here אח [brother], a general Semitic name of him who, or of that which, is in any way related to another, cf. Job 30:29. Fleischer compares the Arab. proverb: âlshbht âkht alkhṭyât, scepticism is the sister of sin.

Verse 10

Two proverbs, of the fortress of faith, and of the fortress of presumption: 10 A strong tower is the name of Jahve; The righteous runneth into it, and is high.
The name of Jahve is the Revelation of God, and the God of Revelation Himself, the creative and historical Revelation, and who is always continually revealing Himself; His name is His nature representing itself, and therefore capable of being described and named, before all the Tetragramm, as the Anagramm of the overruling and inworking historical being of God, as the Chiffre of His free and all-powerful government in grace and truth, as the self-naming of God the Saviour. This name, which is afterwards interwoven in the name Jesus, is מגדּל־עז (Psa 61:4), a strong high tower bidding defiance to every hostile assault. Into this the righteous runneth, to hide himself behind its walls, and is thus lifted (perf. consec.) high above all danger (cf. ישׂגּב, Pro 29:25). רוּץ אל means, Job 15:26, to run against anything, רוץ, seq. acc., to invest, blockade anything, רוץ בּ, to hasten within; Hitzig's conjecture, ירוּם riseth up high, instead of ירוּץ, is a freak. רוץ בּ is speedily בוא בּ, the idea the same as Psa 27:5; Psa 31:21.

Verse 11

Pro 18:11 11 The possession of the righteous is his strong fort, And is like a high wall in his imagination.
Line first = Pro 10:15. משׂכּית from שׂכה, Chald. סכה(whence after Megilla 14a, יסכּה, she who looks), R. שׂך, cogn. זך, to pierce, to fix, means the image as a medal, and thus also intellectually: image (conception, and particularly the imagination) of the heart (Psa 73:7), here the fancy, conceit; Fleischer compares (Arab.) tṣwwr, to imagine something to oneself, French se figurer. Translators from the lxx to Luther incorrectly think on שׂכך (סכך), to entertain; only the Venet. is correct in the rendering: ἐν φαντασίᾳ αὐτοῦ; better than Kimchi, who, after Ezr 8:12, thinks on the chamber where the riches delighted in are treasured, and where he fancies himself in the midst of his treasures as if surrounded by an inaccessible wall.
We place together Pro 18:12-19, in which the figure of a secure fortress returns:

Verse 12

This proverb is connected with the preceding of the rich man who trusts in his mammon.
Before destruction the heat of man is haughty;
And humility goeth before honour.
Line first is a variation of Pro 16:18, and line second is similar to Pro 15:33.

Verse 13

Pro 18:13 13 If one giveth an answer before he heareth, It is to him as folly and shame.
The part. stands here differently from what it does at Pro 13:18, where it is subj., and at Pro 17:14, where it is pred. of a simple sentence; it is also here, along with what appertains to it in accordance with the Semitic idiom, subj. to 13b (one who answers ... is one to whom this...); but, in accordance with our idiom, it becomes a hypothetical antecedent. For “to answer” one also uses השׁיב without addition; but the original full expression is השׁיב דּבר, reddere verbum, referre dictum (cf. ענה דּבר, Jer 44:20, absol. in the cogn., Pro 15:28); דבר one may not understand of the word to which, but of the word with which, the reply is made. היא לו comprehends the meaning: it avails to him (ducitur ei), as well as it reaches to him (est ei). In Agricola's Fünfhundert Sprüchen this proverb is given thus: Wer antwortet ehe er höret, der zaiget an sein torhait und wirdt ze schanden [he who answers before he hears shows his folly, and it is to him a shame]. But that would require the word to be יבושׁ, pudefiet; (היא לו) כּלמּה means that it becomes to him a ground of merited disgrace. “כּלמּה, properly wounding, i.e., shame (like atteinte à son honneur), from כּלם (cogn. הלם), to strike, hit, wound” (Fl.). Sirach Sirach(11:8) warns against such rash talking, as well as against the rudeness of interrupting others.

Verse 14

Pro 18:14 14 The spirit of a man beareth his sickness; But a broken spirit, who can bear it?
The breath of the Creator imparting life to man is spoken of as spiritus spirans, רוּח (רוּח חיּים), and as spiritus spiratus, נפשׁ (נפשׁ חיּה); the spirit (animus) is the primary, and the soul (anima) the secondary principle of life; the double gender of רוח is accounted for thus: when it is thought of as the primary, and thus in a certain degree (vid., Psychol. p. 103ff.) the manly principle, it is mas. (Gen 6:3; Psa 51:12, etc.). Here the change of gender is in the highest degree characteristic, and אישׁ also is intentionally used (cf. 1Sa 26:15) instead of אדם, 16a: the courageous spirit of a man which sustains or endures (כּלכּל R. כל, comprehendere, prehendere; Luther, “who knows how to contain himself in his sufferings;” cf. Psa 51:12, “may the free Spirit hold me”) the sickness [Siechthum] (we understand here “siech” in the old meaning = sick) with self-control, is generis masculini; while, on the contrary, the רוּח נכאה (as Pro 15:13; Pro 17:22), brought down from its manliness and superiority to disheartened passivity, is genere feminino (cf. Psa 51:12 with Pro 18:19). Fleischer compares the Arab. proverb, thbât âlnfs bâlghdhâ thbât alrwh balghnâ, the soul has firmness by nourishment, the spirit by music.^[1]
The question מי ישּׂאנּה is like Mar 9:50 : if the salt becomes tasteless, wherewith shall one season it? There is no seasoning for the spice that has become insipid. And for the spirit which is destined to bear the life and fortune of the person, if it is cast down by sufferings, there is no one to lift it up and sustain it. But is not God the Most High the lifter up and the bearer of the human spirit that has been crushed and broken? The answer is, that the manly spirit, 14a, is represented as strong in God; the discouraged, 14b, as not drawing from God the strength and support he ought to do. But passages such as Isa 66:2 do not bring it near that we think of the רוח נכאה as alienated from God. The spirit is נשׂא, the bearer of the personal and natural life with its functions, activities, and experiences. If the spirit is borne down to powerless and helpless passivity, then within the sphere of the human personality there is no other sustaining power that can supply its place.

Verse 15

Pro 18:15 15 The heart of a man of understanding gaineth knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeketh after knowledge. נבון may be also interpreted as an adj., but we translate it here as at Pro 14:33, because thus it corresponds with the parallelism; cf. לב צדּיק, Pro 15:28, and לב חכם, Pro 16:23, where the adject. interpretation is excluded. The gaining of wisdom is, after Pro 17:16, referred to the heart: a heart vigorous in embracing and receiving it is above all necessary, and just such an one possesses the נבון, which knows how to value the worth and usefulness of such knowledge. The wise, who are already in possession of such knowledge, are yet at the same time constantly striving to increase this knowledge: their ear seeks knowledge, eagerly asking where it is to be found, and attentively listening when the opportunity is given of מצא, obtaining it.

Verse 16

Pro 18:16 16 The gift of a man maketh room for him, And bringeth him before the great.
That מתּן may signify intellectual endowments, Hitzig supposes, but without any proof for such an opinion. Intellectual ability as the means of advancement is otherwise designated, Pro 22:29. But Hitzig is right in this, that one mistakes the meaning of the proverb if he interprets מתן in the sense of שׂחד (vid., at Pro 17:8): mtn is an indifferent idea, and the proverb means that a man makes free space, a free path for himself, by a gift, i.e., by this, that he shows himself to be agreeable, pleasing where it avails, not niggardly but liberal. As a proverb expresses it:Mit dem Hut in der Hand Kommt man durchs ganze Land [with hat in hand one goes through the whole land], so it is said here that such liberality brings before the great, i.e., not: furnishes with introductions to them; but helps to a place of honour near the great, i.e., those in a lofty position (cf. לפני, Pro 22:29; עם, Psa 113:8). It is an important part of practical wisdom, that by right liberality, i.e., by liberal giving where duty demands it, and prudence commends it, one does not lose but gains, does not descend but rises; it helps a man over the difficulties of limited, narrow circumstances, gains for him affection, and helps him up from step to step. The ā of מתּן is, in a singular way (cf. מתּנה, מתּנת), treated as unchangeable.

Verse 17

Pro 18:17 17 He that is first in his controversy is right; But there cometh another and searcheth him thoroughly - an exhortation to be cautious in a lawsuit, and not to justify without more ado him who first brings forward his cause, and supports it by reasons, since, if the second party afterwards search into the reasons of the first, they show themselves untenable. הראשׁון בּריבו are to be taken together; the words are equivalent to אשׁר יבא בריבו בראשׁונה: qui prior cum causa sua venit, i.e., eam ad judicem defert (Fl.). הראשׁון may, however, also of itself alone be qui prior venit; and בריבו will be taken with צדיק: justus qui prior venit in causa sua (esse videtur). The accentuation rightly leaves the relation undecided. Instead of יבא (יבא) the Kerı̂ has וּבא, as it elsewhere, at one time, changes the fut. into the perf. with ו (e.g., Pro 20:4; Jer 6:21); and, at another time, the perf. with ו into the fut. (e.g., Psa 10:10; Isa 5:29). But here, where the perf. consec. is not so admissible, as Pro 6:11; Pro 20:4, the fut. ought to remain unchanged. רעהוּ is the other part, synon. with בעל דין חברו, Sanhedrin 7b, where the אזהרה לבית־דין (admonition for the court of justice) is derived from Deu 1:16, to hear the accused at the same time with the accuser, that nothing of the latter may be adopted beforehand. This proverb is just such an audiatur et altera pars. The status controversiae is only brought fairly into the light by the hearing of the altera pars: then comes the other and examines him (the first) to the very bottom. חקר, elsewhere with the accus. of the thing, e.g., ריב ,., thoroughly to search into a strife, Job 29:16, is here, as at Job 28:11, connected with the accus. of the person: to examine or lay bare any one thoroughly; here, so that the misrepresentations of the state of the matter might come out to view along with the reasons assigned by the accuser.

Verse 18

Pro 18:18 18 The lot allayeth contentions, And separateth between the mighty,i.e., erects a partition wall between them - those contending (הפריד בּין, as at 2Ki 2:11, cf. Arab. frḳ byn); עצוּמים are not opponents who maintain their cause with weighty arguments (עצּמות, Isa 41:21), qui argumentis pollent (vid., Rashi), for then must the truth appear in the pro et contra; but mighty opponents, who, if the lot did not afford a seasonable means of reconciliation, would make good their demands by blows and by the sword (Fl.). Here it is the lot which, as the judgment of God, brings about peace, instead of the ultima ratio of physical force. The proverb refers to the lot what the Epistle to the Heb; Heb 6:16, refers to the oath, vid., at Pro 16:33. Regarding מדינים and its altered forms, vid., p. 145.

Verse 19

Pro 18:19 19 A brother toward whom it has been acted perfidiously resists more than a strong tower; And contentions are like the bar of a palace.
Luther rightly regarded the word נושׁע, according to which the lxx, Vulg., and Syr. translated frater qui adjuvatur a fratre, as an incorrect reading; one would rather expect אח מושׁיע, “a brother who stands by,” as Luther earlier translated; and besides, נושׁע does not properly mean adjuvari, but salvari. His translation -Ein verletzt Bruder helt herter denn eine feste Stad,Und Zanck helt herter, denn rigel am Palast [a brother wounded resisteth more than a strong city, and strife resisteth more than bolts in the palace], is one of his most happy renderings. מקּרית־עז in itself only means ὑπὲρ πόλιν ὀχυράν (Venet.); the noun-adjective (cf. Isa 10:10) to be supplied is to be understood to עז: עז הוּא or קשׁה הוא (Kimchi). The Niph. נפשׁע occurs only here. If one reads נפשׁע, then it means one who is treated falsely = נפשׁע בּו, like the frequently occurring קמי, my rising up ones = קמים עלי, those that rise up against me; but Codd. (Also Baer's Cod. jaman.) and old editions have נפשׁע, which, as we have above translated, gives an impersonal attributive clause; the former: frater perfidiose tractatus (Fl.: mala fide offensus); the latter: perfide actum est, scil. בּו in eum = in quem perfide actum. אח is, after Pro 17:17, a friend in the highest sense of the word; פשׁע means to break off, to break free, with ב or על of him on whom the action terminates. That the פּשׁע is to be thought of as אח of the אח נפשׁע is obvious; the translation, “brothers who break with one another” (Gesen.), is incorrect: אח is not collective, and still less is נפשׁע a reciprocum. The relation of אח is the same as that of אלּוּף, Pro 16:28. The Targum (improving the Peshito) translates אחא דמת עוי מן אחוי, which does not mean: a brother who renounces (Hitzig), but who is treated wickedly on the part of, his brother. That is correct; on the contrary, Ewald's “a brother resists more than...” proceeds from a meaning of פשׁע which it has not; and Bertheau gives, with Schultens, an untenable^[2] reflexive meaning to the Niph. (which as denom. might mean “covered with crime,” Venet. πλημμεληθείς), and, moreover, one that is too weak, for he translates, “a brother is more obstinate then....” Hitzig corrects אחז פּשׁע, to shut up sin = to hold it fettered; but that is not correct Heb. It ought to be עצר, כּבשׁ, or רדות. In 19a the force of the substantival clause lies in the מן (more than, i.e., harder = more difficult to be gained), and in 19b in the כּ; cf. Mic 7:4, where they are interchanged. The parallelism is synonymous: strifes and lawsuits between those who had been friends form as insurmountable a hindrance to their reconciliation, are as difficult to be raised, as the great bars at the gate of a castle (Fl.). The point of comparison is not only the weight of the cross-beam (from ברח, crosswise, across, to go across the field), but also the shutting up of the access. Strife forms a partition wall between such as once stood near each other, and so much thicker the closer they once stood.
With Pro 18:19, the series of proverbs which began with that of the flatterer closes. The catchword אח, which occurred at its commencement, 9b, is repeated at its close, and serves also as a landmark of the group following Pro 18:20-24. The proverb of the breach of friendship and of contentions is followed by one of the reaction of the use of the tongue on the man himself.
With Pro 18:19, the series of proverbs which began with that of the flatterer closes. The catchword אח, which occurred at its commencement, 9b, is repeated at its close, and serves also as a landmark of the group following Pro 18:20-24. The proverb of the breach of friendship and of contentions is followed by one of the reaction of the use of the tongue on the man himself.

Verse 20

Pro 18:20 20 Of the fruit which a man's mouth bringeth is his heart satisfied; By the revenue of his lips is he filled.
He will taste in rich measure of the consequences not merely of the good (Pro 12:14, cf. Pro 13:2), but of whatever he has spoken. This is an oxymoron like Mat 15:11, that not that which goeth into the mouth, but that which cometh out of it, defileth a man. As at Joh 4:34 the conduct of a man, so here his words are called his βρῶμα. Not merely the conduct (Pro 1:31; Isa 3:10), but also the words are fruit-bringing; and not only do others taste of the fruit of the words as of the actions of a man, whether they be good or bad, but above all he himself does so, both in this life and in that which is to come.

Verse 21

Pro 18:21 21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue; And whoever loveth it shall eat its fruit.
The hand, יד, is so common a metaphor for power, that as here a hand is attributed to the tongue, so e.g., Isa 47:14 to the flame, and Psa 49:16 to Hades. Death and life is the great alternative which is placed, Deu 30:15, before man. According as he uses his tongue, he falls under the power of death or attains to life. All interpreters attribute, 21b, ואהביה to the tongue: qui eam (linguam) amant vescentur (יאכל, distrib. sing., as Pro 3:18, Pro 3:35, etc.) fructu ejus. But “to love the tongue” is a strange and obscure expression. He loves the tongue, says Hitzig, who loves to babble. Euchel: he who guards it carefully, or: he who takes care of it, i.e., who applies himself to right discourse. Combining both, Zöckler: who uses it much, as εὐλογῶν or κακολογῶν. The lxx translates, οἱ κρατοῦντες αὐτῆς, i.e., אחזיה; but אחז means prehendere and tenere, not cohibere, and the tongue kept in restraint brings forth indeed no bad fruit, but it brings no fruit at all. Why thus? Does the suffix of ואהביה, perhaps like Pro 8:17, Chethı̂b, refer to wisdom, which, it is true, is not named, but which lies everywhere before the poet's mind? At Pro 14:3 we ventured to make חכמה the subject of 3b. Then 21b would be as a miniature of Pro 8:17-21. Or is ואהביה a mutilation of ואהב יהוה: and he who loves Jahve (Psa 97:10) enjoys its (the tongue's) fruit?

Verse 22

Pro 18:22 22 Whatso hath found a wife hath found a good thing, And hath obtained favour from Jahve.
As ואהביה, 21b, reminds us of Pro 8:17, so here not only 22b, but also 22a harmonizes with Pro 8:35 (cf. Pro 12:2). A wife is such as she ought to be, as Pro 18:14, אישׁ, a man is such as he ought to be; the lxx, Syr., Targ., and Vulgate supply bonam, but “gnomic brevity and force disdains such enervating adjectives, and cautious limitations of the idea” (Fl.). Besides, אשׁה טובה in old Hebr. would mean a well-favoured rather than a good-dispositioned wife, which later idea is otherwise expressed, Pro 19:14; Pro 31:10. The Venet. rightly has γυναῖκα, and Luther ein Ehefraw, for it is a married woman that is meant. The first מצא is perf. hypotheticum, Gesen. §126, Anm. 1. On the other hand, Ecc 7:26, “I found, מוצא אני, more bitter than death the woman,” etc.; wherefore, when in Palestine one married a wife, the question was wont to be asked: או מוצא מצא, has he married happily (after מצא of the book of Proverbs) or unhappily (after מוצא of Ecclesiastes) (Jebamoth 63b)?^[3]
The lxx adds a distich to Pro 18:22, “He that putteth away a good wife putteth away happiness; and he that keepeth an adulteress, is foolish and ungodly.” He who constructed this proverb [added by the lxx] has been guided by מצא to מוציא (Ezr 10:3); elsewhere ἐκβάλλειν (γυναῖκα), Gal 4:30, Sir. 28:15, is the translation of גּרשׁ. The Syr. has adopted the half of that distich, and Jerome the whole of it. On the other hand, Pro 18:23, Pro 18:24, and Pro 19:1-2, are wanting in the lxx. The translation which is found in some Codd. is that of Theodotion (vid., Lagarde).

Verse 23

Pro 18:23 23 The poor uttereth suppliant entreaties; And the rich answereth rudenesses.
The oriental proverbial poetry furnishes many parallels to this. It delights in the description of the contrast between a suppliant poor man and the proud and avaricious rich man; vid., e.g., Samachschari's Goldene Halsbänder, No. 58. תּחנוּנים, according to its meaning, refers to the Hithpa. התחנּן, misericordiam alicujus pro se imploravit; cf. the old vulgar “barmen,” i.e., to seek to move others to Erbarmen [compassion] (רחמים). עזּות, dura, from עז (synon. קשׁה), hard, fast, of bodies, and figuratively of an unbending, hard, haughty disposition, and thence of words of such a nature (Fl.). Both nouns are accus. of the object, as Job 40:27, תחנונים with the parallel רכּות. The proverb expresses a fact of experience as a consolation to the poor to whom, if a rich man insults him, nothing unusual occurs, and as a warning to the rich that he may not permit himself to be divested of humanity by mammon. A hard wedge to a hard clod; but whoever, as the Scripture saith, grindeth the poor by hard stubborn-hearted conduct, and grindeth his bashful face (Isa 3:15), challenges unmerciful judgment against himself; for the merciful, only they shall obtain mercy, αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται (Mat 5:7).

Verse 24

Pro 18:24 24 A man of many friends cometh off a loser; But there is a friend more faithful than a brother.
Jerome translates the commencing word by vir, but the Syr., Targ. by אית, which is adopted by Hitzig, Böttcher, and others. But will a German poet use in one line “itzt” [same as jetzt = now], and in the next “jetzt”? and could the Hebrew poet prefer to ישׁ its rarer, and her especially not altogether unambiguous form אישׁ (cf. to the contrary, Ecc 7:15)? We write אישׁ, because the Masora comprehends this passage, with 2Sa 14:19; Mic 6:10, as the סבירין ישׁ 'ג, i.e., as the three, where one ought to expect ישׁ, and is thus exposed to the danger of falling into error in writing and reading; but erroneously אשׁ is found in all these three places in the Masora magna of the Venetian Bible of 1526; elsewhere the Masora has the defectiva scriptio with like meaning only in those two other passages. While אישׁ = ישׁ, or properly ישׁ, with equal possibility of אשׁ,^[4] and it makes no material difference in the meaning of 24a whether we explain: there are friends who serve to bring one to loss: or a man of many friends comes to loss, - the inf. with ל is used in substantival clauses as the expression of the most manifold relations, Gesen. §132, Anm. 1 (cf. at Hab 1:17), here in both cases it denotes the end, as e.g., Psa 92:8, to which it hastens with many friends, or with the man of many friends. It is true that אישׁ (like בּעל) is almost always connected only with genitives of things; but as one says אישׁ אלהים: a man belongs to God, so may one also say אישׁ רעים: a man belongs to many friends; the common language of the people may thus have named a man, to whom, because he has no definite and decided character, the rule that one knows a man by his friends is not applicable, a so-called every-man's-friend, or all-the-world's-friend. Theodotion translates ἀνὴρ ἑταιριῶν τοῦ ἑταιρεύσασθαι; and thus also the Syr., Targ., and Jerome render (and among the moderns, Hitzig) התרעע as reflexive in the sense of to cherish social intercourse; but this reflexive is התרעה, Pro 22:24. That התרועע is either Hithpa. of רוּע, to exult, Psa 60:10; 65:14, according to which the Venet. translates (contrary to Kimchi) ὥστε ἀλαλάζειν: such an one can exult, but which is not true, since, according to 24b, a true friend outweighs the many; or it is Hithpa. of רעע, to be wicked, sinful (Fl.: sibi perniciem paraturus est); or, which we prefer, warranted by Isa 24:19, of רעע, to become brittle (Böttcher and others) - which not only gives a good sense, but also a similar alliteration with רעים, as Pro 3:29; Pro 13:20. In contradistinction to רע, which is a general, and, according to the usage of the language (e.g., 17b), a familiar idea, the true friend is called, in the antithetical parallel member, אהב (Pro 27:6); and after Pro 17:17, דּבק מאח, one who remains true in misfortune. To have such an one is better than to have many of the so-called friends; and, as appears from the contrast, to him who is so fortunate as to have one such friend, there comes a blessing and safety. Immanuel has given the right explanation: “A man who sets himself to gain many friends comes finally to be a loser (סופו להשּׁבר), for he squanders his means, and is impoverished in favour of others.” And Schultens: At est amicus agglutinatus prae fratre. Rarum et carum esse genus insinuatur, ac proinde intimam illam amicitiam, quae conglutinet compingatque corda, non per multos spargendam, sed circumspecte et ferme cum uno tantum ineundam. Thus closes this group of proverbs with the praise of friendship deepened into spiritual brotherhood, as the preceding, Pro 18:19, with a warning against the destruction of such a relation by a breach of trust not to be made good again.

Chap. 19

Verse 1

The plur. רעים, Pro 18:24, is emphatic and equivalent to רעים רבּים. The group Pro 19:1-4 closes with a proverb which contains this catchword. The first proverb of the group comes by שׂפתיו into contact with Pro 18:20, the first proverb of the preceding group. 1 Better a poor man walking in his innocence, Than one with perverse lips, and so a fool.
The contrast, Pro 28:6, is much clearer. But to correct this proverb in conformity with that, as Hitzig does, is unwarrantable. The Syr., indeed, translates here as there; but the Chald. assimilates this translation to the Heb. text, which Theodotion, and after him the Syro-Hexapl., renders by ὑπὲρ στρεβλόχειλον ἄφρονα. But does 1a form a contrast to 1b? Fleischer remarks: “From the contrast it appears that he who is designated in 1b must be thought of as עשׁיר” [rich]; and Ewald, “Thus early the ideas of a rich man and of a fool, or a despiser of God, are connected together.” Saadia understands כסיל [a fool], after Job 31:24, of one who makes riches his כּסל [confidence]. Euchel accordingly translates: the false man, although he builds himself greatly up, viz., on his riches. But כסיל designates the intellectually slothful, in whom the flesh overweighs the mind. And the representation of the rich, which, for 1b certainly arises out of 1a, does not amalgamate with כסיל htiw , but with עקּשׁ שׂפתיו. Arama is on the right track, for he translates: the rich who distorts his mouth, for he gives to the poor suppliant a rude refusal. Better Zöckler: a proud man of perverse lips and haughty demeanour. If one with haughty, scornful lips is opposed to the poor, then it is manifestly one not poor who thinks to raise himself above the poor, and haughtily looks down on him. And if it is said that, in spite of this proud demeanour, he is a fool, then this presents the figure of one proud of his wealth, who, in spite of his emptiness and nequitia, imagines that he possesses a greatness of knowledge, culture, and worth corresponding to the greatness of his riches. How much better is a poor man than such an one who walketh (vid., on תּם, vol. i, p. 79) in his innocence and simplicity, with his pure mind wholly devoted to God and to that which is good! - his poverty keeps him in humility which is capable of no malicious conduct; and this pious blameless life is of more worth than the pride of wisdom of the distinguished fool. There is in contrast to עקּשׁוּת a simplicity, ἁπλότης, of high moral worth; but, on the other side, there is also a simplicity which is worthless. This is the connecting thought which introduces the next verse.

Verse 2

Pro 19:2 2 The not-knowing of the soul is also not good, And he who hasteneth with the legs after it goeth astray.
Fleischer renders נפשׁ as the subj. and לא־טוב as neut. pred.: in and of itself sensual desire is not good, but yet more so if it is without foresight and reflection. With this explanation the words must be otherwise accentuated. Hitzig, in conformity with the accentuation, before us: if desire is without reflection, it is also without success. But where נפשׁ denotes desire or sensuality, it is always shown by the connection, as e.g., Pro 23:2; here דּעת, referring to the soul as knowing (cf. Psa 139:14), excludes this meaning. But נפשׁ is certainly gen. subjecti; Luzzatto's “self-knowledge” is untenable, for this would require דעת נפשׁו; Meîri rightly glosses נפשׁ דעת by שׂכל. After this Zöckler puts Hitzig's translation right in the following manner: where there is no consideration of the soul, there is no prosperity. But that also is incorrect, for it would require אין־טוב; לא־טוב is always pred., not a substantival clause. Thus the proverb states that בלא־דעת נפשׁ is not good, and that is equivalent to היות בלא־דעת נפשׁ (for the subject to לא־טוב is frequently, as e.g., Pro 17:26; Pro 18:5, an infinitive); or also: בלא־דעת נפשׁ is a virtual noun in the sense of the not-knowing of the soul; for to say לא־דעת was syntactically inadmissible, but the expression is בלא־דעת, not בּלי דעת (בּבלי), because this is used in the sense unintentionally or unexpectedly. The גּם which begins the proverb is difficult. If we lay the principal accent in the translation given above on “not good,” then the placing of גם first is a hyperbaton similar to that in Pro 17:26; Pro 20:11; cf. אך, Pro 17:11; רק, Pro 13:10, as if the words were: if the soul is without knowledge, then also (eo ipso) it is destitute of anything good. But if we lay the principal accent on the “also,” then the meaning of the poet is, that ignorance of the soul is, like many other things, not good; or (which we prefer without on that account maintaining^[5] the original connection of Pro 19:1 and Pro 19:2), that as on the one side the pride of wisdom, so on the other ignorance is not good. In this case גם belongs more to the subject than to the predicate, but in reality to the whole sentence at the beginning of which it stands. To hasten with the legs (אץ, as Pro 28:20) means now in this connection to set the body in violent agitation, without direction and guidance proceeding from the knowledge possessed by the soul. He who thus hastens after it without being intellectually or morally clear as to the goal and the way, makes a false step, goes astray, fails (vid., Pro 8:36, where חטאי is the contrast to מצאי).

Verse 3

Pro 19:3 3 The foolishness of a man overturneth his way, And his heart is angry against Jahve.
Regarding סלף, vid., at Pro 11:3; also the Arab. signification “to go before” proceeds from the root conception pervertere, for first a letting precede, or preceding (e.g., of the paying before the delivery of that which is paid for: salaf, a pre-numbering, and then also: advanced money), consisting in the reversal of the natural order, is meant. The way is here the way of life, the walking: the folly of a man overturns, i.e., destroys, his life's-course; but although he is himself the fabricator of his own ruin, yet the ill-humour (זעף, aestuare, vid., at Psa 11:6) of his heart turns itself against God, and he blames (lxx essentially correct: αἰτιᾶται) God instead of himself, viz., his own madness, whereby he has turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, cast to the winds the instruction which lay in His providences, and frustrated the will of God desiring his good. A beautiful paraphrase of this parable is found at Sir. 15:11-20; cf. Lam 3:39.

Verse 4

Pro 19:4 4 Wealth bringeth many friends; But the reduced - his friend separateth himself.
The very same contrast, though otherwise expressed, we had at Pro 14:20. Regarding הון, vid., vol. i, p. 63. דל is the tottering, or he who has fallen into a tottering condition, who has no resources, possesses no means. The accentuation gives Mugrash to the word (according to which the Targ. translates), for it is not the subject of יפּרד: the reduced is separated (pass. Niph.) by his misfortunes, or must separate himself (reflex. Niph.) from his friend (מרעהוּ, as Ecc 4:4, prae socio suo); but subject of the virtual pred. מרעהוּ יפּרד: the reduced - his friend (מרעהו, as Pro 19:7) separates himself, i.e., (according to the nature of the Semitic substantival clause) he is such (of such a fate) that his friend sets himself free, whereby ממּנּוּ may be omitted as self-obvious; נפרד means one who separates himself, Pro 18:1. If we make דל the subject of the separatur, then the initiative of the separation from the friend is not expressed.

Verse 5

In Pro 19:5 and Pro 19:9 we have the introductory proverb of two groups, the former of which, in its close as well as its beginning, cannot be mistaken. 5 A lying witness remaineth not unpunished; And he who breathes out lies escapeth not.
Regarding יפיח, vid., vol. i, p. 148: as here we read it of false witness at Pro 6:19; Pro 14:5, Pro 14:25. לא ינּקה occurs four times before, the last of which is at Pro 17:5. The lxx elsewhere translates יפיח כזבים by ἐκκαίειν ψευδῆ, to kindle lies; but here by ὁ δὲ ἐκαλῶν ἀδίκως, and at Pro 19:9 by ὃς δ ̓ ἂν ἐκκαύσῃ κακίαν, both times changing only because ψευδής goes before, and instead of ψευδῆ, the choice of a different rendering commended itself.

Verse 6

Pro 19:6 6 Many stroke the cheeks of the noble; And the mass of friends belongeth to him who gives.
The phrase 'חלּות פּני פל signifies to stroke the face of any one, from the fundamental meaning of the verb חלה, to rub, to stroke, Arab. khala, with which the Heb., meaning to be sick, weak (viribus attritum esse), and the Arabic: to be sweet (properly laevem et politum, glabrum esse, or palatum demulcere, leniter stringere, contrast asperum esse ad gustum), are connected (Fl.). The object of such insinuating, humble suing for favour is the נדיב (from נדב, instigare), the noble, he who is easily incited to noble actions, particularly to noble-mindedness in bestowing gifts and in doing good, or who feels himself naturally impelled thereto, and spontaneously practises those things; cf. the Arab. krym, nobilis and liberalis (Fl.), and at Job 21:28; parall. אישׁ מתּן, a man who gives willingly, as אישׁ חמה, Pro 15:18, one who is easily kindled into anger. Many (רבּים, as Job 11:19) stroke the face of the liberal (Lat. caput mulcent or demulcent); and to him who gives willingly and richly belongs כל־הרע, the mass (the totality) of good friends, cf. Pro 15:17; there the art. of הרע, according to the manner of expression of the Arab. grammarians, stood for “the exhaustion of the characteristic properties of the genus”: the friend who corresponds to the nature (the idea) of such an one; here it stands for “the comprehension of the individuals of the genus;” all that is only always friend. It lies near with Ewald and Hitzig to read וכלּה רע (and every one is friend...) (כלּה = כלּו, as Jer 8:10, etc.); but why could not כל־הרע be used as well as כל־האדם, perhaps with the sarcastic appearance which the above translation seeks to express? The lxx also had וכל הרע in view, which it incorrectly translates πᾶς δὲ ὁ κακός, whereby the Syr. and the Targ. are led into error; but מתּן is not one and the same with שׂחד, vid., Pro 18:6. On the contrary, there certainly lies before us in Pro 19:7 a mutilated text. The tristich is, as we have shown, vol. i, p. 15, open to suspicion; and the violence which its interpretation needs in order to comprehend it, as a formal part of 7ab, places it beyond a doubt, and the lxx confirms it that 7c is the remainder of a distich, the half of which is lost.

Verse 7

Pro 19:7 7ab. We thus first confine our attention to these two lines -
All the brethren of the poor hate him;
How much more do his friends withdraw themselves from him?
Regarding אף כּי, quanto magis, vid., at Pro 11:31; Pro 15:11; Pro 17:7. In a similar connection Pro 14:20 spake of hatred, i.e., the cooling of love, and the manifesting of this coldness. The brethren who thus show themselves here, unlike the friend who has become a brother, according to Pro 17:17, are brothers-german, including kindred by blood relation. כּל has Mercha, and is thus without the Makkeph, as at Psa 35:10 (vid., the Masora in Baer's Liber Psalmorum, 1861, p. 133). Kimchi (Michlol 205a), Norzi, and others think that cāl (with קמץ רחב) is to be read as at Isa 40:12, where כּלו is a verb. But that is incorrect. The case is the same as with את, Pro 3:12; Psa 47:5; Psa 60:2. As here ě with Mercha remains, so ǒ with Mercha in that twice occurring כּלו; that which is exceptional is this, that the accentuated כל is written thus twice, not as the usual כּל, but as כּל with the Makkeph. The ground of the exception lies, as with other peculiarities, in the special character of metrical accentuation; the Mercha represents the place of the Makkeph, and ā thus remains in the unchanged force of a Kametz-Chatuph. The plur. רחקוּ does not stamp מרעהוּ as the defectively written plur.; the suffix ēhu is always sing., and the sing. is thus, like הרע, 6b, meant collectively, or better: generally (in the sense of kind), which is the linguistic usage of these two words, 1Sa 30:26; Job 42:10. But it is worthy of notice that the Masoretic form here is not מרעהוּ, but mמרעהוּ, with Sheva. The Masora adds to it the remark לית, and accordingly the word is thus written with Sheva by Kimchi (Michlol 202a and Lex. under the word רעה), in Codd., and older editions. The Venet., translating by ἀπὸ τοῦ φίλου αὐτοῦ, has not noticed that. But how? Does the punctuation מרעהו mean that the word is here to be derived from מרע, maleficus? Thus understood, it does not harmonize with the line of thought. From this it is much more seen that the punctuation of the inflected מרע, amicus, fluctuates. This word מרע is a formation so difficult of comprehension, that one might almost, with Olshausen, §210; Böttcher, §794; and Lagarde, regard the מ as the partitive מן, like the French des amis (cf. Eurip. Med. 560: πένητα φεύγει πᾶς τις ἐκποδὼν φίλος), or: something of friend, a piece of friend, while Ewald and others regard it as possible that מרע is abbreviated from מרעה. The punctuation, since it treats the Tsere in מרעהו, 4b^[6] and elsewhere, as unchangeable, and here in מרעהו as changeable, affords proof that in it also the manner of the formation of the word was incomprehensible.
Seeking after words which are vain. 7c. If now this line belongs to this proverb, then מרדּף must be used of the poor, and לא־המּה, or לו־המּה (vid., regarding the 15 Kerîs, לּו for לא, at Psa 100:3), must be the attributively nearer designation of the אמרים. The meaning of the Kerı̂ would be: he (the poor man) hunts after mere words, which - but no actions corresponding to them - are for a portion to him. This is doubtful, for the principal matter, that which is not a portion to him, remains unexpressed, and the לו־המּה eht [to him they belong] affords only the service of guarding one against understanding by the אמרים the proper words of the poor. This service is not in the same way afforded by לא המּה they are not; but this expression characterizes the words as vain, so that it is to be interpreted according to such parallels as Hos 12:2 : words which are not, i.e., which have nothing in reality corresponding to them, verba nihili, i.e., the empty assurances and promises of his brethren and friends (Fl.). The old translators all^[7] read לא, and the Syr. and Targ. translate not badly: מלּוי לא שׁריר; Symmachus, ῥήσεσιν ἀνυπάρκτοις. The expression is not to be rejected: לא היה sometimes means to come to לא, i.e., to nothing, Job 6:21; Eze 21:32, cf. Isa 15:6; and לא הוּא, he is not = has no reality, Jer 5:12, אמרים לא־המה, may thus mean words which are nothing (vain). But how can it be said of the poor whom everything forsakes, that one dismisses him with words behind which there is nothing, and now also that he pursues such words? The former supposes always a sympathy, though it be a feigned one, which is excluded by שׂנאהוּ [they hate him] and רחקוּ [withdraw themselves]; and the latter, spoken of the poor, would be unnatural, for his purposed endeavour goes not out after empty talk, but after real assistance. So 7c: pursuing after words which (are) nothing, although in itself not falling under critical suspicion, yet only of necessity is connected with this proverb regarding the poor. The lxx, however, has not merely one, but even four lines, and thus two proverbs following 7b. The former of these distichs is: Ἔννοια ἀγαθὴ τοῖς εἰδόσιν αὐτὴν ἐγγιεῖ, ἀνὴρ δὲ φρόνιμος εὑρήσει αὐτήν; it is translated from the Hebr. (ἔννοια ἀγαθή, Pro 5:2 = מזמּות), but it has a meaning complete in itself, and thus has nothing to do with the fragment 7c. The second distich is: Ὁ πολλὰ κακοποιῶν τελεσιουργεῖ κακίαν, ὃ δὲ ἐρεθίζει λόγους οὐ σωθήσεται. This ὃς δὲ ἐρεθίζει λόγους is, without doubt, a translation of מרדף אמרים (7c); λόγους is probably a corruption of λόγοις (thus the Complut.), not, he who pursueth words, but he who incites by words, as Homer (Il. iv. 5f.) uses the expression ἐρεθιζέμεν ἐπέεσσι. The concluding words, οὐ σωθήσεται, are a repetition of the Heb. לא ימלט (cf. lxx 19:5 with 28:26), perhaps only a conjectural emendation of the unintelligible לא המה. Thus we have before us in that ὁ πολλὰ κακοποιῶν, κ.τ.λ., the line lost from the Heb. text; but it is difficult to restore it to the Heb. We have attempted it, vol. i, p. 15. Supposing that the lxx had before them לא המה, then the proverb is - “He that hath many friends is rewarded with evil,
Hunting after words which are nothing;”i.e., since this his courting the friendship of as many as possible is a hunting after words which have nothing after them and come to nothing.

Verse 8

Pro 19:8 8 He that getteth understanding loveth his soul, And he that values reasonableness will acquire good; or, more closely, since this would be the translation of ימצא טוב, Pro 16:20; Pro 17:20 : so it happens, or it comes to this, that he acquires good (= היה למצא); the inf. with ל is here, as at Pro 18:24, the expression of a fut. periphrasticum, as in the Lat. consecturus est. Regarding קנה־לּב, vid., Pro 15:32, and שׁמר תּבוּנה vol. i. p. 119. That the deportment of men is either care for the soul, or the contrary of that, is a thought which runs through the Book of Proverbs.

Verse 9

The group of proverbs (Pro 19:9-16) now following begins and closes in the same way as the preceding. 9 A lying witness doth not remain unpunished, And one who breathes out lies perisheth, or goeth to ruin, for אבד (R. בד, to divide, separate) signifies to lose oneself in the place of the separated, the dead (Arab. in the infinite). In Pro 19:5, instead of this ἀπολεῖται (lxx), the negative οὐ σωθήσεται is used, or as the lxx there more accurately renders it, οὐ διαφεύξεται.

Verse 10

Pro 19:10 10 Luxury becometh not a fool; How much less a servant to rule over princes.
Thus also with לא נאוה (3 p. Pil. non decet, cf. the adj. Pro 26:1) Pro 17:7 begins. אף כּי rises here, as at Pro 19:7, a minori ad majus: how much more is it unbecoming = how much less is it seemly. The contrast in the last case is, however, more rugged, and the expression harsher. “A fool cannot bear luxury: he becomes by it yet more foolish; one who was previously a humble slave, but who has attained by good fortune a place of prominence and power, from being something good, becomes at once something bad: an insolent sceleratus” (Fl.). Agur, xxx. 22f., describes such a homo novus as an unbearable calamity; and the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes, written in the time of the Persian domination, speaks, Ecc 10:7, of such. The lxx translates, καὶ ἐὰν οἰκέτης ἄρξηται μεθ ̓ ὕβρεως δυναστεύειν, rendering the phrase כּשׂרים by μεθ ̓ ὕβρεως, but all other translators had בּשׂרים before them.

Verse 11

Pro 19:11 11 The discretion of a man maketh him long-suffering, And it is a glory for him to be forbearing toward transgression.
The Syr., Targum, Aquila, and Theodotion translate האריך אפו by μακροθυμία, and thus read האריך; but Rashi, Kimchi, and others remark that האריך is here only another vocalization for האריך, which is impossible. The Venet. also translates: Νοῦς ἀνθρώπου μηκυνεῖ τὸν θυμὸν ἑαυτοῦ; the correct word would be αὐτοῦ: the discretion (intellectus or intelligentia; vid., regarding שׂכל, Pro 3:4) of a man extends his anger, i.e., brings it about that it continues long before it breaks out (vid., Pro 14:29). One does not stumble at the perf. in view of Pro 19:7, Pro 18:8; Pro 16:26, and the like; in the proverbial style the fut. or the particip. is more common. In the synonymous parallel member, תפארתּו points to man as such: it is an honour to him to pass by a transgression (particularly that which affects himself), to let it go aside, i.e., to forbear revenge or punishment (cf. Arab. tjâwz 'aly); thus also the divine πάρεσις (Rom 3:25) is designated by Mic 7:18; and in Amo 7:8; Amo 8:2, עבד stands absol. for the divine remission or passing by, i.e., unavenging of sin.

Verse 12

Pro 19:12 12 A murmuring as of a lion is the wrath of the king, And as dew on plants is his favour.
Line 1 is a variation of Pro 20:2; line 2a of Pro 16:15. זעף is not the being irritated against another, but generally ill-humour, fretfulness, bad humour; the murmuring or growling in which this state of mind expresses itself is compared to that of a lion which, growling, prepares and sets itself to fall upon its prey (vid., Isa 5:29, cf. Amo 3:4). Opposed to the זעף stands the beneficial effect of the רצון, i.e., of the pleasure, the delight, the satisfaction, the disposition which shows kindness (lxx τὸ ἱλαρὸν αὐτοῦ). In the former case all are afraid; in the latter, everything lives, as when the refreshing dew falls upon the herbs of the field. The proverb presents a fact, but that the king may mirror himself in it.

Verse 13

Pro 19:13 13 A foolish son is destruction for his father, And a continual dropping are the contentions of a wife.
Regarding הוּת, vid., at Pro 17:4, cf. Pro 10:3. Line 2a is expanded, Pro 27:15, into a distich. The dropping is טרד, properly striking (cf. Arab. tirad, from tarad III, hostile assault) when it pours itself forth, stroke (drop) after stroke = constantly, or with unbroken continuity. Lightning-flashes are called (Jer Berachoth, p. 114, Shitomir's ed.) טורדין, opp. מפסיקין, when they do not follow in intervals, but constantly flash; and b. Bechoroth 44a; דומעות, weeping eyes, דולפות, dropping eyes, and טורדות, eyes always flowing, are distinguished. An old interpreter (vid., R. Ascher in Pesachim II No. 21) explains דלף טרד by: “which drops, and drops, and always drops.” An Arab proverb which I once heard from Wetzstein, says that there are three things which make our house intolerable: âlṭaḳḳ (= âldhalf), the trickling through of rain; âlnaḳḳ, the contention of the wife; and âlbaḳḳ, bugs.

Verse 14

Pro 19:14 14 House and riches are a paternal inheritance, But from Jahve cometh a prudent wife.
House and riches (opulentia), which in themselves do not make men happy, one may receive according to the law of inheritance; but a prudent wife is God's gracious gift, Pro 18:22. There is not a more suitable word than משׂכּלת (fem. of משׂכּיל) to characterize a wife as a divine gift, making her husband happy. שׂכל (השׂכּל) is the property which says: “I am named modesty, which wears the crown of all virtues.”^[8]

Verse 15

Pro 19:15 15 Slothfulness sinketh into deep sleep, And an idle soul must hunger.
Regarding תּרדּמה and its root-word רדם, vid., at Pro 10:5. הפּיל, to befall, to make to get, is to be understood after Gen 3:21; the obj. על־האדם, viz., העצל, is naturally to be supplied. In 15b the fut. denotes that which will certainly happen, the inevitable. In both of its members the proverb is perfectly clear; Hitzig, however, corrects 15a, and brings out of it the meaning, “slothfulness gives tasteless herbs to eat.” The lxx has two translations of this proverb, here and at Pro 18:8. That it should translate רמיה by ἀνδρόγυνος was necessary, as Lagarde remarks, for the exposition of the “works of a Hebrew Sotades.” But the Hebrew literature never sunk to such works, wallowing in the mire of sensuality, and ἀνδρόγυνος is not at all thus enigmatical; the Greek word was also used of an effeminate man, a man devoid of manliness, a weakling, and was, as the lxx shows, more current in the Alexandrine Greek than elsewhere.

Verse 16

Pro 19:16 16 He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his soul; He that taketh no heed to his ways dies.
As at Pro 6:23, cf. Ecc 8:5, מצוה is here the commandment of God, and thus obligatory, which directs man in every case to do that which is right, and warns him against that which is wrong. And בּוזה דּרכיו (according to the Masora with Tsere, as in Codd. and old editions, not בוזה) is the antithesis of נצר דּרכּו, Pro 16:17. To despise one's own way is equivalent to, to regard it as worth no consideration, as no question of conscience whether one should enter upon this way or that. Hitzig's reading, פּוזר, “he that scattereth his ways,” lets himself be drawn by the manifold objects of sensuality sometimes in one direction and sometimes in another, is supported by Jer 3:13, according to which it must be מפזּר; the conj. is not in the style of the Book of Proverbs, and besides is superfluous. The lxx, which is fond of a quid pro quo - it makes, 13b, a courtesan offering a sacrifice she had vowed of the wages of sin of the quarrelsome woman - has here, as the Heb. text: ὁ καταφρονῶν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ὁδῶν. Thus after the Kerı̂ ימת, as also the Targ., Syro-Hexap., and Luther; on the contrary, the Syr., Jerome, the Venet. adopt the Chethı̂b יוּמת: he will become dead, i.e., dies no natural death. The Kerı̂ is more in the spirit and style of the Book of Proverbs (Pro 15:10; Pro 23:13; Pro 10:21).
These verses we take together. But we have no other reason for making a pause at Pro 19:21, than that Pro 19:22 is analogous to Pro 19:17, and thus presents itself to us as an initial verse.

Verse 17

Pro 19:17 17 He lendeth to Jahve who is compassionate to the lowly, And his bounty He requites to him.
As at Pro 14:31, חונן is part. Kal. The Masoretically exact form of the word is חונן (as ואוזל, Pro 20:14) with Mercha on the first syllable, on which the tone is thrown back, and the העמדה on the second. The Roman legal phrase, mutui datione contrahitur obligatio, serves to explain the fundamental conception of לוה, mutuo accipere, and הלוה, mutuum dare (vid., Pro 22:7). The construction, Exo 22:24, “to make any one bound as a debtor, obligare,” lies at the foundation of the genitive connection 'מלוה ה (not מלוה). With 17b cf. Pro 12:14, where the subject of ישׁיב (Kerı̂) remains in the background. גמלו (not גמלּו) is here his work done in the sense of good exhibited. “Love,” Hedinger once said, “is an imperishable capital, which always bears interest.” And the Archbishop Walther: nam Deo dat qui dat inopibus, ipse Deus est in pauperibus. Dr. Jonas, as Dächsel relates, once gave to a poor man, and said, “Who knows when God restores it!” There Luther interposed: “As if God had not long ago given it beforehand!” This answer of Luther meets the abuse of this beautiful proverb by the covetous.

Verse 18

This proverb brings to view once more the pedagogic character of this Older Book of Proverbs:
Correct thy son, for yet there is hope;
But go not too far to kill him.
That כּי tahT is meant relatively, as at Pro 11:15, is seen from Job 11:18; Job 14:7; Jer 31:16.; כּי־ישׁ תּקוה is the usual expression for etemin spes est. Though a son show obstinacy, and manifest a bad disposition, yet there is hope in the training of the youth of being able to break his self-will, and to wean him from his bad disposition; therefore his education should be carried forward with rigorous exactness, but in such a way that wisdom and love regulate the measure and limits of correction: ad eum interficiendum animam ne tollas (animum ne inducas). נפשׁך is not the subject, for in that case the word would have been תּשּׁאך (2Ki 14:10). It is the object: To raise the soul to something is equivalent to, to direct his desire to it, to take delight in it. The teacher should not seek correction as the object, but only as the means; he who has a desire after it, to put the child to death in the case of his guilt, changes correction into revenge, permits himself to be driven by passion from the proper end of correction, and to be pushed beyond its limits. The lxx translates freely εἰς δὲ ὕβρις, for ὕβρις is unrestrained abuse, מוסר אכזרי as Immanuel glosses. Besides, all the ancients and also the Venet. translate המיתו as the inf. of המית. But Oetinger (for he translates: lift not thy soul to his cry, for which Euchel: let not his complaining move thy compassion) follows the derivation from המה suggested by Kimchi, Meîri, and Immanuel, and preferred by Ralbag, so that המיתו after the from בּכית is equivalent to המיתו. But leaving out of view that המה means strepere, not lamentari, and that נשׂא נפשׁו means attention, not desire, Pro 23:13 points out to us a better interpretation.

Verse 19

Another proverb with נשׂא:
A man of excessive wrath must suffer punishment;
For if thou layest hold of it, hindering it, thou makest it only worse.
The lxx, Syr., and Targ. translate as if the words were גּבר חמה (as בּעל חמה, Pro 29:22). Theodotion, the Venet., and Luther render the Kerı̂ גּדל־; Jerome's impatiens is colourless. The Chethı̂b גרל gives no appropriate meaning. The Arab. jaril means lapidosus (whence גּורל, cf. Aram. פּסּא = ψῆφος), and Schultens translates accordingly aspere scruposus iracundiae, which is altogether after the manner of his own heavy style. Ewald translates גּרל as derived from the Arab jazyl, largus, grandis; but the possibility of the passing over of ר into ז, as maintained by Ewald and also by Hitzig, or the reverse, is physiologically undemonstrable, and is confirmed by no example worthy of mention. Rather it may be possible that the Heb. had an adj. גּרל or גּרל in the sense of stony, gravel-like, hard as gravel, but tow rather than gravel would be appropriate to חמה. Hitzig corrects גּמל חמה, “who acts in anger;” but he says שׁלּם חמה, to recompense anger, Isa 59:18; גמל חמה is without support. This correction, however, is incomparably more feasible than Böttcher's, “moderate inheritance bears expiation;” חמה = חמאה must mean not only thick [curdled] milk, but also moderation, and Böttcher finds this “sound.” From all these instances one sees that גרל is an error in transcription; the Kerı̂ גּדל־חמה rightly improves it, a man is thus designated whose peculiarity it is to fall into a high degree of passionate anger (חמה גדולה, Dan 11:44): such an one has to bear ענשׁ, a fine, i.e., to compensate, for he has to pay compensation or smart-money for the injury suffered, as e.g., he who in strife with another pushes against a woman with child, so that injury befalls her, Exo 21:22. If we compare this passage with 2Sa 14:6, there appears for תּצּיל the meaning of taking away of the object (whether a person or a thing) against which the passionate hothead directs himself. Therewith the meaning of ועוד תּוסף accords. The meaning is not that, הצּיל, once is not enough, but much rather must be repeated, and yet is without effect; but that one only increases and heightens the חמה thereby. It is in vain to seek to spare such a violent person the punishment into which he obstinately runs; much more advisable is it to let him rage till he ceases; violent opposition only makes the evil the greater. With כּי אם, “denn wenn” [for then], cf. Pro 2:3, “ja wenn” [yea if], and with ועוד in the conclusion, Job 14:7 (a parallelism syntactically more appropriate than Psa 139:18).

Verse 20

Pro 19:20 20 Hearken to counsel, and receive instruction, That thou mayest become wise afterwards.
The rule of morals, Pro 12:15, receives here the paraenetic tone which is the keynote of the introduction chap. 1-9. Löwenstein translates: that thou mayest finally become wise. But בּאחריתך corresponds rather to our “hinfort” [posthac] than to “endlich” [finally]. He to whom the warning is directed must break with the self-willed, undisciplined ראשׁית beginning of his life, and for the future (τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ χρόνον, 1Pe 4:2) become wise. The relative contrast between the two periods of life is the same as at Job 8:7.

Verse 21

Pro 19:21 21 Many are the thoughts in a man's heart; But Jahve's counsel, that stands.
In תּקוּם lies, as at Isa 40:8, both: that the counsel of God (His plan of the world and of salvation) is accomplished and comes into actual fact, and that it continues. This counsel is the true reality elevated above the checkered manifoldness of human purposes, aims, and subjectivities, which penetrates and works itself out in history. The thoughts of a man thus gain unity, substance, endurance, only in so far as he subjects himself to this counsel, and makes his thoughts and actions conformable and subordinate to this counsel.

Verse 22

The series makes a new departure with a proverb regarding the poor (cf. Pro 19:17):
A man's delight is his beneficence;
And better is a poor man than a liar.
The right interpretation will be that which presses upon תּאות no strange meaning, and which places the two parts of the verse in an inner mutual relation ethically right. In any case it lies nearer to interpret תאות, in relation to man, actively than passively: that which makes man worthy of desire (Rashi), adorns and distinguishes him (Kimchi, Aben-Ezra); or, that which is desired by man, is above all things sought for (Luzzatto); and, in like manner, the Heb. meaning for חסדּו lies nearer than the Aram. (vid., Pro 14:34): the pleasure of a man is his disgrace (Ralbag). Thus Bertheau's translation: the desire of a man is his charitas, must mean: that which brings to a man true joy is to act amiably. But is that, thus generally expressed, true? And if this were the thought, how much more correctly and distinctly would it be expressed by שׂמחה לאדם עשׂות חסד (cf. Pro 21:15)! Hitzig so rightly reminded by חסדו of the Pharisee who thanks God that he is not as other men; the word ought to have been חסד to remove every trace of self-satisfaction. Hitzig therefore proposes from the lxx and the Vulgate the text-correction מתּבוּאת no, and translates, “from the revenue of a man is his kind gift;” and Ewald, who is satisfied with תּבוּאת, “the gain of a man is his pious love.” The latter is more judicious: חסד (love) distributed is in reality gain (according to Pro 19:17); but 22b corresponds rather with the former: “better is he who from want does not give תבואה, than he who could give and says he has nothing.” But was there then need for that καρπός of the lxx? If a poor man is better than a lord given to lying - for אישׁ with רשׁ is a man of means and position - i.e., a poor man who would give willingly, but has nothing, than that man who will not give, and therefore lies, saying that he has nothing; then 22a means that the will of a man (cf. תאות, Pro 11:23) is his doing good (vid., regarding חסד, ad Pro 3:3), i.e., is its soul and very essence. Euchel, who accordingly translates: the philanthropy of a man consists properly in his goodwill, rightly compares the Rabbinical proverb, אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שׁיתבוון, i.e., one may give more or less, it all depends on the intention, the disposition.

Verse 23

Pro 19:23 23 The fear of Jahve tendeth to life; Satisfied, one spendeth the night, not visited by evil.
The first line is a variation of Pro 14:27. How the fear of God thus reacheth to life, i.e., helps to a life that is enduring, free from care and happy, 23b says: the promises are fulfilled to the God-fearing, Deu 11:15 and Lev 26:6; he does not go hungry to bed, and needs fear no awakening in terror out of his soft slumber (Pro 3:24). With ו explic., 23a is explained. לין שׂבע means to spend the night (the long night) hungry. as לין ערוּם, Job 24:7, to pass the night in nakedness (cold). נפקד, of visitation of punishment, we read also at Isa 29:6, and instead of בּרע, as it might be according to this passage, we have here the accus. of the manner placing the meaning of the Niph. beyond a doubt (cf. Pro 11:15, רע, in an evil manner). All is in harmony with the matter, and is good Heb.; on the contrary, Hitzig's ingenuity introduces, instead of שׂבעו, an unheard of word, ושׂרע, “and he stretches himself.” One of the Greeks excellently translates: καὶ ἐμπλησθεὶς αὐλισθήσεται ἄνευ ἐπισκοπῆς πονηρᾶς. The lxx, which instead of רע, γνῶσις, translates thus, דּע, discredits itself. The Midrash - Lagarde says of its translation - varies in colour like an opal. In other words, it handles the text like wax, and forms it according to its own taste, like the Midrash with its “read not so, but so.”

Verse 24

Pro 19:24 24 The slothful hath thrust his hand into the dish; He bringeth it not again to his mouth.
This proverb is repeated in a different form, Pro 26:15. The figure appears, thus understood, an hyperbole, on which account the lxx understand by צלחת the bosom or lap, κόλπον; Aquila and Symmachus understand by it the arm-pit, μασχάλην or μάλην; and the Jewish interpreters gloss it by חיק (Kimchi) or קרע החלוק, the slit (Ita. fenditura) of the shirt. But the domestic figure, 2Ki 21:13, places before us a dish which, when it is empty, is wiped and turned upside down;^[9] and that the slothful when he eats appears too slothful to bring his hand, e.g., with the rice or the piece of bread he has taken out of the dish, again to his mouth, is true to nature: we say of such a man that he almost sleeps when he eats. The fut. after the perf. here denotes that which is not done after the former thing, i.e., that which is scarcely and only with difficulty done; לּו ... גּם may have the meaning of “yet not,” as at Psa 129:2; but the sense of “not once” = ne ... quidem, lies here nearer Deu 23:3.

Verse 25

Pro 19:25 25 The scorner thou smitest, and the simple is prudent; And if one reprove the man of understanding, he gaineth knowledge
Hitzig translates in a way that is syntactically inexact: smite the scorner, so the simple becomes prudent; that would have required at least the word ויערם: fut. and fut. connected by ו is one of many modes of expression for the simultaneous, discussed by me at Hab 3:10. The meaning of the proverb has a complete commentary at Pro 21:11, where its two parts are otherwise expressed with perfect identity of thought. In regard to the לץ, with whom denunciation and threatening bear no fruit (Pro 13:1; Pro 15:12), and perhaps even produce the contrary effect to that intended (Pro 9:7), there remains nothing else than to vindicate the injured truths by means of the private justice of corporal punishment. Such words, if spoken to the right man, in the right spirit, at the right time, may affect him with wholesome terrors; but even though he is not made better thereby, yet the simple, who listens to the mockeries of such not without injury, will thereby become prudent (gain הערים = ערמה, prudence, as at Pro 15:5), i.e., either arrive at the knowledge that the mockery of religion is wicked, or guard himself against incurring the same repressive measures. In 25b והוכח is neither inf. (Umbreit), which after Pro 21:11 must be וּבהוכח, nor impr. (Targ., Ewald), which according to rule is הוכח, but the hypothetic perf. (Syr.) with the most general subject (Merc., Hitzig): if one impart instruction to the (dat. obj. as Pro 9:7; Pro 15:2) man of understanding (vid., Pro 16:21), then he acquires knowledge, i.e., gains an insight into the nature and value of that which one wishes to bring him to the knowledge of (הבין דּעת, as Pro 29:7; cf. Pro 8:5). That which the deterring lesson of exemplary punishment approximately effects with the wavering, is, in the case of the man of understanding, perfectly attained by an instructive word.
We have now reached the close of the third chief section of the older Book of Proverbs. All the three sections begin with בּן חכם, Pro 10:1; Pro 13:1; Pro 15:20. The Introduction, chap. 1-9, dedicates this collection of Solomonic proverbs to youth, and the three beginnings accordingly relate to the relative duties of a son to his father and mother. We are now no longer far from the end, for Pro 22:17 resumes the tone of the Introduction. The third principal part would be disproportionately large if it extended from Pro 15:1 to Pro 22:15. But there does not again occur a proverb beginning with the words “son of man.” We can therefore scarcely go wrong if we take Pro 19:26 as the commencement of a fourth principal part. The Masora divides the whole Mishle into eight sedarim, which exhibit so little knowledge of the true division, that the parashas (sections) Pro 10:1; Pro 22:17 do not at all find their right place.^[10]
The MSS, however, contain evidences that this Hagiograph was also anciently divided into parashas, which were designated partly by spaces between the lines (sethumoth) and partly by breaks in the lines (phethucoth). In Baer's Cod. Jamanensis,^[11] after Pro 6:19, there is the letter פ written on the margin as the mark of such a break. With Pro 6:20 (vid., l.c.) there indeed commences a new part of the introductory Mashal discourses. But, besides, we only seldom meet with^[12] coincidences with the division and grouping which have commended themselves to us. In the MS of the Graecus Venetus, Pro 19:11, Pro 19:16, and Pro 19:19 have their initial letters coloured red; but why only these verses, is not manifest. A comparison of the series of proverbs distinguished by such initials with the Cod. Jaman. and Cod. II of the Leipzig City Library, makes it more than probable that it gives a traditional division of the Mishle, which may perhaps yet be discovered by a comparison of MSS.^[13]
But this much is clear, that a historico-literary reconstruction of the Mishle, and of its several parts, can derive no help from this comparison.

Verse 26

With Pro 19:26 there thus begins the fourth principal part of the Solomonic collection of proverbs introduced by chap. 1-9.
He that doeth violence to his father and chaseth his mother,
Is a son that bringeth shame and disgrace.
The right name is given in the second line to him who acts as is described in the first. שׁדּד means properly to barricade [obstruere], and then in general to do violence to, here: to ruin one both as to life and property. The part., which has the force of an attributive clause, is continued in the finite: qui matrem fugat; this is the rule of the Heb. style, which is not filome'tochos, Gesen. §134, Anm. 2. Regarding מבישׁ, vid., at Pro 10:5; regarding the placing together of הבישׁ והחפּיר, vid., Pro 13:5, where for הבישׁ, to make shame, to be scandalous, the word הבאישׁ, which is radically different, meaning to bring into bad odour, is used. The putting to shame is in בּושׁ ni si (kindred with Arab. bâth) thought of as disturbatio (cf. σύγχυσις) (cf. at Ps. 6:11), in חפר (khfr) as opertio (cf. Cicero's Cluent. 20: infamia et dedecore opertus), not, as I formerly thought, with Fürst, as reddening, blushing (vid., Psa 34:6). Putting to shame would in this connection be too weak a meaning for מחפּיר. The paedagogic stamp which Pro 19:26 impresses on this fourth principal part is made yet further distinct in the verse that now follows.

Verse 27

Pro 19:27 27 Cease, my son, to hear instruction, To depart from the words of knowledge.
Oetinger correctly: cease from hearing instruction if thou wilt make no other use of it than to depart, etc., i.e., cease to learn wisdom and afterwards to misuse it. The proverb is, as Ewald says, as “bloody irony;” but it is a dissuasive from hypocrisy, a warning against the self-deception of which Jam 1:22-24 speaks, against heightening one's own condemnation, which is the case of that servant who knows his lord's will and does it not, Luk 12:47. חדל, in the meaning to leave off doing something further, is more frequently construed with ל seq. infin. than with מן (cf. e.g., Gen 11:8 with 1Ki 15:21); but if we mean the omission of a thing which has not yet been begun, then the construction is with ל, Num 9:13, Instead of לשׁגּות, there might have been also used מלּשׁגּות (omit rather ... than...), and למען שׁגות would be more distinct; but as the proverb is expressed, לשׁגות is not to be mistaken as the subord. infin. of purpose. The lxx, Syr., Targ., and Jerome do violence to the proverb. Luther, after the example of older interpreters: instruction, that which leads away from prudent learning; but musar always means either discipline weaning from evil, or education leading to good.

Verse 28

Pro 19:28 28 A worthless witness scoffeth at right; And the mouth of the godless swalloweth up mischief.
The Mosaic law does not know the oath of witnesses; but the adjuring of witnesses to speak the truth, Lev 4:1, places a false statement almost in the rank of perjury. The משׁפּט, which legally and morally binds witnesses, is just their duty to state the matter in accordance with truth, and without deceitful and malicious reservation; but a worthless witness (vid., regarding בּליּעל, Pro 6:12) despiseth what is right (יליץ with accus.obj. like Pro 14:9), i.e., scornfully disregards this duty. Under 28b Hitzig remarks that בלע only in Kal means to devour, but in Piel, on the contrary, to absorb = annihilate; therefore he reads with the lxx and Syr. דּין justice instead of און mischief: the mouth of the wicked murders that which is right, properly, swallows down his feeling of right. But בּלּע interchanges with בּלע in the sense of swallowing only, without the connected idea of annihilation; cf. כּבלּע for the continuance [duration] of a gulp = for a moment, Num 4:20 with Job 7:29; and one can thus understand 28b without any alteration of the text after Job 15:16; cf. Pro 20:12-15, as well as with the text altered after Isa 3:12, by no means so that one makes און the subject: mischief swallows up, i.e., destroys, the mouth of the wicked (Rashi); for when “mouth” and “to swallow” stand connected, the mouth is naturally that which swallows, not that which is swallowed (cf. Ecc 10:12 : the mouth of the fool swallows, i.e., destroys, him). Thus 28b means that wickedness, i.e., that which is morally perverse, is a delicious morsel for the mouth of the godless, which he eagerly devours; to practise evil is for him, as we say, “ein wahrer Genuss” [a true enjoyment].

Verse 29

Pro 19:29 29 Judgments are prepared for scorners, And stripes for the backs of fools. שׁפמים never means punishment which a court of justice inflicts, but is always used of the judgments of God, even although they are inflicted by human instrumentality (vid., 2Ch 24:24); the singular, which nowhere occurs, is the segolate n. act. שׁפט = שׁפוט, 2Ch 20:9, plur. שׁפוּטים. Hitzig's remark: “the judgment may, after Pro 19:25, consist in stripes,” is misleading; the stroke, הכּות, there is such as when, e.g., a stroke on the ear is applied to one who despises that which is holy, which, under the circumstances, may be salutary; but it does not fall under the category of shephuthim, nor properly under that of מהלמות. The former are providential chastisements with which history itself, or God in history, visits the despiser of religion; the latter are strokes which are laid on the backs of fools by one who is instructing them, in order, if possible, to bring them to thought and understanding. נכון, here inflected as Niph., is used, as Job 15:23, as meaning to be placed in readiness, and thus to be surely imminent. Regarding mahalǔmoth, vid., at Pro 18:6.

Chap. 20

Verse 1

This proverb warns against the debauchery with which free-thinking is intimately associated.
Wine is a mocker, mead boisterous;
And no one who is overtaken thereby is wise.
The article stands with יין. Ewald maintains that in 10:1-22:6 the article occurs only here and at Pro 21:31, and that it is here, as the lxx shows, not original. Both statements are incorrect. The article is found, e.g., at Pro 19:6; Pro 18:18, Pro 18:17, and here the personification of “wine” requires it; but that it is wanting to שׁכר shows how little poetry delights in it; it stands once for twice. The effects of wine and mead (שׁכר from שׁכר, to stop, obstruct, become stupid) are attributed to these liquors themselves as their property. Wine is a mocker, because he who is intoxicated with it readily scoffs at that which is holy; mead is boisterous (cf. הומיּה, Pro 7:11), because he who is inebriated in his dissolute madness breaks through the limits of morality and propriety. He is unwise who, through wine and the like, i.e., overpowered by it (cf. 2Sa 13:28), staggers, i.e., he gives himself up to wine to such a degree that he is no longer master of himself. At Pro 5:19 we read, שׁגה ב, of the intoxication of love; here, as at Isa 28:7, of the intoxication of wine, i.e., of the passionate slavish desire of wine or for wine. The word “Erpicht” [avidissimus], i.e., being indissolubly bound to a thing, corresponds at least in some degree to the idea. Fleischer compares the French: être fou de quelque chose. Isa 28:7, however, shows that one has to think on actual staggering, being overtaken in wine.

Verse 2

Pro 20:2 2 A roaring as of a lion is the terror of the king; And he that provoketh him forfeiteth his life.
Line first is a variation of Pro 19:12. The terror which a king spreads around (מלך, gen. subjecti., as, e.g., at Job 9:34 and generally) is like the growling of a lion which threatens danger. The thought here suggested is that it is dangerous to arouse a lion. Thus מתעבּרו does not mean: he who is angry at him (Venet.: χολούμενος αὐτῷ), but he who provokes him (lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, Luther). התעבּר signifies, as we saw at Pro 14:16, to be in a state of excessive displeasure, extreme anger. Here the meaning must be: he who puts him into a state of anger (lxx, ὁ παροξύνων αὐτόν, in other versions with the addition of καὶ ἐπιμιγνύμενος, who conducts himself familiarly towards him = מתערבו). But can mitharvo have this meaning? That the Hithpa. of transitive stems, e.g., התחגּן (1Ki 8:59) and השׁתּמּר (Mic 6:16), is construed with the accus. of that which any one performs for himself (cf. Ewald's Gramm. Arab. §180), is not unusual; but can the Hithpa. of the intrans. עבר, which signifies to fall into a passion, “express with the accusative the passion of another excited thereby” (Ewald, §282a)? There is no evidence for this; and Hitzig's conjecture, מתעבּרו (Tiphel of the Targ. תּעבור = עברה), is thus not without occasion. But one might suppose that התעבּר, as the reflexive of a Piel or Hiphil which meant to be put into a state of anger, may mean to draw forth the anger of any one, as in Arab., the VIIIth form (Hithpa.) of ḥaḍr, to be present, with the accus. as reflexive of the IVth form, may mean: sibi aliquid praesens sistere. Not so difficult is חטא with the accus. of that which is missing, vid., Pro 8:36 and Hab 2:10.

Verse 3

Pro 20:3 3 It is an honour to a man to remain far from strife; But every fool showeth his teeth.
Or better: whoever is a fool quisquis amens, for the emphasis does not lie on this, that every fool, i.e., every single one of this sort, contends to the uttermost; but that whoever is only always a fool finds pleasure in such strife. Regarding התגּלּע, vid., Pro 17:14; Pro 18:1. On the contrary, it is an honour to a man to be peaceable, or, as it is here expressed, to remain far from strife. The phrase may be translated: to desist from strife; but in this case the word would be pointed שׁבת, which Hitzig prefers; for שׁבת from שׁבת means, 2Sa 23:7, annihilation (the termination of existence); also Exo 21:19, שׁבתּו does not mean to be keeping holy day; but to be sitting, viz., at home, in a state of incapability for work. Rightly Fleischer: “ישׁב מן, like Arab. ḳ'ad ṣan, to remain sitting quiet, and thus to hold oneself removed from any kind of activity.” He who is prudent, and cares for his honour, not only breaks off strife when it threatens to become passionate, but does not at all enter into it, keeps himself far removed from it.

Verse 4

Pro 20:4 4 At the beginning of the harvest the sluggard plougheth not; And so when he cometh to the reaping-time there is nothing.
Many translators (Symmachus, Jerome, Luther) and interpreters (e.g., Rashi, Zöckler) explain: propter frigus; but חרף is, according to its verbal import, not a synon. of קר and צנּה, but means gathering = the time of gathering (synon. אסיף), from חרף, carpere,^[14] as harvest, the time of the καρπίζειν, the plucking off of the fruit; but the harvest is the beginning of the old Eastern agricultural year, for in Palestine and Syria the time of ploughing and sowing with the harvest or early rains (חריף = יורה, Neh 7:24; Ezr 2:18) followed the fruit harvest from October to December. The מן is thus not that of cause but of time. Thus rendered, it may mean the beginning of an event and onwards (e.g., 1Sa 30:25), as well as its termination and onwards (Lev 27:17): here of the harvest and its ingathering and onwards. In 4b, the Chethı̂b and Kerı̂ vary as at Pro 18:17. The fut. ישׁאל would denote what stands before the sluggard; the perf. שׁאלו places him in the midst of this, and besides has this in its favour, that, interpreted as perf. hypotheticum, it makes the absence of an object to שׁאל more tenable. The Chethı̂b, ושׁאל, is not to be read after Psa 109:10 : he will beg in harvest - in vain (Jerome, Luther), to which Hitzig well remarks: Why in vain? Amid the joy of harvest people dispense most liberally; and the right time for begging comes later. Hitzig conjecturally arrives at the translation: “A pannier the sluggard provideth not;
Seeketh to borrow in harvest, and nothing cometh of it.”
But leaving out of view the “pannier,” the meaning “to obtain something as a loan,” which שׁאל from the connection may bear, is here altogether imaginary. Let one imagine to himself an indolent owner of land, who does not trouble himself about the filling and sowing of his fields at the right time and with diligence, but leaves this to his people, who do only as much as is commanded them: such an one asks, when now the harvest-time has come, about the ingathering; but he receives the answer, that the land has lain unploughed, because he had not commanded it to be ploughed. When he asks, there is nothing, he asks in vain (ואין, as at Pro 14:6; Pro 13:4). Meîri rightly explains מחרף by מתחלת זמן החרישׁה, and 4b by: “so then, when he asks at harvest time, he will find nothing;” on the other hand, the lxx and Aram. think on חרף, carpere conviciis, as also in Codd. here and there is found the meaningless מחרף.

Verse 5

Pro 20:5 5 The purpose in the heart of a man is deep water; But a man of understanding draweth it out. “Still waters are deep.” Like such deep waters (Pro 18:4) is that which a man hath secretly (Isa 29:15) planned in his heart. He keeps it secret, conceals it carefully, craftily misleads those who seek to draw it out; but the man of תּבוּנה, i.e., one who possesses the right criteria for distinguishing between good and bad, true and false, and at the same time has the capacity to look through men and things, draws out (the Venet. well, ἀνέλξει) the secret עצה, for he penetrates to the bottom of the deep water. Such an one does not deceive himself with men, he knows how to estimate their conduct according to its last underlying motive and aim; and if the purpose is one that is pernicious to him, he meets it in the process of realization. What is here said is applicable not only to the subtle statesman and the general, but also the pragmatical historian and the expositor, as, e.g., of a poem such as the book of Job, the idea of which lies like a pearl at the bottom of deep water.

Verse 6

Pro 20:6 6 Almost every one meeteth a man who is gracious to him; But a man who standeth the test, who findeth such a one?
As ציר אמונים, Pro 13:17, signifies a messenger in whom there is confidence, and עד אמונים, Pro 14:5, a witness who is altogether truthful, so אישׁ אמוּנים is a man who remains true to himself, and maintains fidelity toward others. Such an one it is not easy to find; but patrons who make promises and awaken expectations, finally to leave in the lurch him who depends on them - of such there are many. This contrast would proceed from 6a also, if we took קרא in the sense of to call, to call or cry out with ostentation: multi homines sunt quorum suam quisque humanitatem proclamat (Schelling, Fleischer, Ewald, Zöckler, and also, e.g., Meîri). But אישׁ חסדּו is certainly to be interpreted after Pro 11:17, Isa 57:1. Recognising this, Hitzig translates: many a man one names his dear friend; but in point of style this would be as unsuitable as possible. Must יקרא then mean vocat? A more appropriate parallel word to מצא is קרא = קרה, according to which, with Oetinger, Heidenheim, Euchel, and Löwenstein, we explain: the greater part of men meet one who shows himself to them (to this or that man) as אישׁ חסד, a man well-affectioned and benevolent; but it is rare to find one who in his affection and its fruits proves himself to be true, and actually performs that which was hoped for from him. Luther translates, with the Syr. and Targ. after Jerome: Viel Menschen werden From gerhümbt [many men are reputed pious]; but if יקרא were equivalent to יקּרא, then אישׁ חסד ought to have been used instead of אישׁ חסדו. The lxx read רב אדם יקר אישׁ חסד, man is something great, and a compassionate man is something precious; but it costs trouble to find out a true man. The fundamental thought remains almost the same in all these interpretations and readings: love is plentiful; fidelity, rare; therefore חסד, of the right kind, after the image of God, is joined to אמת.

Verse 7

Pro 20:7 7 He who in his innocence walketh as one upright, Blessed are his children after him!
We may not take the first line as a separate clause with צדּיק, as subject (Van Dyk, Elster) or predicate (Targ.); for, thus rendered, it does not appropriately fall in as parallel to the second line, because containing nothing of promise, and the second line would then strike in at least not so unconnectedly (cf. on the contrary, Pro 10:9; Pro 14:25). We have before us a substantival clause, of which the first line is the complex subject. But Jerome, the Venet., and Luther erroneously: the just man walking in his innocence; this placing first of the adj. is in opposition to the Hebr. syntax. We must, if the whole is to be interpreted as nom., regard צדיק as permutative: one walking in his innocence, a righteous one. But, without doubt, tsedek is the accus. of the manner; in the manner of one righteous, or in apposition: as one righteous; cf. Job 31:26 with Mic 2:7. Thus Hitzig rightly also refers to these two passages, and Ewald also refers to Pro 22:11; Pro 24:15. To walk in his innocence as a righteous man, is equivalent to always to do that which is right, without laying claim to any distinction or making any boast on that account; for thereby one only follows the impulse and the direction of his heart, which shows itself and can show itself not otherwise than in unreserved devotion to God and to that which is good. The children after him are not the children after his death (Gen 24:67); but, according to Deu 4:40, cf. Job 21:21, those who follow his example, and thus those who come after him; for already in the lifetime of such an one, the benediction begins to have its fulfilment in his children.

Verse 8

The following group begins with a royal proverb, which expresses what a king does with his eyes. Two proverbs, of the seeing eye and the necessary opening of the eyes, close it. 8 A king sitting on the seat of justice, Scattereth asunder all evil with his eyes.
Excellently the Venet. ἐπὶ θρόνου δίκης, for כּסּא־דין is the name of the seat of rectitude (the tribunal), as the “throne of grace,” Heb. 4:17, is the name of the capporeth as the seat of mercy; the seat of the judge is merely called כסא; on the other hand, כסא־דין is the contrast of כּסּא הוּות fo, Psa 94:20 : the seat from which the decision that is in conformity with what is right (cf. e.g., Jer 5:28) goes forth, and where it is sought. As little here as at Pro 20:26 is there need for a characterizing adj. to melek; but the lxx hits the meaning for it, understands such to דין: ὅταν βασιλεὺς δίκαιος καθίσῃ ἐπὶ θρόνου. By the “eyes” are we then to understand those of the mind: he sifts, dignoscit, with the eyes of the mind all that is evil, i.e., distinguishes it subjectively from that which is not evil? Thus Hitzig by a comparison of Psa 11:4; Psa 139:3 (where Jerome has eventilasti, the Vulg. investigasti). Scarcely correctly, for it lies nearer to think on the eyes in the king's head (vid., Pro 16:15); in that case: to winnow (to sift) means to separate the good and the bad, but first mediately: to exclude the bad; finally, Pro 20:26 leads to the conclusion that מזרה is to be understood, not of a subjective, but of an actual scattering, or separating, or driving away. Thus the penetrating, fear-inspiring eyes of the king are meant, as Immanuel explains: בראיית עיניו מבריחם מפניו ומפזר אותם בכל פיאה. But in this explanation the personal rendering of כּל־רע is incorrect; for mezareh, meant of the driving asunder of persons, requires as its object a plur. (cf. 26a). Col-ra is understood as neut. like Pro 5:14. Before the look of a king to whom it belongs to execute righteousness and justice (Isa 16:5), nothing evil stands; criminal acts and devices seen through, and so also judged by these eyes, are broken up and scattered to all the winds, along with the danger that thereby threatened the community. It is the command: “put away the evil” (Deu 13:6 [5]), which the king carries into effect by the powerful influence of his look. With col-ra there is connected the thought that in the presence of the heavenly King no one is wholly free from sin.

Verse 9

Pro 20:9 9 Who can say I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sins?
It is the same thought that Solomon expresses in his prayer at the consecration of the temple, 1Ki 8:46 : there is no man who sinneth not. To cleanse his heart (as Psa 73:13), is equivalent to to empty it, by self-examination and earnest effort after holiness, of all impure motives and inclinations; vid., regarding זכה, to be piercing, shining brightly, cloudlessly pure, Fleischer in Levy's Chald. Wörterbuch, i. 424. The consequence of זכּות is, becoming pure; and the consequence of זכּות לב, i.e., of the purifying of the heart, the being pure from sinful conduct: I have become pure from my sins, i.e., from such as I might fall into by not resisting temptations; the suffix is not understood as actual, but as potential, like Psa 18:24. No one can boast of this, for man's knowledge of himself and of his sins remains always limited (Jer 17:9.; Psa 19:13); and sin is so deeply rooted in his nature (Job 14:4; Job 15:14-16), that the remains of a sinful tendency always still conceal themselves in the folds of his heart, sinful thoughts still cross his soul, sinful inclinations still sometimes by their natural force overcome the moral resistance that opposes them, and stains of all kinds still defile even his best actions.

Verse 10

This proverb passes sentence of condemnation against gross sins in action and life.
Diverse stones, diverse measures -
An abomination to Jahve are they both.
The stones are, as at Pro 11:1; Pro 16:11, those used as weights. Stone and stone, ephah and ephah, means that they are of diverse kinds, one large and one small (the lxx, in which the sequence of the proverbs from Pro 20:10 is different, has μέγα καὶ μικρόν), so that one may be able deceitfully to substitute the one for the other. איפה (from אפה, to bake) may originally have been used to designate such a quantity of meal as supplied a family of moderate wants; it corresponds to the bath (Eze 45:11) as a measure for fluids, and stands here synecdochically instead of all the measures, including, e.g., the cor, of which the ephah was a tenth part, and the seah, which was a third part of it. 10b = Pro 17:5, an echo of Lev 19:36; Deu 25:13-16. Just and equal measure is the demand of a holy God; the contrary is to Him an abhorrence.

Verse 11

Pro 20:11 11 Even a child maketh himself known by his conduct, Whether his dispostion be pure and whether it be right.
If מעלל may be here understood after the use of עולל, to play, to pass the time with anything, then גּם neht refers thereto: even by his play (Ewald). But granting that מעולל [children], synon. with נער, had occasioned the choice of the word מעלל (vid., Fleischer on Isa 3:4), yet this word never means anything else than work, an undertaking of something, and accomplishing it; wherefore Böttcher proposes מעוּליו, for מעלוּל may have meant play, in contradistinction to מעלל ot noitcni. This is possible, but conjectural. Thus gam is not taken along with b'amalalav. That the child also makes himself known by his actions, is an awkward thought; for if in anything else, in these he must show what one has to expect from him. Thus gam is after the syntactical method spoken of at Pro 17:26; Pro 19:2, to be referred to נער (also the child, even the child), although in this order it is referred to the whole clause. The verb נכר is, from its fundamental thought, to perceive, observe from an ἐναντιόσημον: to know, and to know as strange, to disown (vid., under Isa 3:9); the Hithpa. elsewhere signifies, like (Arab.) tankkar, to make oneself unknowable, but here to make oneself knowable; Symmachus, ἐπιγνωρισθήσεται, Venet. γνωσθήσεται. Or does the proverb mean: even the child dissembles in his actions (Oetinger)? Certainly not, for that would be a statement which, thus generally made, is not justified by experience. We must then interpret 11b as a direct question, though it has the form of an indirect one: he gives himself to be known, viz., whether his disposition be pure and right. That one may recognise his actions in the conduct of any one, is a platitude; also that one may recognise his conduct in these, is not much better. פּעל is therefore referred by Hitzig to God as the Creator, and he interprets it in the sense of the Arab. khulk, being created = natura. We also in this way explain יצרנוּ, Psa 103:14, as referable to God the יצר; and that poal occurs, e.g., Isa 1:31, not merely in the sense of action, but also in that of performance or structure, is favourable to this interpretation. But one would think that poal, if thus used in the sense of the nature of man, would have more frequently occurred. It everywhere else means action or work. And thus it is perhaps also here used to denote action, but regarded as habitual conduct, and according to the root-meaning, moral disposition. The N.T. word ἕργον approaches this idea in such passages as Gal 6:4. It is less probable that 11b is understood with reference to the future (Luther and others); for in that case one does not see why the poet did not make use of the more intelligible phrase אם זך וישׁר יהיה פעלו. It is like our (Germ.) proverb: Was ein Haken werden will krümmt sick bald what means to become a hook bends itself early; or: Was ein Dörnchen werden will spitzt sich bei Zeiten^[15] [what means to become a thorn sharpens itself early], and to the Aram. בוצין בוצין מקטפיה ידיע = that which will become a gourd shows itself in the bud, Berachoth 48a.

Verse 12

Pro 20:12 12 The hearing ear and the seeing eye - Jahve hath created them both.
Löwenstein, like the lxx: the ear hears and the eye sees - it is enough to refer to the contrary to Pro 20:10 and Pro 17:15. In itself the proverb affirms a fact, and that is its sensus simplex; but besides, this fact may be seen from many points of view, and it has many consequences, none of which is to be rejected as contrary to the meaning: (1.) It lies nearest to draw the conclusion, viâ eminentiae, which is drawn in Psa 94:9. God is thus the All-hearing and the All-seeing, from which, on the one side, the consolation arises that everything that is seen stands under His protection and government, Pro 15:3; and on the other side, the warning, Aboth ii. 1: “Know what is above thee; a Seeing eye and a Hearing ear, and all thy conduct is marked in His book.” (2.) With this also is connected the sense arising out of the combination in Psa 40:7 : man ought then to use the ear and the eye in conformity with the design which they are intended to subserve, according to the purpose of the Creator (Hitzig compares Pro 16:4); it is not first applicable to man with reference to the natural, but to the moral life: he shall not make himself deaf and blind to that which it is his duty to hear and to see; but he ought also not to hear and to see with pleasure that from which he should turn away (Isa 33:15) - in all his hearing and seeing he is responsible to the Creator of the ear and the eye. (3.) One may thus interpret “hearing” and “seeing” as commendable properties, as Fleischer suggests from comparison of Pro 16:11 : an ear that truly hears (the word of God and the lessons of Wisdom) and an eye that truly sees (the works of God) are a gift of the Creator, and are (Arab.) lillhi, are to be held as high and precious. Thus the proverb, like a polished gem, may be turned now in one direction and now in another; it is to be regarded as a many-sided fact.

Verse 13

Pro 20:13 13 Love not sleep, lest thou become poor; Open thine eyes, and have enough to eat.
What is comprehended in the first line here is presented in detail in Pro 6:9-11. The fut. Niph. of רוּשׁ, to become poor (cf. Pro 10:4), is formed metaplastically from ירשׁ, Pro 23:21; Pro 30:9, as at 1Sa 2:7; Hitzig compares (Arab.) ryth, which, however, means to loiter or delay, not to come back or down. The R. רש signifies either to be slack without support (cf. דּל), or to desire (cf. אבון, Arab. fkyr, properly hiscens, R. פק, as in פקח, to open widely, which here follows). Regarding the second imper. 13b, vid., Pro 3:4 : it has the force of a consequence, Las deine augen wacker sein, So wirstu brots gnug haben (Luth.) [Let thine eyes be open, so shalt thou have bread enough]. With these two proverbs of the eyes, the group beginning with Pro 20:8 rounds itself off.

Verse 14

The following group has its natural limit at the new point of departure at Pro 20:20, and is internally connected in a diversity of ways. 14 “Bad, bad!” saith the buyer; And going his way, he boasteth then.
Luther otherwise: “Bad, bad!” saith one if he hath it;
But when it is gone, then he boasteth of it.
This rendering has many supporters. Geier cites the words of the Latin poet:
“Omne bonum praesens minus est, sperata videntur Magna.”
Schultens quotes the proverbs τὸ παρὸν βαρύ and Praesentia laudato, for with Luther he refers ואזל לו to the present possession (אזל, as 1Sa 9:7 = (Arab.) zâl, to cease, to be lost), and translates: at dilapsum sibi, tum demum pro splendido celebrat. But by this the Hithpa. does not receive its full meaning; and to extract from הקּונה the idea to which ואזל לו refers, if not unnecessary, is certainly worthless. Hakkoneh may also certainly mean the possessor, but the possessor by acquisition (lxx and the Venet. ὁ κτώμενος); for the most part it signifies the possessor by purchase, the buyer (Jerome, emptor), as correlate of מכר, Isa 24:2; Eze 4:12. It is customary for the buyer to undervalue that which he seeks to purchase, so as to obtain it as cheaply as possible; afterwards he boasts that he has bought that which is good, and yet so cheap. That is an every-day experience; but the proverb indirectly warns against conventional lying, and shows that one should not be startled and deceived thereby. The subject to ואזל לו is thus the buyer; אזל with לו denotes, more definitely even than הלך לו, going from thence, s'en aller. Syntactically, the punctuation ואזל לו [and he takes himself off] (perf. hypoth., Ewald, 357a) would have been near (Jerome: et cum recesserit); but yet it is not necessary, with Hitzig, thus to correct it. The poet means to say: making himself off, he then boasts. We cannot in German place the “alsdann” [then] as the אז here, and as also, e.g., at 1Sa 20:12; but Theodotion, in good Greek: καὶ πορευθεὶς τότε καυχήσεται. We may write ואזל לו with Mercha on the antepenult, on which the accent is thrown back, cf. חונן, Pro 19:17, but not לּו; for the rule for Dagesh does not here, with the retrogression of the tone, come into application, as, e.g., in אוכל לּחמי, Psa 41:10. Singularly the Syr. and Targ. do not read רע רע, but רע לרע, and couple Pro 20:15 with 14. In the lxx, Pro 20:14-19 are wanting.

Verse 15

Pro 20:15 15 There is indeed gold, and many pearls; But a precious treasure are lips full of knowledge.
In order to find a connection between this proverb and that which precedes, we need only be reminded of the parable of the merchantman who sought goodly pearls, Mat 13:45. The proverb rises to a climax: there is gold, and there are pearls in abundance, the one of which has always a higher value than the other; but intelligent lips are above all such jewels - they are a precious treasure, which gold and all pearls cannot equal. In a similar manner the N.T. places the one pearl above the many goodly pearls. So might דעת (chokma) be called the pearl above all pearls (Pro 3:15; Pro 8:11); but the lips as the organ of knowledge are fittingly compared with a precious vessel, a vessel of more precious substance than gold and pearls are.

Verse 16

Pro 20:16 16 Take from him the garment, for he hath become surety for another; And for strangers take him as a pledge.
The same proverb Pro 27:13, where קח, with the usual aphaeresis, here interchanges with it the fuller form לקח, which is also found at Eze 37:16. To this imperative חבלהוּ is parallel: take him as a pledge (Theodotion, Jerome, the Venet. and Luther); it is not a substantive: his pledge (Targ.), which would require the word חבלתו (חבלו); nor is it to be read with the Syr. חבלהוּ, one pledges him; but it is imperative, not however of the Piel, which would be חבלהוּ, and would mean “destroy him;” but, as Aben Ezra rightly, the imperative of Kal of חבל, to take as a pledge, Exo 22:25, for חבלהוּ without any example indeed except חננני, Psa 9:14; cf. Psa 80:16. The first line is clear: take his garment, for he has become good for another (cf. Pro 11:15), who has left him in the lurch, so that he must now become wise by experience. The second line also is intelligible if we read, according to the Chethı̂b, נכרים (Jerome, the Venet.), not נכריּם, as Schultens incorrectly points it, and if we interpret this plur. like בנים, Gen 21:7, with Hitzig following Luther, as plur. of the category: take him as a pledge, hold fast by his person, so as not to suffer injury from strange people for whom he has become surety. But the Kerı̂ requires נכריּה (according to which Theodotion and the Syr., and, more distinctly still than these, the Targ. translates), and thus, indeed, it stands written, Pro 27:13, without the Kerı̂, thus Bathra 173b reads and writes also here. Either נכריּה is a strange woman, a prostitute, a maitresse for whom the unwise has made himself surety, or it is neut. for aliena res (lxx Pro 27:13, τὰ ἀλλότρια), a matter not properly belonging to this unwise person. We regard נכרים in this passage as original. בעד coincides with Pro 6:26 : it does not mean ἀντὶ, but ὑπέρ; “for strange people” is here equivalent to for the sake of, on account of strange people” is here equivalent to for the sake of, on account of strange people (χάριν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, as the Venet. translates it).

Verse 17

Pro 20:17 17 Sweet to a man is the bread of deceit; Yet at last his mouth is full of gravel. “Bread of deceit” is not deceit itself, as that after which the desire of a man goes forth, and that for which he has a relish (thus, e.g., Immanuel and Hitzig); but that which is not gained by labour, and is not merited. Possession (vid., Pro 4:17) or enjoyment (Pro 9:17) obtained by deceit is thus called, as לחם כּזבים, Pro 23:3, denotes bread; but for him who has a relish for it, it is connected with deceit. Such bread of lies is sweet to a man, because it has come to him without effort, but in the end not only will he have nothing to eat, but his tongue, teeth, and mouth will be injured by small stones; i.e., in the end he will have nothing, and there will remain to him only evil (Fleischer). Or: it changes itself (Job 20:14) at last into gravel, of which his mouth is filled full, as we might say, “it lies at last in his stomach like lead.” חצץ is the Arab. ḥaṭny, gravel (Hitzig, grien = gries, coarse sand, grit), R. חץ, scindere. Similarly in Arab. ḥajar, a stone, is used as the image of disappointed expectations, e.g., the adulterer finds a stone, i.e., experiences disappointment.

Verse 18

Pro 20:18 18 Plans are established by counsel, And with prudent government make war.
From the conception of a thought, practically influencing the formation of our own life and the life of the community, to its accomplishment there is always a long way which does not lead to the end unless one goes forward with counsel and strength combined, and considers all means and eventualities. The Niph. of כּוּן means, in a passive sense: to be accomplished or realized (Psa 141:2). The clause 18a is true for times of war as well as for times of peace; war is disastrous, unless it is directed with strategic skill (vid., regarding תּחבּות, Pro 1:5). Grotius compares the proverb, Γνῶμαι πλέον δρατοῦσιν ἢ σθένος χειρῶν. In Pro 24:6, the necessity of counsel is also referred to the case of war. Ewald would read [the infin.] עשׂה, or עשׂה: with management it is that one carries on war. But why? Because to him the challenge to carry on war appears to be contrary to the spirit of proverbial poetry. But the author of the proverb does certainly mean: if thou hast to carry on war, carry it on with the skill of a general; and the imper. is protected by Pro 24:6 against that infin., which is, besides, stylistically incongruous.

Verse 19

Pro 20:19 19 He that goeth out gossiping revealeth a secret; And the babbler have nothing to do.
Luther otherwise (like Hitzig) -
Be not complicated with him who revealeth a secret,
And with the slanderer, and with the false (better: loquacious) mouth, so that ל and the warning apply to the threefold description, a rendering which Kimchi also, and Immanuel, and others at least suggest. But in connection with Pro 11:13, the first line has the force of a judicium, which includes the warning to entrust nothing to a babbler which ought to be kept silent. Write גּולה סּוד, as found in Codd. and old Edd., with Munach on the penultima, on which the tone is thrown back, and Dagesh to ס, after the rule of the דחיק (Gesen. §20, 2a), altogether like קונה לב, Pro 15:32. 19b the Venet. translates after the first meaning of the word by Kimchi, τῷ ἀπαταιῶνι τοῖς χείλεσι, to him who slanders and befools, for it thus improves Theodotion's τῷ ἀπατῶντι τὰ χείλη αὐτοῦ. But פּתה means, Job 5:2 - cf. Hos 7:11 - not him who befools another, but him who is befooled, is slandered, by another (Aben Ezra: שׁיפתוהו אחרים), with which שׂפתיו here does not agree. But now he who is easily befooled is called פּתה, as being open to influence (susceptible), patens; and if this particip. is used, as here, transitively, and, on account of the object שׂפתיו standing near cannot possibly be equivalent to מפתּה, the usage of the language also just noticed is against it, then it means patefaciens or dilatans (cf. הפתּה, Gen 9:27, Targ. אפתּי = הרחיב), and places itself as synon. to פשׂק, Pro 13:3; thus one is called who does not close his mouth, who cannot hold his mouth, who always idly babbles, and is therefore, because he can keep nothing to himself, a dangerous companion. The Complut. rightly translates: μετὰ πλατύνοντος τὰ ἑαυτοῦ μὴ μίχθητι χείλη.

Verse 20

The following group begins, for once more the aim of this older Book of Proverbs becomes prominent, with an inculcation of the fourth^[16] commandment. 20 He that curseth his father and his mother, His light is extinguished in midnight darkness.
The divine law, Exo 21:17; Lev 20:9, condemns such an one to death. But the proverb does not mean this sentence against the criminal, which may only seldom be carried into execution, but the fearful end which, because of the righteousness of God ruling in history, terminates the life of such an unnatural son (Pro 30:17). Of the godless, it has already been said that their light is extinguished, Pro 13:9, there is suddenly an end to all that brightened, i.e., made happy and embellished their life; but he who acts wickedly (קלּל, R. קל, levem esse, synon. הקלה, Deu 27:16), even to the cursing of his father and mother, will see himself surrounded by midnight darkness (Symmachus, σκοτομήνῃ, moonless night), not: he will see himself in the greatest need, forsaken by divine protection (Fleischer), for Jansen rightly: Lux et lucerna in scripturis et vitae claritatem et posteritatem et prosperitatem significat. The apple of the eye, אישׁון, of darkness (vid., Pro 7:9), is that which forms the centre of centralization of darkness. The Syr. renders it correctly by bobtho, pupil of the eye, but the Targ. retains the אשׁוּן of the Kerı̂, and renders it in Aram. by אתוּן, which Rashi regards as an infin., Parchon as a particip. after the form ערוּך; but it may be also an infin. substantive after the form עזוּז, and is certainly nothing else than the abbreviated and vocally obscured אישׁון. For the Talm. אשׁן, to be hard, furnishes no suitable idea; and the same holds true of אשׁוּני, times, Lev 15:25 of the Jerusalem Targ.; while the same abbreviation and the same passing over of o into u represents this as the inflected אישׁון (= עת). There is also no evidence for a verb אשׁן, to be black, dark; the author of Aruch interprets אשׁונא, Bereschith Rabba, c. 33, with reference to the passage before us, of a dark bathing apartment, but only tentatively, and אישׁון is there quoted as the Targ. of צל, Gen 19:8, which the text lying before us does not ratify. Ishon means the little man (in the eye), and neither the blackness (Buxtorf and others) nor the point of strength, the central point (Levy) of the eye.^[17]

Verse 21

Pro 20:21 21 An inheritance which in the beginning is obtained in haste, Its end will not be blessed.
The partic. מבחל may, after Zec 11:8, cf. Syr. bhlaa', nauseans, mean “detested,” but that affords here no sense; rather it might be interpreted after the Arab. bajila, to be avaricious, “gotten by avarice, niggardliness,” with which, however, neither נחלה, inheritance, nor, since avarice is a chronic disease, בּראשׁונה agrees. On the contrary, the Kerı̂ מבהלת [hastened] perfectly agrees, both linguistically (vid., Pro 28:22; cf. Pro 13:11) and actually; for, as Hitzig remarks, the words following Pro 20:20 fully harmonize with the idea of an inheritance, into the possession of which one is put before it is rightly due to him; for a son such as that, the parents may live too long, and so he violently deprives them of the possession (cf. Pro 19:26); but on such a possession there rests no blessing. Since the Piel may mean to hasten, Est 2:9, so מבהל may mean hastened = speedy, Est 8:14, as well as made in haste. All the old interpreters adopt the Kerı̂; the Aram. render it well by מסרהבא, from מסרהב, overturned; and Luther, like Jerome, haereditas ad quam festinatur.

Verse 22

Pro 20:22 22 Say not: I will avenge the evil; Hope in Jahve, so will He help thee.
Men ought always to act toward their neighbours according to the law of love, and not according to the jus talionis, Pro 24:29; they ought not only, by requiting good with evil (Pro 16:13; Psa 7:5, Psa 35:12), not to transgress this law of requital, but they ought to surpass it, by also recompensing not evil with evil (vid., regarding שׁלּם, and synon. to Pro 17:13); and that is what the proverb means, for 22b supposes injustice suffered, which might stir up a spirit of revenge. It does not, however, say that men ought to commit the taking of vengeance to God; but, in the sense of Rom 12:17-19; 1Pe 3:9, that, renouncing all dependence on self, they ought to commit their deliverance out of the distress into which they have fallen, and their vindication, into the hands of God; for the promise is not that He will avenge them, but that He will help them. The jussive וישׁע (write וישׁע, according to Metheg-setzung, §42, with Gaja as העמדה, with the ע to secure distinct utterance to the final guttural) states as a consequence, like, e.g., 2Ki 5:10, what will then happen (Jerome, Luther, Hitzig) if one lets God rule (Gesen. §128, 2c); equally possible, syntactically, is the rendering: that He may help thee (lxx, Ewald); but, regarded as a promise, the words are more in accordance with the spirit of the proverb, and they round it off more expressively.

Verse 23

Pro 20:23 23 An abomination to Jahve are two kinds of weights; And deceitful balances are not good.
A variant to Pro 20:10, Pro 11:1. The pred. לא־טוב (Pro 17:26; Pro 18:5; Pro 19:3) is conceived of as neut.; they are not good, much rather bad and pernicious, for the deceiver succeeds only in appearance; in reality he fails.

Verse 24

Pro 20:24 24 The steps of a man depend on Jahve; And a man - how can he understand his way?
Line first is from Psa 37:23, but there, where the clause has the verbal predicate כּוננוּ, the meaning is that it is the gracious assistance of God, by virtue of which a man takes certain steps with his feet, while here we have before us a variation of the proverb “der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt” = man proposes, God disposes, Pro 16:9, Jer 10:23; for מן, as at 2Sa 3:37; Psa 118:23, denotes God in general as conditioning, as the ultimate cause. Man is indeed free to turn himself hither or thither, to decide on this course of conduct or on that, and is therefore responsible for it; but the relations co-operating in all his steps as the possible and defining conditions are God's contrivance and guidance, and the consequences which are connected with his steps and flow therefrom, lie beyond the power of man - every one of his steps is a link of a chain, neither the beginning nor the end of which he can see; while, on the other hand, God's knowledge comprehends the beginning, middle, and end, and the wisdom of God ruling in the sphere of history, makes all human activity, the free action of man, subservient to his world-plan. The question, which has a negative answer, is applicable to man: what, i.e., how shall he understand his way? מה is like, e.g., Exo 10:26; Job 9:2; Job 19:28, accus., and fluctuates between the functions of a governed accusative: What does he understand... (Job 11:8) and an adv.: how, i.e., how so little, how even not, for it is the מה of the negative question which has become in (Arab.) mâ a word of negation. The way of a man is his life's-course. This he understands in the present life only relatively, the true unravelling of it remains for the future.

Verse 25

Pro 20:25 25 It is a snare to a man to cry out hastily “holy;” And first after vows to investigate.
Two other interpretations of the first line have been proposed. The snare of a man devours, i.e., destroys the holy; but then מוקשׁ אדם must be an expression of an action, instead of an expression of an endurance, which is impossible. The same is true against the explanation: the snare of a man devours, i.e., consumes, eats up the holy, which as such is withdrawn from common use. Jerome with his devotare sanctos, and Luther with his das Heilige lestern [to calumniate the holy], give to לוּע = בּלע a meaning which loses itself in the arbitrary. Accordingly, nothing is to be done with the meaning καταπίεται (Aquila, the Venet.). But ילע will be the abbreviated fut. of לוּע (from ילוּע), or לעע (ילע), Job 6:3 = (Arab.) laghâ temere loqui (proloqui); and קדשׁ (after Hitzig: consecration, which is contrary to usage) is like κορβᾶν, Mar 7:11, the exclamation to which one suddenly gives utterance, thereby meaning that this or that among his possessions henceforth no longer belongs to him, but is consecrated to God, and thus ought to be delivered up to the temple. Such a sudden vow and halting deference to the oath that has been uttered is a snare to a man, for he comes to know that he has injured himself by the alienation of his property, which he has vowed beyond that which was due from him, or that the fulfilling of his vow is connected with difficulties, and perhaps also to others, with regard to whom its disposal was not permitted to him, is of evil consequences, or it may be he is overcome by repentance and is constrained to break his oath. The lxx hits the true meaning of the proverb with rare success: Παγὶς ἀνδρὶ ταχύ τι τῶν ἰδίων ἁγιάσαι, μετὰ δὲ τὸ εὔξασθαι μετανοεῖν γίνεται. נדרים is plur. of the category (cf. 16b Chethı̂b), and בקּר, as 2Ki 16:15, Arab. baḳr, examinare, inquirere, means to subject to investigation, viz., whether he ought to observe, and might observe, a vow such as this, or whether he might not and ought not rather to renounce it (Fleischer). Viewed syntactically, 25a is so difficult, that Bertheau, with Hitzig, punctuates ילע; but this substantive must be formed from a verb ילע (cf. Hab 3:13), and this would mean, after (Arab.) wala', “to long eagerly for,” which is not suitable here. The punctuation shows ילע as the 3rd fut. What interpreters here say of the doubled accent of the word arises from ignorance: the correct punctuation is ילע, with Gaja to ע, to give the final guttural more force in utterance. The poet appears to place in the foreground: “a snare for a man,” as a rubrum; and then continuing the description, he cries out suddenly “holy!” and after the vow, he proceeds to deliberate upon it. Fleischer rightly: post vota inquisiturus est (in ea) = יהיה לבקּר; vid., at Hab 1:17, which passage Hitzig also compares as syntactically very closely related.

Verse 26

Pro 20:26 26 A wise king winnoweth the godless, And bringeth over them the wheel.
A variant to Pro 20:8, but here with the following out of the figure of the winnowing. For אופן with מזרה is, without doubt, the wheel of the threshing-cart, עגלה, Isa 28:27.; and thus with מזרה, the winnowing fork, מזרה is to be thought of; vid., a description of them along with that of the winnowing shovel, רחת, in Wetzstein's Excursus to Isa., p. 707ff. We are not to think of the punishment of the wheel, which occurs only as a terrible custom of war (e.g., Amo 1:3). It is only meant that a wise king, by sharp and vigorous procedure, separates the godless, and immediately visits them with merited punishment, as he who works with the winnowing shovel gives the chaff to the wind. Most ancient interpreters think on אופן (from אפן, vertere) in its metaphorical meaning: τρόπος (thus also Löwenstein, he deals with them according to merit), or the wheel of fortune, with reference to the constellations; thus, misfortune (Immanuel, Meîri). Arama, Oetinger, and others are, however, on the right track.

Verse 27

With a proverb of a light that was extinguished, Pro 20:20 began the group; the proverb of God's light, which here follows, we take as the beginning of a new group. 27 A candle of Jahve is the soul of man, Searching through all the chambers of the heart.
If the O.T. language has a separate word to denote the self-conscious personal human spirit in contradistinction to the spirit of a beast, this word, according to the usage of the language, as Reuchlin, in an appendix to Aben Ezra, remarks, is נשׁמה; it is so called as the principle of life breathed immediately by God into the body (vid., at Gen 2:7; Gen 7:22). Indeed, that which is here said of the human spirit would not be said of the spirit of a beast: it is “the mystery of self-consciousness which is here figuratively represented” (Elster). The proverb intentionally does not use the word נפשׁ, for this is not the power of self-consciousness in man, but the medium of bodily life; it is related secondarily to nshmh (רוח), while נשׁמת חיים (רוח) is used, נפשׁ חיים is an expression unheard of. Hitzig is in error when he understands by נשׁמה here the soul in contradistinction to the spirit, and in support of this appeals to an expression in the Cosmography of Kazwîni: “the soul (Arab. âl-nefs) is like the lamp which moves about in the chambers of the house;” here also en-nefs is the self-conscious spirit, for the Arab. and post-bibl. Heb. terminology influenced by philosophy reverses the biblical usage, and calls the rational soul נפשׁ, and, on the contrary, the animal soul נשׁמה, רוח (Psychologie, p. 154). חפשׂ is the particip. of חפּשׂ, Zep 1:12, without distinguishing the Kal and Piel. Regarding חדרי־בטן, lxx ταμιεῖα κοιλίας, vid., at Pro 18:8 : בּטן denotes the inner part of the body (R. בט, to be deepened), and generally of the personality; cf. Arab. bâtn âlrwh, the interior of the spirit, and Pro 22:18, according to which Fleischer explains: “A candle of Jahve, i.e., a means bestowed on man by God Himself to search out the secrets deeply hid in the spirit of another.” But the candle which God has kindled in man has as the nearest sphere of illumination, which goes forth from it, the condition of the man himself - the spirit comprehends all that belongs to the nature of man in the unity of self-consciousness, but yet more: it makes it the object of reflection; it penetrates, searching it through, and seeks to take it up into its knowledge, and recognises the problem proposed to it, to rule it by its power. The proverb is thus to be ethically understood: the spirit is that which penetrates that which is within, even into its many secret corners and folds, with its self-testing and self-knowing light it is, after Mat 6:22, the inner light, the inner eye. Man becomes known to himself according to his moral as well as his natural condition in the light of the spirit; “for what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” says Paul, 1Co 2:11. With reference to this Solomonic proverb, the seven-branched candlestick is an ancient symbol of the soul, e.g., on the Jewish sepulchral monuments of the Roman viâ Portuensis. Our texts present the phrase נר יהוה; but the Talm. Pesachim 7b, 8a, the Pesikta in part 8, the Midrash Othijoth de-Rabbi Akiba, under the letter נ, Alphasi (יף״ר) in Pesachim, and others, read נר אלהים; and after this phrase the Targum translates, while the Syr. and the other old versions render by the word “Lord” (Venet. ὀντωτής), and thus had יהוה before them.

Verse 28

Pro 20:28 28 Love and truth guard the king; And he supports his throne by love.
We have not in the German [nor in the Eng.] language a couple of words that completely cover חסד ואמת; when they are used of God, we translate them by grace and truth [Gnade u. Wahrheit], Psa 40:12 (יצּרוּני); when of men, by love and truth [Liebe u. Treue], Pro 16:6; and when of the two-sided divine forces, by kindness and truth, Pro 3:3. Love and truth are the two good spirits that guard the king. If it is elsewhere said that the king's throne is supported “with judgment and with justice,” Isa 9:6 [7]; here, on the other side, we see that the exercise of government must have love as its centre; he has not only to act on the line of right, שׁוּרת הדּין; but, as the later proverb says, in such a way, that within this circle his conduct is determined by the central motive of love. In this sense we give the king not only the title of Grossmächtigster [most high and mighty], but also that of “Allergnädigster” most gracious, for the king can and ought to exercise grace before other men; the virtue of condescension establishes his throne more than the might of greatness.

Verse 29

Pro 20:29 29 The ornament of young men is their strength; And the honour of the old is grey hairs.
Youth has the name בּחוּר (different from בּחוּר, chosen), of the maturity (R. בחר, cogn. בכר, בגר, whence Mishn. בּגרוּת, manhood, in contradistinction to נערוּת) into which he enters from the bloom of boyhood; and the old man is called זקן (Arab. dhikn, as Schultens says, a mento pendulo, from the hanging chin זקן, (Arab.) dhakan, chin, beard on the chin). To stand in the fulness of fresh unwasted strength is to youth, as such, an ornament (תּפארת, cf. פּארוּר, blooming colour of the countenance); on the contrary, to the old man who has spent his strength in the duties of his office, or as it is said at Pro 16:31, “in the way of righteousness,” grey hairs (שׂיבה, from שׂב, Arab. shâb, canescere) give an honourable appearance (הדר, from הדר, turgidum, amplum esse, vid., at Isa 63:1).

Verse 30

Pro 20:30 30 Cutting wounds cleanse away evil, And reach the inner parts of the body.
The two words for wounds in line first stand in the st. constr.; חבּוּרה (from חבר, to be bound around with stripes, to be striped) is properly the streak, the stripe; but is here heightened by פּצע (from פּצע, to cleave, split, tear open), beyond the idea of the stripe-wound: tearing open the flesh, cuts tearing into the flesh. The pred. is after the Kerı̂ תּמרוּק; but this substantive, found in the Book of Esther, where it signifies the purification of the women for the harem (according to which, e.g., Ahron B. Joseph explains כמו תמרוק לנשׁים שׁהוא יפה להם), is syntactically hard, and scarcely original. For if we explain with Kimchi: wounds of deep incision find their cleansing (cure) by evil, i.e., by means which bring suffering (according to which, probably the Venet. μώλωπες τραύματος λάμψουσιν ἐν κακῷ), then תמרוקן, with the pronoun pointing back, one would have expected. But the interpretation of בּרע, of severe means of cure, is constrained; that which lies nearest, however, is to understand רע of evil. But if, with this understanding of the word, we translate: Vibices plagarum sunt lustratio quae adhibetur malo (Fleischer), one does not see why בּרע, and not rather gen. רע, is used. But if we read after the Chethı̂b תּמריק, then all is syntactically correct; for (1.) that the word ימריקוּ, or תּמרקנה, is not used, is in accordance with a well-known rule, Gesen. §146. 3; and (2.) that המריק is connected, not directly with an accus. obj., but with ב, has its analogy in התעה ב, Jer 42:2, השׁרישׁ בּ, Job 31:12, and the like, and besides has its special ground in the metaphorical character of the cleansing. Thus, e.g., one uses Syr. 't'aa' of external misleading; but with Syr. k of moral misleading (Ewald, §217, 2); and Arab. ' of erecting a building; but with Arab. b of the intellectual erection of a memorial (monument). It is the so-called Bâ̇âlmojâz; vid., de Sacy's Chrest Arab. i. 397. The verb מרק means in Talm. also, “to take away” (a metaph. of abstergere; cf. Arab. marak, to wipe off)^[18] and that meaning is adopted, Schabbath 33a, for the interpretations of this proverb: stripes and wounds a preparedness for evil carries away, and sorrow in the innermost part of the body, which is explained by דרוקן (a disease appearing in diverse forms; cf. “Drachenschuss,”; as the name of an animal disease); but granting that the biblical מרק may bear this meaning, the ב remains unaccountable; for we say מרק עצמו לעברה, for to prepare oneself for a transgression (sin of excess), and not בעברה. We have thus to abide by the primary meaning, and to compare the proverb, Berachoth 5a: “afflictive providences wash away all the transgressions of a man.” But the proverb before us means, first at least, not the wounds which God inflicts, but those which human educational energy inflicts: deep-cutting wounds, i.e., stern discipline, leads to the rubbing off of evil, i.e., rubs it, washes it, cleanses it away. It may now be possible that in 30b the subject idea is permutatively continued: et verbera penetralium corporis (thus the Venet.: πληγαὶ τῶν ταμιείων τοῦ γαρστρός), i.e., quorum vis ad intimos corporis et animi recessus penetrat (Fleischer). But that is encumbered, and חדרי־בטן (cf. Pro 20:27, Pro 18:8), as referring to the depths to which stern corporal discipline penetrates, has not its full force. וּמכּות is either a particip.: and that is touching (ferientes) the inner chambers of the body, or חדרי־בטן is with the ב, or immediately the second object of תמריק to be supplied: and strokes (rub off, cleanse, make pure) the innermost part. Jerome and the Targ. also supply ב, but erroneously, as designating place: in secretioribus ventris, relatively better the lxx and Syr.: εἰς ταμιεῖα κοιλίας. Luther hits the sense at least, for he translates:
One must restrain evil with severe punishment,
And with hard strokes which one feels.

Chap. 21

Verse 1

Pro 21:1
The group, like the preceding one, now closes with a proverb of the king.
A king's heart in Jahve's hand is like brooks of water;
He turneth it whithersoever He will.
Brook and canal (the Quinta: ὑδραγωγοί) are both called פּלג, or פּלג, Job 20:17, Arab. falaj (from פּלג, to divide, according to which Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, διαρέσεις; Venet. διανομαί; Jerome, divisiones); Jâkût has the explanation of the word: “falaj is the name given to flowing water, particularly the brook from a spring, and every canal which is led from a spring out over flat ground.” Such brooks of water are the heart of a king, i.e., it is compared to such, in Jahve's hand. The second line contains the point of comparison: He inclines it, gives to it the direction (הטּה, causat. of נטה, Num 21:15) toward whatever He will (חפץ denotes willing, as a bending and inclining, viz., of the will; vid., at Pro 18:2). Rightly Hitzig finds it not accidental that just the expression “brooks of water” is chosen as the figure for tractableness and subjection to government. In Isa 32:2, the princes of Judah are compared to “rivers of water in a dry place” with reference to the exhaustion of the land during the oppression of the Assyrian invasion; the proverb has specially in view evidences of kindness proceeding from the heart, as at Pro 16:15 the favour of the king is compared to clouds of latter rain emptying themselves in beneficent showers, and at Pro 19:12 to the dew refreshing the plants. But the speciality of the comparison here is, that the heart of the king, however highly exalted above his subjects, and so removed from their knowledge he may be, has yet One above it by whom it is moved by hidden influences, e.g., the prayer of the oppressed; for man is indeed free, yet he acts under the influence of divinely-directed circumstances and divine operations; and though he reject the guidance of God, yet from his conduct nothing results which the Omniscient, who is surprised by nothing, does not make subservient to His will in the world-plan of redemption. Rightly the Midrash: God gives to the world good or bad kings, according as He seeks to bless it or to visit it with punishment; all decisions that go forth from the king's mouth come לכתחלה, i.e., in their first commencement and their last reason they come from the Holy One.  

Verse 2

The next group extends from Pro 21:2 to Pro 21:8, where it closes as it began. 2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes;    But a weigher of hearts is Jahve.
A proverb similar to Pro 16:2 (where דּרכי, for דּרך, זך for ישׁר, רוּחות for לבּות). God is also, Pro 17:3, called a trier, בּחן, of hearts, as He is here called a weigher, תּכן. The proverb indirectly admonishes us of the duty of constant self-examination, according to the objective norm of the revealed will of God, and warns us against the self-complacency of the fool, of whom Pro 12:15 says (as Trimberg in “Renner”): “all fools live in the pleasant feeling that their life is the best,” and against the self-deception which walks in the way of death and dreams of walking in the way of life, Pro 14:12 (Pro 16:25).  

Verse 3

3 To practice justice and right
   Hath with Jahve the pre-eminence above sacrifice.
We have already (vol. i. p. 42) shown how greatly this depreciation of the works of the ceremonial cultus, as compared with the duties of moral obedience, is in the spirit of the Chokma; cf. also at Pro 15:8. Prophecy also gives its testimony, e.g., Hos 6:7, according to which also here (cf. Pro 20:8 with Isa 9:8) the practising of צדקה וּמשׁפּט (sequence of words as at Gen 18:19; Psa 33:5, elsewhere צדק ומשׁפט, and yet more commonly משׁפט וצדקה) does not denote legal rigour, but the practising of the justum et aequum, or much rather the aequum et bonum, thus in its foundation conduct proceeding from the principle of love. The inf. עשׂה (like קנה, Pro 16:16) occurs three times (here and at Gen 50:20; Psa 101:3); once עשׂו is written (Gen 31:18), as also in the infin. absol. the form עשׂה mro and עשׂו interchange (vid., Norzi at Jer 22:4); once עשׂהוּ for עשׂותו (Exo 18:18) occurs in the status conjunctus.  

Verse 4

4 Loftiness of eyes and swelling of heart -    The husbandry of the godless is sin.
If נר, in the sense of light, gives a satisfactory meaning, then one might appeal to 1Ki 11:36 (cf. 2Sa 21:17), where ניר appears to signify lamp, in which meaning it is once (2Sa 22:29) written ניר (like חיק); or since ניר = נר (ground-form, nawir, lightening) is as yet certainly established neither in the Heb. nor Syr., one might punctuate נר instead of נר, according to which the Greeks, Aram., and Luther, with Jerome, translate. But of the lamp of the godless we read at Pro 13:9 and elsewhere, that it goeth out. We must here understand by נר the brilliant prosperity (Bertheau and others) of the wicked, or their “proud spirit flaming and flaring like a bright light” (Zöckler), which is contrary to the use of the metaphor as found elsewhere, which does not extend to a prosperous condition. We must then try another meaning for נר; but not that of yoke, for this is not Heb., but Aram.-Arab., and the interpretation thence derived by Lagarde: “Haughtiness and pride; but the godless for all that bear their yoke, viz., sin,” seeks in vain to hide behind the “for all that” the breaking asunder of the two lines of the verse. In Heb. נר means that which lightens (burning) = lamp, נוּר, the shining (that which burns) = fire, and ניר, Pro 13:23, from ניר, to plough up (Targ. 1Sa 8:12, למנר = לחרשׁ) the fresh land, i.e., the breaking up of the fallow land; according to which the Venet. as Kimchi: νέωμα ἀσεβῶν ἁμαρτία, which as Ewald and Elster explain: “where a disposition of wicked haughtiness, of unbridled pride, prevails, there will also sin be the first-fruit on the field of action; נר, novale, the field turned up for the first time, denotes here the first-fruits of sin.” But why just the first-fruits, and not the fruit in general? We are better to abide by the field itself, which is here styled נר, not שׂדה (or as once in Jer 39:10, יגב); because with this word, more even than with שׂדה, is connected the idea of agricultural work, of arable land gained by the digging up or the breaking up of one or more years' fallow ground (cf. Pea ii. 1, ניר, Arab. siḳâḳ, opp. בור, Arab. bûr, Menachoth 85a, שׂדות מניּרות, a fresh broken-up field, Erachin 29b, נר ,, opp. הביר, to let lie fallow), so that נר רשׁעים may mean the cultivation of the fields, and generally the husbandry, i.e., the whole conduct and life of the godless. נר is here ethically metaph., but not like Hos 10:12; Jer 4:3, where it means a new moral commencement of life; but like חרשׁ, arare, Job 4:8; Hos 10:13; cf. Pro 3:29. רחב is not adj. like Pro 28:25, Psa 101:5, but infin. like חסר, Pro 10:21; and accordingly also רוּם is not adj. like חוּם, or past like סוּג, but infin. like Isa 10:12. And חטּאת is the pred. of the complex subject, which consists of רוּם עינים, a haughty looking down with the eyes, רחב־לב, breadth of heart, i.e., excess of self-consciousness, and נר רשׁעים taken as an asyndeton summativum: pride of look, and making oneself large of heart, in short, the whole husbandry of the godless, or the whole of the field cultivated by them, with all that grows thereon, is sin.  

Verse 5

5 The striving of the diligent is only to advantage.    And hastening all [excessive haste] only to loss; or in other words, and agreeably to the Heb. construction:
The thoughts of the industrious are (reach) only to gain,
And every one who hastens - it (this his hastening) is only to loss. Vid., at Pro 17:21. At Pro 10:4, Luther translates “the hand of the diligent,” here “the plans of an expert [endelichen],” i.e., of one actively striving (Pro 22:29, endelich = מהיר) to the end. The אץ, hastening overmuch, is contrasted with the diligent: Luther well: but he who is altogether too precipitant. Everywhere else in the Proverbs אץ has a closer definition with it, wherefore Hitzig reads אצר, which must mean: he who collects together; but אץ along with חרוץ is perfectly distinct. The thought is the same as our “eile mit Weile” [= festina lente], and Goethe's
Wie das Gestirn ohne Hast,
Aber ohne Rast
Drehe sich jeder
Um die eigne Last. “Like the stars, without haste but without rest, let every one carry about his own burden,” viz., of his calling that lies upon him. The fundamental meaning of אוץ is to throng, to urge (Exo 5:13), here of impatient and inconsiderate rashness. While on the side of the diligent there is nothing but gain, such haste brings only loss; over-exertion does injury, and the work will want care, circumspection, and thoroughness. In the Book of Proverbs, the contrasts “gain” and “loss” frequently occur, Pro 11:24; Pro 14:23; Pro 22:16 : profit (the increase of capital by interest), opp. loss (of capital, or of part thereof), as commercial terms.  

Verse 6

6 The gaining of treasures by a lying tongue    Is a fleeting breath of such as seek death.
One may, at any rate, after the free manner of gnomic resemblances and comparisons, regard “fleeting breath” and “such as seek death” as two separated predicates: such gain is fleeting breath, so those who gain are seeking death (Caspari's Beiträge zu Jes. p. 53). But it is also syntactically admissible to interpret the words rendered “seekers of death” as gen.; for such interruptions of the st. constr., as here by נדּף [fleeting], frequently occur, e.g., Isa 28:1; Isa 32:13; 1Ch 9:13; and that an idea, in spite of such interruption, may be thought of as gen., is seen from the Arab. ^[19]
But the text is unsettled. Symmachus, Syr., Targ., the Venet., and Luther render the phrase מבקשׁי [seekers]; but the lxx and Jerome read מוקשׁי [snares] (cf. 1Ti 6:9); this word Rashi also had before him (vid., Norzi), and Kennicott found it in several Codd. Bertheau prefers it, for he translates: ...is fleeting breath, snares of death; Ewald and Hitzig go further, for, after the lxx, they change the whole proverb into: מות (בּמוקשׁי) הבל רדף אל־מוקשׁי, with פּעל in the first line. But διώκει of the lxx is an incorrect rendering of נדף, which the smuggling in of the ἐπὶ (παγίδας θανάτου) drew after it, without our concluding therefrom that אל־מוקשׁי, or למוקשׁי (Lagarde), lay before the translators; on the contrary, the word which (Cappellus) lay before them, מוקשׁי, certainly deserves to be preferred to מבקשׁי: the possession is first, in view of him who has gotten it, compared to a fleeting (נדּף, as Isa 42:2) breath (cf. e.g., smoke, Psa 68:3), and then, in view of the inheritance itself and its consequences, is compared to the snares of death (Pro 13:14; Pro 14:27); for in פּעל (here equivalent to עשׂות, acquisitio, Gen 31:1; Deu 8:17) lie together the ideas of him who procures and of the thing that is procured or effected (vid., at Pro 20:11).  

Verse 7

7 The violence of the godless teareth them away,    For they have refused to do what is right.
The destruction which they prepare for others teareth or draggeth them away to destruction, by which wicked conduct brings punishment on itself; their own conduct is its own executioner (cf. Pro 1:19); for refusing to practise what is right, they have pronounced judgment against themselves, and fallen under condemnation. Rightly Jerome, detrahent, with Aquila, κατασπάσει = j'gurrem (as Hab 1:15), from גּרר; on the contrary, the lxx incorrectly, ἐπιξενωθήσεται, from גוּר, to dwell, to live as a guest; and the Venet., as Luther, in opposition to the usus loq.: δεδίξεται (fut. of δεδίσσεσθαι, to terrify), from גוּר, to dread, fear, which also remains intrans., with the accus. following, Deu 32:27. The Syr. and the Targ. freely: robbery (Targ. רבּוּנא, perhaps in the sense of usury) will seize them, viz., in the way of punishment. In Arab. jarr (jariyratn) means directly to commit a crime; not, as Schultens explains, admittere crimen paenam trahens, but attrahere (arripere), like (Arab.) jany (jinâytn), contrahere crimen; for there the crime is thought of as violent usurpation, here as wicked accumulation.  

Verse 8

8 Winding is the way of a man laden with guilt;    But the pure - his conduct is right.
Rightly the accentuation places together “the way of a man” as subject, and “winding” as predicate: if the poet had wished to say (Schultens, Bertheau) “one crooked in his way” (quoad viam), he would have contented himself with the phrase נחפּך דּרך. But, on the other hand, the accentuation is scarcely correct (the second Munach is a transformed Mugrash), for it interprets וזר as a second pred.; but וזר is adj. to אישׁ. As הפכפּך (synon. פּתלתּל, עקלקל) is a hapax leg., so also vazar, which is equivalent to (Arab.) mawzwr, crimine onustus, from wazria, crimen committere, properly to charge oneself with a crime. The ancient interpreters have, indeed, no apprehension of this meaning before them; the lxx obtain from the proverb a thought reminding us of Psa 18:27, in which vazar does not at all appear; the Syr. and Targ. translate as if the vav of vazar introduces the conclusion: he is a barbarian (nuchrojo); Luther: he is crooked; Jerome also sets aside the syntax: perversa via viri aliena est; but, syntactically admissible, the Venet. and Kimchi, as the Jewish interpreters generally, διαστροφωτάτη ὁδὸς ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἀλλόκοτος. Fleischer here even renounces the help of the Arab., for he translates: Tortuosa est via viri criminibus onusti, qui autem sancte vivit, is recte facit; but he adds thereto the remark that “vazar thus explained, with Cappellus, Schultens, and Gesenius, would, it is true, corresponding to the Arab. wazar, have first the abstract meaning of a verbal noun from wazira; ^[20] the old explanation is therefore perhaps better: tortuosa est via viri et deflectens (scil. a recta linea, thus devia est), when the viri is to be taken in the general sense of 'many, this and that one;' the closer definition is reflected from the זך of the second clause.” But (1) זר as an adj. signifies peregrinus; one ought thus rather to expect סר, degenerated, corrupt, although that also does not rightly accord; (2) the verbal noun also, e.g., 'all, passes over into a subst. and adj. signification (the latter without distinction of number and gender); (3) וזר, after its adj. signification, is related to (Arab.) wazyr, as חכם is to ḥakym, רזב to rahyb; it is of the same form as ענו, with which it has in common its derivation from a root of similar meaning, and its ethical signification. In 8b, וזך is rightly accented as subj. of the complex pred. זך is the pure in heart and of a good conscience. The laden with guilt (guilty) strikes out all kinds of crooked ways; but the pure needs not stealthy ways, he does not stand under the pressure of the bondage of sin, the ban of the guilt of sin; his conduct is straightforward, directed by the will of God, and not by cunning policy. Schultens: Integer vitae scelerisque purus non habet cur vacillet, cur titubet, cur sese contorqueat. The choice of the designation וזך [and the pure] may be occasioned by וזר (Hitzig); the expression 8b reminds us of Pro 20:11.  

Verse 9

The group now following extends to Pro 21:18, where a new one begins with a variation of its initial verse. 9 Better to sit on the pinnacle of a house-roof,    Than a contentious wife and a house in common.
We have neither to supplement the second line: than with a contentious wife... (Symmachus, Theodotion, Jerome, Luther), nor: than that one have a contentious...; but the meaning is, that sitting on the roof-top better befits one, does better than a quarrelsome wife and a common house (rightly the Targ. and Venet.), i.e., in a common house; for the connecting together of the wife and the house by vav is a Semitic hendiadys, a juxtaposition of two ideas which our language would place in a relation of subordination (Fleischer). This hendiadys would, indeed, be scarcely possible if the idea of the married wife were attached to אושׁת; for that such an one has with her husband a “house of companionship, i.e., a common house,” is self-evident. But may it not with equal right be understood of the imperious positive mother-in-law of a widower, a splenetic shrewish aunt, a sickly female neighbour disputing with all the world, and the like? A man must live together with his wife in so far as he does not divorce her; he must then escape from her; but a man may also be constrained by circumstances to live in a house with a quarrelsome mother-in-law, and such an one may, even during the life of his wife, and in spite of her affection, make his life so bitter that he would rather, in order that he might have rest, sit on the pinnacle or ridge of a house-roof. פּנּהּ is the battlement (Zep 1:16) of the roof, the edge of the roof, or its summit; he who sits there does so not without danger, and is exposed to the storm, but that in contrast with the alternative is even to be preferred; he sits alone. Regarding the Chethı̂b מדינים, Kerı̂ מדינים, vid., at Pro 6:14; and cf. the figures of the “continual dropping” for the continual scolding of such a wife, embittering the life of her husband, Pro 19:13.  

Verse 10

10 The soul of the godless hath its desire after evil;      His neighbour findeth no mercy in his eyes.
The interchange of perf. and fut. cannot be without intention. Löwenstein renders the former as perf. hypotheticum: if the soul of the wicked desires anything evil...; but the רשׁע wishes evil not merely now and then, but that is in general his nature and tendency. The perf. expresses that which is actually the case: the soul of the wicked has its desire directed (write אוּתה with Munach, after Codd. and old Ed., not with Makkeph) toward evil, and the fut. expresses that which proceeds from this: he who stands near him is not spared. יחן is, as at Isa 26:10, Hoph. of חנן, to incline, viz., oneself, compassionately toward any one, or to bend to him. But in what sense is בּעיניו added? It does not mean, as frequently, e.g., Pro 21:2, according to his judgment, nor, as at Pro 20:8; Pro 6:13 : with his eyes, but is to be understood after the phrase מצא חן בּעיני: his neighbour finds no mercy in his eyes, so that in these words the sympathy ruling within him expresses itself: “his eyes will not spare his friends,” vid., Isa 13:18.  

Verse 11

11 When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise;      And when insight is imparted to a wise man, he receives knowledge.
The thought is the same as at Pro 19:25. The mocker at religion and virtue is incorrigible, punishment avails him nothing, but yet it is not lost; for as a warning example it teaches the simple, who might otherwise be easily drawn into the same frivolity. On the other hand, the wise man needs no punishment, but only strengthening and furtherance: if “instruction” is imparted to him, he embraces it, makes it his own דּעת; for, being accessible to better insight, he gains more and more knowledge. De Dieu, Bertheau, and Zöckler make “the simple” the subject also in 11b: and if a wise man prospers, he (the simple) gains knowledge. But השׂכּיל ל, used thus impersonally, is unheard of; wherefore Hitzig erases the ל before חכם erofeb ל eh: if a wise man has prosperity. But השׂכיל does not properly mean to have prosperity, but only mediately: to act with insight, and on that account with success. The thought that the simple, on the one side, by the merited punishment of the mocker; on the other, by the intelligent prosperous conduct of the wise, comes to reflection, to reason, may indeed be entertained, but the traditional form of the proverb does not need any correction. השׂכּיל may be used not only transitively: to gain insight, Gen 3:6; Psa 2:10, and elsewhere, but also causatively: to make intelligent, with the accus. following, Pro 16:23; Psa 32:8, or: to offer, present insight, as here with the dat.-obj. following (cf. Pro 17:26). Instead of בּענשׁ־, the Kametz of which is false, Codd. and good Edd. have, rightly, בּענשׁ־. Hitzig, making “the wise” the subject to בהשׂכיל (and accordingly “the scorner” would be the subject in 11a), as a correct consequence reads בּענשׁ = בּהענשׁ. For us, with that first correction, this second one also fails. “Both infinitivi constr.,” Fleischer remarks, “are to be taken passively; for the Semitic infin., even of transitive form, as it has no designation of gender, time, and person, is an indeterminate modus, even in regard to the generis verbi (Act. and Pass.).” ^[21]
To this proverb with u-behaskil there is connected the one that follows, beginning with maskil.  

Verse 12

12 A righteous One marketh the house of the godless;      He hurleth the godless to destruction.
If we understand by the word צדּיק a righteous man, then 12a would introduce the warning which he gives, and the unexpressed subject of 12b must be God (Umbreit). But after such an introitus, יהוה ought not to be wanting. If in 12a “the righteous man” is the subject, then it presents itself as such also for the second parallel part. But the thought that the righteous, when he takes notice of the house of the godless, shows attention which of itself hurls the godless into destruction (Löwenstein), would require the sing. רשׁע in the conclusion; also, instead of מסלּף the fut. יסלּף would have been found; and besides, the judicial סלּף (vid., regarding this word at Pro 11:3; Pro 19:3) would not be a suitable word for this confirmation in evil. Thus by צדיק the proverb means God, and מסלף has, as at Pro 22:12, Job 12:19, this word as its subject. “A righteous One” refers to the All-righteous, who is called, Job 34:17, “the All-just One,” and by Rashi, under the passage before us, צדּיקו שׁל־עולם. Only do not translate with Bertheau and Zöckler: the Righteous One (All-righteous), for (1) this would require הצּדּיק, and (2) הצדיק is never by itself used as an attributive designation of God. Rightly, Fleischer and Ewald: a Righteous One, viz., God. It is the indetermination which seeks to present the idea of the great and dreadful: a Righteous One, and such a Righteous One! ^[22] השׂכיל with על, Pro 16:20, or אל, Psa 41:2; Neh 8:13, here with ל, signifies to give attention to anything, to look attentively on it. The two participles stand in the same line: animum advertit ... evertit. Hitzig changes לבּית רשׁע into לבּיתו, and makes רשׁע the subject of 12b; but the proverb as it lies before us is far more intelligible.  

Verse 13

13 He that stoppeth his ear at the cry of the poor      he also calls and is not heard.
Only the merciful find mercy, Mat 5:7; the unmerciful rich man, who has no ear for the cry of the דל, i.e., of him who is without support and means of subsistence, thus of one who is needing support, will also remain unheard when he himself, in the time of need, calls upon God for help. Cf. the parable of the unmerciful servant of the merciful king, Mat 18:23. מן in מזּעקת, as Isa 23:15; Gen 4:13; Gen 27:1; no preposition of our [German] language [nor English] expresses, as Fleischer here remarks, such a fulness of meaning as this מן does, to which, after a verb of shutting up such as אטם (cf. Pro 17:28), the Arab. 'n would correspond, e.g., â'my 'n âltryḳ: blind, so that he does not see the way.  

Verse 14

14 A gift in secret turneth away anger;      And a bribe into the bosom violent wrath.
Hitzig reads with Symmachus, the Targ., and Jerome, יכבּה, and translates: “extinguishes anger;” but it does not follow that they did read יכבה; for the Talm. Heb. כּפה signifies to cover by turning over, e.g., of a vessel, Sanhedrin 77a, which, when it is done to a candle or a fire, may mean its extinction. But כפה of the post-bibl. Heb. also means to bend, and thence to force out (Aram. כּפא, כּפי), according to which Kimchi hesitates whether to explain: overturns = smothers, or: bends = forces down anger. The Venet. follows the latter signification: κάμψει (for Villoison's καλύψει rests on a false reading of the MS). But there is yet possible another derivation from the primary signification, curvare, flectere, vertere, according to which the lxx translates ἀνατρέπει, for which ἀποτρέπει would be yet better: כפה, to bend away, to turn off, ἀρκεῖν, arcere, altogether like the Arab. (compared by Schultens) kfâ, and kfy, ἀρκεῖν, to prevent, whence, e.g., ikfı̂ni hada: hold that away from me, or: spare me that (Fleischer); with the words hafı̂ka sharran (Lat. defendaris semper a malo) princes were anciently saluted; kfy signifies “to suffice,” because enough is there, where there is a keeping off of want. Accordingly we translate: Donum clam acceptum avertit iram, which also the Syr. meant by mephadka (מפרק). This verb is naturally to be supplied to 14b, which the lxx has recognised (it translates: but he who spares gifts, excites violent anger). Regarding שׂחד, vid., at Pro 17:8; and regarding בּחק, at Pro 17:23. Also here חק (חיק = חיק), like Arab. jayb, 'ubb, חב, denotes the bosom of the garment; on the contrary (Arab.) hijr, hiḍn, חצן, is more used of that of the body, or that formed by the drawing together of the body (e.g., of the arm in carrying a child). A present is meant which one brings with him concealed in his bosom; perhaps 13b called to mind the judge that took gifts, Exo 23:8 (Hitzig).  

Verse 15

15 It is a joy to the just to do justice,      And a terror for them that work iniquity.
To act according to the law of rectitude is to these as unto death; injustice has become to them a second nature, so that their heart strives against rectitude of conduct; it also enters to little into their plan of life, and their economy, that they are afraid of ruining themselves thereby. So we believe, with Hitzig, Elster, Zöckler, and Luther, this must be explained in accordance with our interpretation of Pro 10:29. Fleischer and others supplement the second parallel member from the first: וּפעל און מחתּה לפעלי אין; others render 15b as an independent sentence: ruin falls on those who act wickedly. But that ellipsis is hard and scarcely possible; but in general מחתה, as contrasted correlate to שׂמחה, can scarcely have the pure objective sense of ruin or destruction. It must mean a revolution in the heart. Right-doing is to the righteous a pleasure (cf. Pro 10:23); and for those who have און, and are devoid of moral worth, and thus simply immoral as to the aim and sphere of their conduct, right-doing is something which alarms them: when they act in conformity with what is right, they do so after an external impulse only against their will, as if it were death to them.  

Verse 16

16 A man who wanders from the way of understanding,      Shall dwell in the assembly of the dead.
Regarding השׂכּל, vid., Pro 1:3; and regarding רפאים, Pro 2:18. The verb נוּח means to repose, to take rest, Job 3:13, and to dwell anywhere, Pro 14:33; but originally like (Arab.) nâkh and hadd, to lay oneself down anywhere, and there to come to rest; and that is the idea which is here connected with ינוּח, for the figurative description of יאבד or ימוּת is formed after the designation of the subject, 16a: he who, forsaking the way of understanding, walks in the way of error, at length comes to the assembly of the dead; for every motion has an end, and every journey a goal, whether it be one that is self-appointed or which is appointed for him. Here also it is intimated that the way of the soul which loves wisdom and follows her goes in another direction than earthwards down into hades; hades and death, its background appear here as punishments, and it is true that as such one may escape them.  

Verse 17

17 He who loveth pleasure becometh a man of want;      He who loveth wine and oil doth not become rich.
In Arab. samh denotes the joyful action of the “cheerful giver,” 2Co 9:7; in Heb. the joyful affection; here, like farah, pleasure, delight, festival of joy. Jerome: qui diligit epulas. For feasting is specially thought of, where wine was drunk, and oil and other fragrant essences were poured (cf. Pro 27:9; Amo 6:6) on the head and the clothes. He who loves such festivals, and is commonly found there, becomes a man of want, or suffers want (cf. Jdg 12:2, אישׁ ריב, a man of strife); such an one does not become rich (העשׁיר, like Pro 10:4, = עשׂה עשׁר, Jer 17:11); he does not advance, and thus goes backwards.  

Verse 18

18 The godless becometh a ransom for the righteous;      And the faithless cometh into the place of the upright.
The thought is the same as at Pro 11:8. An example of this is, that the same world-commotion which brought the nations round Babylon for its destruction, put an end to Israel's exile: Cyrus, the instrument in God's hands for inflicting punishment on many heathen nations, was Israel's liberator, Isa 43:3. Another example is in the exchange of places by Haman and Mordecai, to which Rashi refers. כּפר is equivalent to λύτρον, ransom; but it properly signifies price of atonement, and generally, means of reconciliation, which covers or atones for the guilt of any one; the poll-tax and “oblations” also, Exo 30:15., Num 31:50, are placed under this point of view, as blotting out guilt: if the righteousness of God obtains satisfaction, it makes its demand against the godless, and lets the righteous go free; or, as the substantival clause 18b expresses, the faithless steps into the place of the upright, for the wrath passes by the latter and falls upon the former. Regarding בּוגד, vid., Pro 2:22. Thus, in contrast to the ישׁר, he is designated, who keeps faith neither with God nor man, and with evil intention enters on deceitful ways - the faithless, the malicious, the assassin.  

Verse 19

With this verse, a doublet to Pro 21:9 (Pro 25:24), the collector makes a new addition; in Pro 21:29 he reaches a proverb which resembles the closing proverb of the preceding group, in its placing in contrast the רשׁע and ישׁר; -
It is better to dwell in a waste land,
Than a contentious wife and vexation.
The corner of the roof, Hitzig remarks, has been made use of, and the author must look further out for a lonely seat. But this is as piquant as it is devoid of thought; for have both proverbs the same author, and if so, were they coined at the same time? Here also it is unnecessary to regard מאשׁת as an abbreviation for משּׁבת עם אשׁת. Hitzig supplies שׁכן, by which אשׁת, as the accus.-obj., is governed; but it is not to be supplied, for the proverb places as opposite to one another dwelling in a waste land (read שׁבת בּארץ־מדבּר, with Codd. and correct Ed.) and a contentious wife (Chethı̂b, מדונים, Kerı̂, מדינים) and vexation, and says the former is better than the latter. For וכעס [and vexation] is not, as translated by the ancients, and generally received, a second governed genitive to אשׁת, but dependent on מן, follows “contentious woman” (cf. 9b): better that than a quarrelsome wife, and at the same time vexation.  

Verse 20

20 Precious treasure and oil are in the dwelling of the wise;      And a fool of a man squanders it.
The wise spares, the fool squanders; and if the latter enters on the inheritance which the former with trouble and care collected, it is soon devoured. The combination אוצר נחמד ושׁמן [desirable treasure and oil] has something inconcinnate, wherefore the accentuation places אוצר by itself by Mehuppach Legarmeh; but it is not to be translated “a treasure of that which is precious, and oil,” since it is punctuated אוצר, and not אוצר; and besides, in that case מחמדּים would have been used instead of נחמד. Thus by אוצר נחמד, a desirable and splendid capital in gold and things of value (Isa 23:18; Psa 19:11); and by שׁמן, mentioned by way of example, stores in kitchen and cellar are to be thought of, which serve him who lives luxuriously, and afford noble hospitality, - a fool of a man (כּסיל אדם, as at Pro 15:20), who finds this, devours it, i.e., quickly goes through it, makes, in short, a tabula rasa of it; cf. בּלע, Isa 28:4, with בּלּע, 2Sa 20:26, and Pro 19:28. The suffix of יבלּענּוּ refers back to אוצר as the main idea, or distributively also both to the treasure and the oil. The lxx (θησαυρὸς ἐπιθυμητὸς) ἀναπαύσεται ἐπὶ στόματος σοφοῦ, i.e., ישׁכן בפה חכם, according to which Hitzig corrects; but the fool, he who swallows down “the precious treasure with a wise mouth,” is a being we can scarcely conceive of. His taste is not at all bad; why then a fool? Is it perhaps because he takes more in than he can at one time digest? The reading of the lxx is corrected by 20b.  

Verse 21

21 He that followeth after righteousness and kindness      Will obtain life, righteousness, and honour.
How we are to render צדקה וחסד is seen from the connection of Pro 21:3 and Hos 6:7 : tsedakah is conduct proceeding from the principle of self-denying and compassionate love, which is the essence of the law, Mic 6:8; and hesed is conduct proceeding from sympathy, which, placing itself in the room of another, perceives what will benefit him, and sets about doing it (cf. e.g., Job 6:14 : to him who is inwardly melted disheartened חסד is due from his neighbour). The reward which one who strives thus to act obtains, is designated 21b by חיּים and כּבוד. Honour and life stand together, Pro 22:4, when עשׁר precedes, and here צדקה stands between, which, Pro 8:18, Psa 24:5, is thought of as that which is distributed as a gift of heaven, Isa 45:8, which has glory in its train, Isa 58:8; as Paul also says, “Whom He justified, them He also glorified.” The lxx has omitted tsedakah, because it can easily appear as erroneously repeated from 21a. But in reality there are three good things which are promised to those who are zealous in the works of love: a prosperous life, enduring righteousness, true honour. Life as it proceeds from God, the Living One, righteousness as it avails the righteous and those doing righteously before God, honour or glory (Psa 29:3) as it is given (Psa 84:12) by the God of glory. Cf. with חיים צדקה, Pro 10:2, and with צדקה, especially Jam 2:13, κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως.   ==Verse 22== 22 A wise man scaleth a city of the mighty;      And casteth down the fortress in which they trusted.
Ecc 9:14. is a side-piece to this, according to which a single wise man, although poor, may become the deliverer of a city besieged by a great army, and destitute of the means of defence. עלה, seq. acc., means to climb up, Joe 2:7; here, of the scaling of a fortified town, viz., its fortress. עז is that which makes it עיר עז, Isa 26:1 : its armour of protection, which is designated by the genit. מבטחה, as the object and ground of their confidence. The vocalization מבטחה, for mibtachcha (cf. Jer 48:13 with Job 18:14), follows the rule Gesen. §27, Anm. 2b. The suff., as in לאתננּה, Isa 23:17, is lightened, because if its mappik, Michlol 30b; vid., regarding the various grounds of these formae raphatae pro mappicatis, Böttcher, §418. If a city is defended by ever so many valiant men, the wise man knows the point where it may be overcome, and knows how to organize the assault so as to destroy the proud fortress. With ויּרד, he brings to ruin, cf. עד רדתּהּ, Deu 20:20.  

Verse 23

23 He that guardeth his mouth and his tongue,      Keepeth his soul from troubles.
Pro 13:3 resembles this. He guardeth his mouth who does not speak when he does better to be silent; and he guardeth his tongue who says no more than is right and fitting. The troubles comprehend both external and internal evils, hurtful incidents and (נפשׁ) צרות לבב, Psa 25:17; Psa 31:8, i.e., distress of conscience, self-accusation, sorrow on account of the irreparable evil which one occasions.  

Verse 24

24 A proud and arrogant man is called mocker (free-spirit);      One who acteth in superfluity of haughtiness.
We have thus translated (vol. i. p. 39): the proverb defines almost in a formal way an idea current from the time of Solomon: לץ (properly, the distorter, vid., Pro 1:7) is an old word; but as with us in the west since the last century, the names of free-thinkers and esprits forts (cf. Isa 46:12) have become current for such as subject the faith of the Church to destructive criticism, so then they were called לצים, who mockingly, as men of full age, set themselves above revealed religion and prophecy (Isa 28:9); and the above proverb gives the meaning of this name, for it describes in his moral character such a man. Thus we call one זד, haughty, and זד יהיר dna ,, i.e., destroying himself, and thus thoughtlessly haughty, who בּעברת זדון acts in superfluity or arrogance (vid., at Pro 11:23) of haughtiness; for not only does he inwardly raise himself above all that is worthy of recognition as true, of faith as certain, of respect as holy; but acting as well as judging frivolously, he shows reverence for nothing, scornfully passing sentence against everything. Abulwalîd (vid., Gesen. Thes.) takes יהיר in the sense of obstinate; for he compares the Arab. jahr (jahar), which is equivalent to lijâj, constancy, stubbornness. But in the Targ. and Talm. (vid., at Hab 2:5, Levy's Chald. Wörterb. under יהיר) יהר in all its offshoots and derivations has the sense of pride; we have then rather to compare the Arab. istaihara, to be insane (= dhahb 'aḳlh, mens ejus alienata est), perhaps also to hajjir, mutahawwir, being overthrown, praeceps, so that יהיר denotes one who by his ὑπερφρονεῖν is carried beyond all σωφρονεῖν (vid., Rom 12:3), one who is altogether mad from pride. The Syr. madocho (Targ. מריחא), by which יהיר (Targ. יהיר) is rendered here and at Hab 2:5, is its synonym; this word also combines in itself the ideas foolhardy, and of one acting in a presumptuous, mad way; in a word, of one who is arrogant. Schultens is in the right way; but when he translates by tumidus mole cava ruens, he puts, as it is his custom to do, too much into the word; tumidus, puffed up, presents an idea which, etymologically at least, does not lie in it. The Venet.: ἀκρατὴς θρασὺς βωμολόχος τοὔνομά οἱ, which may be translated: an untractable reckless person we call a fool [homo ineptus], is not bad.  

Verse 25

25 The desire of the slothful killeth him;      For his hands refuse to be active.
The desire of the עצל, Hitzig remarks, goes out first after meat and drink; and when it takes this direction, as hunger, it kills him indeed. But in this case it is not the desire that kills him, but the impossibility of satisfying it. The meaning is simply: the inordinate desire after rest and pleasure kills the slothful; for this always seeking only enjoyment and idleness brings him at last to ruin. תּאוה means here, as in Kibroth ha-tava, Num 11:34, inordinate longing after enjoyments. The proverb is connected by almost all interpreters (also Ewald, Bertheau, Hitzig, Elster, Zöckler) as a tetrastich with Pro 21:25 : he (the slothful) always eagerly desires, but the righteous giveth and spareth not. But (1) although צדּיק, since it designates one who is faithful to duty, might be used particularly of the industrious (cf. Pro 15:19), yet would there be wanting in 26a ואין, Pro 13:4, cf. Pro 20:4, necessary for the formation of the contrast; (2) this older Book of Proverbs consists of pure distichs; the only tristich, Pro 19:7, appears as the consequence of a mutilation from the lxx. Thus the pretended tetrastich before us is only apparently such.  

Verse 26

26 One always desireth eagerly;      But the righteous giveth and holdeth not back.
Otherwise Fleischer: per totum diem avet avidus, i.e., avarus; but that in התאוּה תּאוה the verb is connected with its inner obj. is manifest from Num 11:4; it is the mode of expression which is called in the Greek syntax schema etymologicum, and which is also possible without an adj. joined to the obj., as in the ὕβριν θ ̓ ὑβρίζεις (Eurip. Herc. fur. 706), the Arab. mârâhu miryatn: he had a strife with him. Euchel impossibly: necessities will continually be appeased, which would have required תּתאוּה or מתאוּה. The explanation also cannot be: each day presents its special demand, for כּל־היּום does not mean each day, but the whole day, i.e., continually. Thus we render התאוה with the most general subject (in which case the national grammarians supply המּתאוּה): continually one longs longing, i.e., there are demands, solicitations, wishes, importunate petitions; but still the righteous is not embarrassed in his generosity, he gives as unceasingly (cf. Isa 14:6; Isa 58:1) as one asks. Thus the perf. is explained, which is related hypothetically to the fut. following: though one, etc.  

Verse 27

27 The sacrifice of the godless is an abomination;      How much more if it is brought for evil!
Line first = Pro 15:8. Regarding the syllogistic אף כּי, vid., 12:31; Pro 15:11; regarding זמּה, crime, particularly the sin of lewdness (from זמם, to press together, to collect the thoughts upon something, to contrive, cf. raffinement de la volupté), at Pro 10:23. בּזמּה is too vaguely rendered in the lxx by παρονόμως, falsely by Jerome, ex scelere (cf. ἐξ ἀδίκου, Sir. 31:18, with Mal 1:13). The ב is not meant, as at Eze 22:11, of the way and manner; for that the condition of life of the רשׁע is not a pure one, is not to be supposed. It is as Hitzig, rightly, that of price: for a transgression, i.e., to atone for it; one is hereby reminded, that he who had intercourse with a betrothed bondmaid had to present an ascham [trespass-offering], Lev 19:20-22. But frequently enough would it occur that rich sensualists brought trespass-offerings, and other offerings, in order thereby to recompense for their transgressions, and to purchase for themselves the connivance of God for their dissolute life. Such offerings of the godless, the proverb means, are to God a twofold and a threefold abomination; for in this case not only does the godless fail in respect of repentance and a desire after salvation, which are the conditions of all sacrifices acceptable to God, but he makes God directly a minister of sin.  

Verse 28

28 A false witness shall perish;      But he who heareth shall always speak truth.
The lxx translate 28b by ἀνὴρ δὲ φυλασσόμενος λαλήσει. Cappellus supposes that they read לנצר for לנצה, which, however, cannot mean “taking care.” Hitzig further imagines שׂמח for שׁמע, and brings out the meaning: “the man that rejoiceth to deliver shall speak.” But where in all the world does נצר mean “to deliver”? It means, “to guard, preserve;” and to reach the meaning of “to deliver,” a clause must be added with מן, as מרע. When one who speaks lies (עד כּזבים), and a man who hears (אישׁ שּׁומע, plene, and with the orthophonic Dagesh), are contrasted, the former is one who fancifully or malevolently falsifies the fact, and the latter is one who before he speaks hears in order that he may say nothing that he has not surely heard. As לב שׁמע, 1Ki 3:9, means an obedient heart, so here אישׁ שּׁומע means a man who attentively hears, carefully proves. Such an one will speak לנצח, i.e., not: according to the truth, and not: for victory (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, εἰς νῖκος), i.e., so that accomplishes it (Oetinger); for the Heb. נצח has neither that Arab. nor this Aram. signification; but, with the transference of the root meaning of radiating or streaming over, to time, continuous existence (vid., Orelli, Synonyma der Zeit und Ewigkeit, pp. 96-97), thus: he will speak for continuance, i.e., either: without ever requiring to be silent, or, which we prefer: so that what he says stands; on the contrary, he who testifies mere fictions, i.e., avers that they are truth, is destroyed (28a = Pro 19:9, cf. 5): he himself comes to nothing, since his testimonies are referred to their groundlessness and falsity; for שׁקר אין לו רגלים, the lie has no feet on which it can stand, it comes to nothing sooner or later.  

Verse 29

Another proverb with אישׁ: -
A godless man showeth boldness in his mien;
But one that is upright-he proveth his way.
The Chethı̂b has יכין; but that the upright directeth, dirigit, his way, i.e., gives to it the right direction (cf. 2Ch 27:6), is not a good contrast to the boldness of the godless; the Kerı̂, הבין דּרכּו, deserves the preference. Aquila, Symmachus, the Syr., Targ., and Venet. adhere to the Chethı̂b, which would be suitable if it could be translated, with Jerome, by corrigit; Luther also reads the verb with כ, but as if it were יכּון (whoever is pious, his way will stand) - only the lxx render the Kerı̂ (συνιεῖ); as for the rest, the ancients waver between the Chethı̂b דּרכיו and the Kerı̂ דּרכּו: the former refers to manner of life in general; the latter (as at Pro 3:31 and elsewhere) to the conduct in separate cases; thus the one is just as appropriate as the other. In the circumstantial designation אישׁ רשׁע (cf. Pro 11:7) we have the stamp of the distinction of different classes of men peculiar to the Book of Proverbs. העז (to make firm, defiant) had, Pro 7:13, פנים as accus.; the בּ here is not that used in metaphoristic expressions instead of the accus. obj., which we have spoken of at Pro 15:4; Pro 20:30, but that of the means; for the face is thought of, not as the object of the action, but, after Gesen. §138, 1, as the means of its accomplishment: the godless makes (shows) firmness, i.e., defiance, accessibility to no admonition, which is countenance; but the upright considers, i.e., proves (Pro 14:8), his way. בּין (הבין) means a perceiving of the object in its specific peculiarity, an understanding of its constituent parts and essential marks; it denotes knowing an event analytically, as השׂכּיל, as well as synthetically (cf. Arab. shakl), and is thus used as the expression of a perception, which apprehends the object not merely immediately, but closely examines into its circumstances.  
If we further seek for the boundaries, the proverbs regarding the rich and the poor, Pro 22:2, Pro 22:7, Pro 22:16, present themselves as such, and this the more surely as Pro 22:16 is without contradiction the terminus. Thus we take first together 21:30-22:2.  

Verse 30

30 No wisdom and no understanding,      And no counsel is there against Jahve.
The expression might also be 'לפני ה; but the predominating sense would then be, that no wisdom appears to God as such, that He values none as such. With לנגד the proverb is more objective: there is no wisdom which, compared with His, can be regarded as such (cf. 1Co 3:19), none which can boast itself against Him, or can at all avail against Him (לנגד, as Dan 10:12; Neh. 3:37); whence it follows (as Job 28:28) that the wisdom of man consists in the fear of God the Alone-wise, or, which is the same thing, the All-wise. Immanuel interprets חכמה of theology, תּבוּנה of worldly science, עצה of politics; but חכמה is used of the knowledge of truth, i.e., of that which truly is and continues; תבונה of criticism, and עצה of system and method; vid., at Pro 1:2; Pro 8:14, from which latter passage the lxx has substituted here גבורה instead of תבונה. Instead of 'לנגד ה it translates πρὸς τὸν ἀσεβῆ, i.e., for that which is 'נגד ה against Jahve.  

Verse 31

31 The horse is harnessed for the day of battle;      But with Jahve is the victory, i.e., it remains with Him to give the victory or not, for the horse is a vain means of victory, Isa 33:17; the battle is the Lord's, 1Sa 17:47, i.e., it depends on Him how the battle shall issue; and king and people who have taken up arms in defence of their rights have thus to trust nothing in the multitude of their war-horses (סוּס, horses, including their riders), and generally in their preparations for the battle, but in the Lord (cf. Psa 20:8, and, on the contrary, Isa 31:1). The lxx translates התּשׁוּעה by ἡ βοήθεια, as if the Arab. name of victory, naṣr, proceeding from this fundamental meaning, stood in the text; תשׁועה (from ישׁע, Arab. ws', to be wide, to have free space for motion) signifies properly prosperity, as the contrast of distress, oppression, slavery, and victory (cf. e.g., Psa 144:10, and ישׁוּעה, 1Sa 14:45). The post-bibl. Heb. uses נצח (נצּחון) for victory; but the O.T. Heb. has no word more fully covering this idea than תשׁועה (ישׁועה). ^[23]   Chap. 22=

Verse 1

Pro 21:1 1 A good name has the preference above great riches; For more than silver and gold is grace.
The proverb is constructed chiastically; the commencing word נבחר (cf. Pro 21:3), and the concluding word טוב, are the parallel predicates; rightly, none of the old translators have been misled to take together חן טוב, after the analogy of שׂכל טוב, Pro 3:14; Pro 13:15. שׁם also does not need טוב for nearer determination; the more modern idiom uses שׁם טוב,^[24] the more ancient uses שׁם alone (e.g., Ecc 7:1), in the sense of ὄνομα καλόν (thus here lxx); for being well known (renowned) is equivalent to a name, and the contrary to being nameless (Job 30:8); to make oneself a name, is equivalent to build a monument in honour of oneself; possibly the derivation of the word from שׁמה, to be high, prominent, known, may have contributed to this meaning of the word sensu eximio, for שׁם has the same root word as שׁמים. Luther translates שׁם by Das Gerücht [rumour, fame], in the same pregnant sense; even to the present day, renom, recommée, riputazione, and the like, are thus used. The parallel חן signifies grace and favour (being beloved); grace, which brings favour (Pro 11:16); and favour, which is the consequence of a graceful appearance, courtesy, and demeanour (e.g., Est 2:15).

Verse 2

Pro 22:2 2 The rich and the poor meet together; The creator of them all is Jahve.
From this, that God made them all, i.e., rich and poor in the totality of their individuals, it follows that the meeting together is His will and His ordinance; they shall in life push one against another, and for what other purpose than that this relationship of mutual intercourse should be a school of virtue: the poor shall not envy the rich (Pro 3:31), and the rich shall not despise the poor, who has the same God and Father as himself (Pro 14:31; Pro 17:5; Pro 31:15); they shall remain conscious of this, that the intermingling of the diversities of station is for this end, that the lowly should serve the exalted, and the exalted should serve the lowly. Pro 29:13 is a variation; there also for both, but particularly for the rich, lies in the proverb a solemn warning.

Verse 3

The group of proverbs beginning here terminates at Pro 22:7, where, like the preceding, it closes with a proverb of the rich and the poor. 3 The prudent seeth the evil, and hideth himself; But the simple go forward, and suffer injury.
This proverb repeats itself with insignificant variations, Pro 27:12. The Kerı̂ ונסתּר makes it more conformable to the words there used. The Chethı̂b is not to be read ויסתּר, for this Kal is inusit., but ויסּתר, or much rather ויּסּתר, since it is intended to be said what immediate consequence on the part of a prudent man arises from his perceiving an evil standing before him; he sees, e.g., the approaching overthrow of a decaying house, or in a sudden storm the fearful flood, and betimes betakes himself to a place of safety; the simple, on the contrary, go blindly forward into the threatening danger, and must bear the punishment of their carelessness. The fut. consec. 3a denotes the hiding of oneself as that which immediately follows from the being observant; the two perf. 3b, on the other hand, with or without ו, denote the going forward and meeting with punishment as occurring contemporaneously (cf. Psa 48:6, and regarding these diverse forms of construction, at Hab 3:10). “The interchange of the sing. and plur. gives us to understand that several or many simple ones are found for one prudent man” (Hitzig). The Niph. of ענשׁ signifies properly to be punished by pecuniary fine (Exo 21:22) (cf. the post-bibl. קנס, קנס, to threaten punishment, which appears to have arisen from censere, to estimate, to lay on taxes); here it has the general meaning of being punished, viz., of the self-punishment of want of foresight.

Verse 4

Pro 22:4 4 The reward of humility is the fear of Jahve, Is riches, and honour, and life.
As ענוה־צדק, Psa 45:5, is understood of the two virtues, meekness and righteousness, so here the three Göttingen divines (Ewald, Bertheau, and Elster), as also Dunasch, see in 'ענוה יראת ה an asyndeton; the poet would then have omitted vav, because instead of the copulative connection he preferred the appositional (Schultens: praemium mansuetudinis quae est reverentia Jehovae) or the permutative (the reward of humility; more accurately expressed: the fear of God). It is in favour of this interpretation that the verse following (Pro 22:5) also shows an asyndeton. Luther otherwise: where one abides in the fear of the Lord; and Oetinger: the reward of humility, endurance, calmness in the fear of the Lord, is...; Fleischer also interprets 'יראת ה as Pro 21:4, חטאת (lucerna impiroum vitiosa), as the accus. of the nearer definition. But then is the nearest-lying construction: the reward of humility is the fear of God, as all old interpreters understand 4a (e.g., Symmachus, ὕστερον πραΰ́τητος φόβος κυρίου), a thought so incomprehensible, that one must adopt one or other of these expedients? On the one side, we may indeed say that the fear of God brings humility with it; but, on the other hand, it is just as conformable to experience that the fear of God is a consequence of humility; for actually to subordinate oneself to God, and to give honour to Him alone, one must have broken his self-will, and come to the knowledge of himself in his dependence, nothingness, and sin; and one consequence by which humility is rewarded, may be called the fear of God, because it is the root of all wisdom, or as is here said (cf. Pro 3:16; Pro 8:18), because riches, and honour, and life are in its train. Thus 4a is a concluded sentence, which in 4b is so continued, that from 4a the predicate is to be continued: the reward of humility is the fear of God; it is at the same time riches... Hitzig conjectures 'ראוּת ה, the beholding Jahve; but the visio Dei (beatifica) is not a dogmatic idea thus expressed in the O.T. עקב denotes what follows a thing, from עקב, to tread on the heels (Fleischer); for עקב (Arab. 'aḳib) is the heels, as the incurvation of the foot; and עקב, the consequence (cf. Arab. 'aḳb, 'ukb, posteritas), is mediated through the v. denom. עקב, to tread on the heels, to follow on the heels (cf. denominatives, such as Arab. batn, zahr, 'ân, עין, to strike the body, the back, the eye).

Verse 5

Pro 22:5 5 Thorns, snares, are on the way of the crooked; He that guardeth his soul, let him keep far from them.
Rightly the Venet. ἄκανθαι παγίδες ἐν ὁδῷ στρεβλοῦ. The meaning of צנּים (plur. of צן, or צנּה, the same as צנינים) and פּחים (from פּח, Arab. faḥ), stands fast, though it be not etymologically verified; the placing together of these two words (the lxx obliterating the asyndeton: τρίβολος καὶ παγίδες) follows the scheme שׁמשׁ ירח, Hab 3:11. The עקּשׁ־לב (perverse of heart, crooked, Pro 17:20; Pro 11:20) drives his crooked winding way, corresponding to his habit of mind, which is the contrast and the perversion of that which is just, a way in which there are thorns which entangle and wound those who enter thereon, snares which unexpectedly bring them down and hold them fast as prisoners; the hedge of thorns, Pro 15:19, was a figure of the hindrances in the way of the wicked themselves. The thorn and snares here are a figure of the hindrances and dangers which go forth from the deceitful and the false in the way of others, of those who keep their souls, i.e., who outwardly and morally take heed to their life (Pro 16:17; Pro 13:3, pred. here subj.), who will keep, or are disposed to keep, themselves from these thorns, these snares into which the deceitful and perverse-hearted seek to entice them.

Verse 6

Pro 22:6 6 Give to the child instruction conformably to His way; So he will not, when he becomes old, depart from it.
The first instruction is meant which, communicated to the child, should be על־פּי, after the measure (Gen 43:7 = post-bibl. לפי and כּפי) of his way, i.e., not: of his calling, which he must by and by enter upon (Bertheau, Zöckler), which דּרכּו of itself cannot mean; also not: of the way which he must keep in during life (Kidduschin 30a); nor: of his individual nature (Elster); but: of the nature of the child as such, for דּרך נער is the child's way, as e.g., derek col-haarets, Gen 19:31, the general custom of the land; derek Mitsrâyim, Isa 10:24, the way (the manner of acting) of the Egyptians. The instruction of youth, the education of youth, ought to be conformed to the nature of youth; the matter of instruction, the manner of instruction, ought to regulate itself according to the stage of life, and its peculiarities; the method ought to be arranged according to the degree of development which the mental and bodily life of the youth has arrived at. The verb חנך is a denominative like עקב, Pro 22:4; it signifies to affect the taste, חך (= חנך), in the Arab. to put date syrup into the mouth of the suckling; so that we may compare with it the saying of Horace, Ep. i. 2, 69: Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem Testa diu. In the post-bibl. Heb. חנּוּך denotes that which in the language of the Church is called catechizatio; חנוך (לנער) ספר is the usual title of the catechisms. It is the fundamental and first requisite of all educational instruction which the proverb formulates, a suitable motto for the lesson-books of pedagogues and catechists. ממּנּה [from it] refers to that training of youth, in conformity with his nature, which becomes a second nature, that which is imprinted, inbred, becomes accustomed. Pro 22:6 is wanting in the lxx; where it exists in MSS of the lxx, it is supplied from Theodotion; the Complut. translates independently from the Heb. text.

Verse 7

Pro 22:7 7 A rich man will rule over the poor, And the borrower is subject to the man who lends. “This is the course of the world. As regards the sing. and plur. in 7a, there are many poor for one rich; and in the Orient the rule is generally in the hands of one” (Hitzig). The fut. denotes how it will and must happen, and the substantival clause 7b, which as such is an expression of continuance (Arab. thabât, i.e., of the remaining and continuing), denotes that contracting of debt brings naturally with it a slavish relation of dependence. לוה, properly he who binds himself to one se ei obligat, and מלוה, as Pro 19:17 (vid., l.c.), qui alterum (mutui datione) obligat, from לוה, Arab. lwy, to wind, turn, twist round (cog. root laff), whence with Fleischer is also to be derived the Aram. לות, “into connection;” so אל, properly “pushing against,” refers to the radically related אלה (= ולה), contiguum esse. אישׁ מלוה is one who puts himself in the way of lending, although not directly in a professional manner. The pred. precedes its subject according to rule. Luther rightly translates: and he who borrows is the lender's servant, whence the pun on the proper names: “Borghart [= the borrower] is Lehnhart's [= lender's] servant.”

Verse 8

The group now following extends to the end of this first collection of Solomon's proverbs; it closes also with a proverb of the poor and the rich. 8 He that soweth iniquity shall reap calamity; And the rod of his fury shall vanish away. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal 6:7); he that soweth good reapeth good, Pro 11:18; he that soweth evil reapeth evil, Job 4:8; cf. Hos 10:12. עולה is the direct contrast of צדקה or ישׁר (e.g., Psa 125:3; Psa 107:42), proceeding from the idea that the good is right, i.e., straight, rectum; the evil, that which departs from the straight line, and is crooked. Regarding און, which means both perversity of mind and conduct, as well as destiny, calamity, vid., Pro 12:21. That which the poet particularly means by עולה is shown in 8b, viz., unsympathizing tyranny, cruel misconduct toward a neighbour. שׁבט עברתו is the rod which he who soweth iniquity makes another to feel in his anger. The saying, that an end will be to this rod of his fury, agrees with that which is said of the despot's sceptre, Isa 14:5.; Psa 125:3. Rightly Fleischer: baculus insolentiae ejus consumetur h. e. facultas qua pollet alios insolenter tractandi evanescet. Hitzig's objection, that a rod does not vanish away, but is broken, is answered by this, that the rod is thought of as brandished; besides, one uses כּלה of anything which has an end, e.g., Isa 16:4. Other interpreters understand “the rod of his fury” of the rod of God's anger, which will strike the עוּל and יכלה, as at Eze 5:13; Dan 12:7 : “and the rod of His punishment will surely come” (Ewald, and similarly Schultens, Euchel, Umbreit). This though also hovers before the lxx: πληγὴν δὲ ἔργων αὐτοῦ (עבדתו) συντελέσει (יכלּה). But if the rod of punishment which is appointed for the unrighteous be meant, then we would have expected כּלהו. Taken in the future, the כּלות of the שׁבט is not its confectio in the sense of completion, but its termination or annihilation; and besides, it lies nearer after 8a to take the suffix of עברתו subjectively (Isa 14:6; Isa 16:6) than objectively. The lxx has, after Pro 22:8, a distich: - ἄνδρα ἱλαρὸν καὶ δότην εὐλογεῖ ὁ θεὸς ματαιότητα δὲ ἔργων αὐτοῦ συντελέσει.
The first line (2Co 9:7) is a variant translation of 9a (cf. Pro 21:17), the second (ושׁוא עבדתו) is a similar rendering of 8b.

Verse 9

Pro 22:9 9 He who is friendly is blessed; Because he giveth of his bread to the poor.
The thought is the same as at Pro 11:25. טוב עין (thus to be written without Makkeph, with Munach of the first word, with correct Codd., also 1294 and Jaman), the contrast of רע עין, Pro 23:6; Pro 22:22, i.e., the envious, evil-eyed, ungracious (post-bibl. also צר עין), is one who looks kindly, is good-hearted, and as ἱλαρὸς δότης, shows himself benevolent. Such gentleness and kindness is called in the Mishna עין טובה (Aboth ii. 13), or עין יפה. Such a friend is blessed, for he has also himself scattered blessings (cf. גּם־הוּא, Pro 11:25; Pro 21:13); he has, as is said, looking back from the blessing that has happened to him, given of his bread (Luther, as the lxx, with partitive genitive: seines brots = of his bread) to the poor; cf. the unfolding of this blessing of self-denying love, Isa 8. The lxx has also here another distich: Νίκην καὶ τιμὴν περιποιεῖται ὁ δῶρα δοὺς, Τὴν μέντοι ψυχὴν ἀφαιρεῖται τῶν κεκτημένων.
The first line appears a variant translation of Pro 19:6, and the second of Pro 1:19, according to which selfishness, in contrast to liberality, is the subject to be thought of. Ewald translates the second line: And he (who distributes gifts) conquers the soul of the recipients. But κεκτημένος = בּעל (בּעלים) signifies the possessor, not the recipient of anything as a gift, who cannot also be here meant because of the μέντοι.

Verse 10

Pro 22:10 10 Chase away the scorner, and contention goeth out, And strife and reproach rest.
If in a company, a circle of friends, a society (lxx ἔκβαλε ἐκ συνεδρίου), a wicked man is found who (vid., the definition of לץ, Pro 21:24) treats religious questions without respect, moral questions in a frivolous way, serious things jestingly, and in his scornful spirit, his passion for witticism, his love of anecdote, places himself above the duty of showing reverence, veneration, and respect, there will arise ceaseless contentions and conflicts. Such a man one ought to chase away; then there will immediately go forth along with him dispeace (מדון), there will then be rest from strife and disgrace, viz., of the strife which such a one draws forth, and the disgrace which it brings on the society, and continually prepares for it. קלון is commonly understood of the injury, abuse, which others have to suffer from the scoffer, or also (thus Fleischer, Hitzig) of the opprobria of the contentious against one another. But קלון is not so used; it means always disgrace, as something that happens, an experience, vid., at Pro 18:3. The praise of one who is the direct contrast of a לץ is celebrated in the next verse.

Verse 11

Pro 22:11 11 He that loveth heart-purity, Whose is grace of lips, the king is his friend.
Thus with Hitzig, it is to be translated not: he who loveth with a pure heart - we may interpret טהור־לב syntactically in the sense of puritate cordis or purus corde (Ralbag, Ewald, after Pro 20:7), for that which follows אהב and is its supplement has to stand where possible as the accus. of the object; thus not: qui amat puritatem cordis, gratiosa erunt labia ejus (de Dieu, Geier, Schultens, C. B. Michaelis, Fleischer), for between heart-purity and graciousness of speech there exists a moral relation, but yet no necessary connection of sequence; also not: he who loves purity of heart, and grace on his lips (Aben Ezra, Schelling, Bertheau), for “to love the grace of one's own lips” is an awkward expression, which sounds more like reprehensible self-complacency than a praiseworthy endeavour after gracious speech. Excellently Luther: “He who has a true heart and amiable speech,
The king is his friend.” טהור־לב is not adjectival, but substantival; טהר־ is thus not the constr. of the mas. טהור, as Job 17:10, but of the segolate טהר, or (since the ground-form of גּבהּ, 1Sa 16:7, may be גּבהּ as well as גּבהּ) of the neut. טהור, like קדשׁ, Psa 46:5; Psa 65:5 : that which is pure, the being pure = purity (Schultens). הן שׂפתיו (gracefulness of his lips) is the second subject with the force of a relative clause, although not exactly thus thought of, but: one loving heart-purity, gracefulness on his lips - the king is his friend. Ewald otherwise: “he will be the king's friend,” after the scheme Pro 13:4; but here unnecessarily refined. A counsellor and associate who is governed by a pure intention, and connects therewith a gentle and amiable manner of speech and conversation, attaches the king to himself; the king is the רעה (רע), the friend of such an one, and he also is “the friend of the king,” 1Ki 4:5. It is a Solomonic proverb, the same in idea as Pro 16:13. The lxx, Syr., and Targ. introduce after אהב the name of God; but 11b does not syntactically admit of this addition. But it is worth while to take notice of an interpretation which is proposed by Jewish interpreters: the friend of such an one is a king, i.e., he can royally rejoice in him and boast of him. The thought is beautiful; but, as the comparison of other proverbs speaking of the king shows, is not intended.

Verse 12

Pro 22:12 12 The eyes of Jahve preserve knowledge; So he frustrateth the words of the false.
The phrase “to preserve knowledge” is found at Pro 5:2; there, in the sense of to keep, retain; here, of protecting, guarding; for it cannot possibly be said that the eyes of God keep themselves by the rule of knowledge, and thus preserve knowledge; this predicate is not in accord with the eyes, and is, as used of God, even inappropriate. On the other hand, after “to preserve,” in the sense of watching, guarding a concrete object is to be expected, cf. Isa 26:3. We need not thus with Ewald supply יודע; the ancients are right that דעת, knowledge, stands metonymically for אישׁ (Meîri), or אנשׁי (Aben Ezra), or יודעי דעת (Arama); Schultens rightly: Cognitio veritatis ac virtutis practica fertur ad homines eam colentes ac praestantes. Where knowledge of the true and the good exists, there does it stand under the protection of God. 12b shows how that is meant, for there the perf. is continued in the second consec. modus (fut. consec.): there is thus protection against the assaults of enemies who oppose the knowledge which they hate, and seek to triumph over it, and to suppress it by their crooked policy. But God stands on the side of knowledge and protects it, and consequently makes vain the words (the outspoken resolutions) of the deceitful. Regarding סלף (סלף), vid., Pro 11:3 and Pro 19:3. The meaning of סלּף דּברי is here essentially different from that in Exo 23:8; Deu 16:19 : he perverteth their words, for he giveth them a bearing that is false, i.e., not leading to the end. Hitzig reads רעות [wickedness] for דעת, which Zöckler is inclined to favour: God keeps the evil which is done in His eyes, and hinders its success; but “to observe wickedness” is an ambiguous, untenable expression; the only passage that can be quoted in favour of this “to observe” is Job 7:20. The word דעת, handed down without variation, is much rather justified.

Verse 13

Pro 22:13 13 The sluggard saith, “A lion is without, I shall be slain in the midst of the streets.”
Otherwise rendered, Pro 26:13. There, as here, the perf. אמר has the meaning of an abstract present, Gesen. §126. 3. The activity of the industrious has its nearest sphere at home; but here a work is supposed which requires him to go forth (Psa 104:3) into the field (Pro 24:27). Therefore חוּץ stands first, a word of wide signification, which here denotes the open country outside the city, where the sluggard fears to meet a lion, as in the streets, i.e., the rows of houses forming them, to meet a רצח (מרצּח), i.e., a murder from motives of robbery of revenge. This strong word, properly to destroy, crush, Arab. raḍkh, is intentionally chosen: there is designed to be set forth the ridiculous hyperbolical pretence which the sluggard seeks for his slothfulness (Fleischer). Luther right well: “I might be murdered on the streets.” But there is intentionally the absence of אוּלי [perhaps] and of פּן [lest]. Meîri here quotes a passage of the moralists: ממופתי העצל הנבואה (prophesying) belongs to the evidences of the sluggard; and Euchel, the proverb העצלים מתנבאים (the sluggard's prophecy), i.e., the sluggard acts like a prophet, that he may palliate his slothfulness.

Verse 14

Pro 22:14 14 A deep pit is the mouth of a strange woman; He that is cursed of God falleth therein.
The first line appears in a different form as a synonymous distich, Pro 23:27. The lxx translate στόμα παρανόμου without certainly indicating which word they here read, whether רע (Pro 4:14), or רשׁע (Pro 29:12), or נלוז (Pro 3:32). Pro 23:27 is adduced in support of זרות (vid., Pro 2:16); זנות (harlots) are meant, and it is not necessary thus to read with Ewald. The mouth of this strange woman or depraved Israelitess is a deep ditch (שׁוּחה עמקּה, otherwise עמקה, as Pro 23:27, where also occurs עמוּקה^[25] namely, a snare-pit into which he is enticed by her wanton words; the man who stands in fellowship with God is armed against this syren voice; but the 'זעוּם ה, i.e., he who is an object of the divine זעם (Venet. κεχολωμένος τῷ ὀντωτῇ), indignation, punishing evil with evil, falls into the pit, yielding to the seduction and the ruin. Schultens explains 'זעום ה by, is in quem despumat indignabundus; but the meaning despumat is not substantiated; זעם, cf. Arab. zaghm, is probably a word which by its sound denoted anger as a hollow roaring, and like pealing thunder. The lxx has, after Pro 22:14, three tedious moralizing lines.

Verse 15

Pro 22:15 15 Folly is bound to the heart of a child; The rod of correction driveth it forth.
Folly, i.e., pleasure in stupid tricks, silly sport, and foolish behaviour, is the portion of children as such; their heart is as yet childish, and folly is bound up in it. Education first driveth forth this childish, foolish nature (for, as Menander says: Ὁ μὴ δαρεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐ παιδεύεται), and if effects this when it is unindulgently severe: the שׁבט מוּסר (vid., Pro 23:13) removeth אוּלת from the heart, for it imparts intelligence and makes wise (Pro 29:15). The lxx is right in rendering 16a: ἄνοια ἐξῆπται (from ἐξάπτειν) καρδίας νέου; but the Syr. has “here mangled the lxx, and in haste has read ἀνοίᾳ ἐξίπταται: folly makes the understanding of the child fly away” (Lagarde).

Verse 16

Pro 22:16 16 Whosoever oppresseth the lowly, it is gain to him; Whosoever giveth to the rich, it is only loss.
It is before all clear that להרבּות and למחסור, as at Pro 21:5, למותר and למחסור, are contrasted words, and form the conclusions to the participles used, with the force of hypothetical antecedents. Jerome recognises this: qui calumniatur pauperem, ut augeat divitias suas, dabit ipse ditiori et egebit. So Rashi, who by עשׁיר thinks on heathen potentates. Proportionally better Euchel, referring עשׁק and נתן, not to one person, but to two classes of men: he who oppresses the poor to enrich himself, and is liberal toward the rich, falls under want. The antithetic distich thus becomes an integral one - the antithesis manifestly intended is not brought out. This may be said also against Bertheau, who too ingeniously explains: He who oppresses the poor to enrich himself gives to a rich man, i.e., to himself, the enriched, only to want, i.e., only to lose again that which he gained unrighteously. Ralbag is on the right track, for he suggests the explanation: he who oppresses the poor, does it to his gain, for he thereby impels him to a more energetic exercise of his strength; he who gives to the rich man does it to his own loss, because the rich man does not thank him for it, and still continues to look down on him. But if one refers לּו to the poor, then it lies nearer to interpret אך למחסור of the rich: he who gives presents to the rich only thereby promotes his sleepy indolence, and so much the more robs him of activity (Elster); for that which one gives to him is only swallowed up in the whirlpool of his extravagance (Zöckler). Thus Hitzig also explains, who remarks, under 17a: “Oppression produces reaction, awakens energy, and thus God on the whole overrules events” (Exo 1:12). Similarly also Ewald, who thinks on a mercenary, unrighteous rich man: God finally lifts up the oppressed poor man; the rich man always becoming richer, on the contrary, is “punished for all his wickedness only more and more.” But with all these explanations there is too much read between the lines. Since אך למחדור (Pro 11:24; Pro 21:5) refers back to the subject: himself to mere loss, so also will it be here; and the lxx, Symmachus, Jerome (cf. also the Syr. auget malum suum) are right when they also refer לו, not to the poor man, but to the oppressor of the poor. We explain: he who extorts from the poor enriches himself thereby; but he who gives to the rich has nothing, and less than nothing, thereby - he robs himself, has no thanks, only brings himself by many gifts lower and lower down. In the first case at least, 17a, the result corresponds to the intention; but in this latter case, 17b, one gains only bitter disappointment.
Pro 22:17-21, forming the introduction to this appendix, are these Words of the Wise: 17 Incline thine ear and hear the words of the wise, And direct thine heart to my knowledge! 18 For it is pleasant if thou keep them in thine heart; Let them abide together on thy lips. 19 That thy trust may be placed in Jahve, I have taught thee to-day, even thee! 20 Have not I written unto thee choice proverbs, Containing counsels and knowledge, 21 To make thee to know the rule of the words of truth, That thou mightest bring back words which are truth to them that send thee?
From Pro 10:1 to Pro 22:16 are the “Proverbs of Solomon,” and not “The Words of the Wise;” thus the above παραίνεσις is not an epilogue, but a prologue to the following proverbs. The perfects הודעתּיך and כתבתּי refer, not to the Solomonic proverbial discourses, but to the appendix following them; the preface commends the worth and intention of this appendix, and uses perfects because it was written after the forming of the collection. The author of this preface (vid., pp. 23, 36, vol. i.) is no other than the author of chap. 1-9. The הט (with Mehuppach, after Thorath Emeth, p. 27) reminds us of Pro 4:20; Pro 5:1. The phrase שׁית לב, animum advertere, occurs again in the second appendix, Pro 24:32. נעים is repeated at Pro 23:8; Pro 24:4; but נעם with נעם is common in the preface, chap. 1-9. כּי־נעים contains, as at Psa 135:3; Psa 147:1, its subject in itself. כּי־תּשׁמרם is not this subject: this that thou preservest them, which would have required rather the infin. שׁמרם (Psa 133:1) or לשׁמרם; but it supposes the case in which appears that which is amiable and praiseworthy: if thou preservest them in thy heart, i.e., makest them thoughtfully become thy mental possession. The suffix ēm refers to the Words of the Wise, and mediately also to לדעתּי, for the author designates his practical wisdom דעתי, which is laid down in the following proverbs, which, although not composed by him, are yet penetrated by his subjectivity. Regarding בּטן, which, from meaning the inner parts of the body, is transferred to the inner parts of the mind, vid., under Pro 20:27. The clause 18b, if not dependent on כי, would begin with ויכּנוּ. The absence of the copula and the antecedence of the verb bring the optative rendering nearer. Different is the syntactical relation of Pro 5:2, where the infin. is continued in the fin. The fut. Niph. יכּנוּ, which, Pro 4:27, meant to be rightly placed, rightly directed, here means: to stand erect, to have continuance, stabilem esse. In Pro 22:19, the fact of instruction precedes the statement of its object, which is, that the disciple may place his confidence in Jahve, for he does that which is according to His will, and is subject to His rule. מבטחך, in Codd. and correct editions with Pathach (vid., Michlol 184b); the ח is as virtually doubled; vid., under Pro 21:22. In 19b the accentuation הודעתיך היום is contrary to the syntax; Codd. and old editions have rightly הודעתיך היום, for אף־אתּה is, after Gesen. §121. 3, an emphatic repetition of “thee;” אף, like גּם, Pro 23:15; 1Ki 21:19. Hitzig knows of no contrast which justifies the emphasis. But the prominence thus effected is not always of the nature of contrast (cf. Zec 7:5, have ye truly fasted to me, i.e., to serve me thereby), here it is strong individualizing; the te etiam te is equivalent to, thee as others, and thee in particular. Also that, as Hitzig remarks, there does not appear any reason for the emphasizing of “to-day,” is incorrect: היּום is of the same signification as at Psa 95:7; the reader of the following proverbs shall remember later, not merely in general, that he once on a time read them, but that he to-day, that he on this definite day, received the lessons of wisdom contained therein, and then, from that time forth, became responsible for his obedience or his disobedience.
In 20a the Chethı̂b שלשום denotes no definite date; besides, this word occurs only always along with תּמול (עתמול). Umbreit, Ewald, Bertheau, however, accept this “formerly (lately),” and suppose that the author here refers to a “Book for Youths,” composed at an earlier period, without one seeing what this reference, which had a meaning only for his contemporaries, here denotes. The lxx reads כתבתּ, and finds in 20a, contrary to the syntax and the usus loq., the exhortation that he who is addressed ought to write these good doctrines thrice (τρισσῶς) on the tablet of his heart; the Syr. and Targ. suppose the author to say that he wrote them three times; Jerome, that he wrote them threefold - both without any visible meaning, since threefold cannot be equivalent to manchfeltiglich (Luther) [= several times, in various ways]. Also the Kerı̂ שׁלשׁים, which without doubt is the authentic word, is interpreted in many unacceptable ways; Rashi and Elia Wilna, following a Midrash explanation, think on the lessons of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; Arama, on those which are referable to three classes of youth; Malbim (as if here the author of the whole Book of Proverbs, from 1 to 31, spake), on the supposed three chief parts of the Mishle; Dächsel better, on chap. 1-9, as the product of the same author as this appendix. Schultens compares Ecc 4:12, and translates triplici filo nexa. Kimchi, Meîri, and others, are right, who gloss שׁלישׁים by דברים נכבדים, and compare נגידים, Pro 8:6; accordingly the Veneta, with the happy quid pro quo, by τρισμέγιστα. The lxx translates the military שׁלישׁ by τριστάτης; but this Greek word is itself obscure, and is explained by Hesychius (as well as by Suidas, and in the Etymologicum) by Regii satellites qui ternas hastas manu tenebant, which is certainly false. Another Greek, whom Angellius quotes, says, under Exo 15:4, that τριστάτης was the name given to the warriors who fought from a chariot, every three of whom had one war-chariot among them; and this appears, according to Exo 14:7; Exo 15:4, to be really the primary meaning. In the period of David we meet with the word שׁלישׁים as the name of the heroes (the Gibbôrı̂m) who stood nearest the king. The shalish-men form the élite troops that stood highest in rank, at whose head stood two triads of heroes - Jashobeam at the head of the first trias, and thus of the shalish-men generally; Abishai at the head of the second trias, who held an honourable place among the shalish-men, but yet reached not to that first trias, 2Sa 23:8. (= 1Ch 11:11.). The name השּׁלישׁים (Apoc. 2Sa 23:8, השּׁלשׁי, and 2Sa 23:13, 1Ch 27:6, incorrectly השּׁלשׁים) occurs here with reference to the threefold division of this principal host; and in regard to the use of the word in the time of Pharaoh, as well as in the time of the kings, it may be granted that shalish denotes the Three-man (triumvir), and then generally a high military officer; so that שׁלשׁים here has the same relation to נגידים, Pro 8:6, as ducalia to principalia. The name of the chief men (members of the chief troop) is transferred to the chief proverbs, as, Jam 2:8, that law which stands as a king at the head of all the others is called the “royal law;” or, as Plato names the chief powers of the soul, μέρη ἡγεμόνες. As in this Platonic word-form, so shalishim here, like negidim there, is understood neut. cf. under Pro 8:6, and ריקים, Pro 12:11; ישׁרים, Pro 16:13. The ב of בּמעצות (occurring at Pro 1:31 also) Fleischer rightly explains as the ב of uniting or accompanying: chief proverbs which contain good counsels and solid knowledge.
In the statement of the object in Pro 22:21, we interpret that which follows להודיעך not permutat.: ut te docerem recta, verba vera (Fleischer); but קשׁט (ground-form to קשׁט, Psa 60:6) is the bearer of the threefold idea: rectitudinem, or, better, regulam verborum veritatis. The (Arab.) verb ḳasiṭa means to be straight, stiff, inflexible (synon. צדק, to be hard, tight, proportionately direct); and the name ḳisṭ denotes not only the right conduct, the right measure (quantitas justa), but also the balance, and thus the rule or the norm. In 21b, אמרים אמת (as e.g., Zec 1:13; vid., Philippi, Status Constr. p. 86f.) is equivalent to אמרי אמת; the author has this second time intentionally chosen the appositional relation of connection: words which are truth; the idea of truth presents itself in this form of expression more prominently. Impossible, because contrary to the usus loq., is the translation: ut respondeas verba vera iis qui ad te mittunt (Schultens, Fleischer), because שׁלח, with the accus. following, never means “to send any one.” Without doubt השׁיב and שׁלח stand in correlation to each other: he who lets himself be instructed must be supposed to be in circumstances to bring home, to those that sent him out to learn, doctrines which are truth, and thus to approve himself. The subject spoken of here is not a right answer or a true report brought back to one giving a commission; and it lies beyond the purpose and power of the following proverbs to afford a universal means whereby persons sent out are made skilful. The שׁלחים [senders] are here the parents or guardians who send him who is to be instructed to the school of the teacher of wisdom (Hitzig). Yet it appears strange that he who is the learner is just here not addressed as “my son,” which would go to the support of the expression, “to send to school,” which is elsewhere unused in Old Hebrew, and the שׁלחי of another are elsewhere called those who make him their mandatar, Pro 10:26; Pro 25:13; 2Sa 24:13. The reference to the parents would also be excluded if, with Norzi and other editors, לשׁלחך were to be read instead of לשׁלחיך (the Venet. 1521, and most editions). Therefore the phrase לשׁעליך, which is preferred by Ewald, recommends itself, according to which the lxx translates, τοῖς προβαλλομένοις σοι, which the Syro-Hexap. renders^[26] by להנון דאחדין לך אוחדתא yb, i.e., to those who lay problems before thee (vid., Lagarde). The teacher of wisdom seeks to qualify him who reads the following proverbs, and permits himself to be influenced by them, to give the right answer to those who question him and go to him for counsel, and thus to become himself a teacher of wisdom.

Verses 22-23

After these ten lines of preliminary exhortation, there now begins the collection of the “Words of the Wise” thus introduced. A tetrastich which, in its contents, connects itself with the last proverb of the Solomonic collection, Pro 22:16, forms the commencement of this collection: 22 Rob not the lowly because he is lowly; And oppress not the humble in the gate. 23 For Jahve will conduct their cause, And rob their spoilers of life.
Though it may bring gain, as said Pro 22:16, to oppress the דּל, the lowly or humble, yet at last the oppressor comes to ruin. The poet here warns against robbing the lowly because he is lowly, and thus without power of defence, and not to be feared; and against doing injustice to the עני, the bowed down, and therefore incapable of resisting in the gate, i.e., in the court of justice. These poor men have not indeed high human patrons, but One in heaven to undertake their cause: Jahve will conduct their cause (יריב ריבם, as at Pro 23:10), i.e., will undertake their vindication, and be their avenger. דּכּא (דּכּה), Aram. and Arab. daḳḳ (cf. דּקק, Arab. daḳḳ), signifies to crush anything so that it becomes broad and flat, figuratively to oppress, synon. עשׁק (Fleischer). The verb קבע has, in Chald. and Syr., the signification to stick, to fix (according to which Aquila here translates καθηλοῦν, to nail; Jerome, configere); and as root-word to קבּעת, the signification to be arched, like (Arab.) ḳab', to be humpbacked; both significations are here unsuitable. The connection here requires the meaning to rob; and for Mal 3:8 also, this same meaning is to be adopted, robbery and taking from one by force (Parchon, Kimchi), not: to deceive (Köhler, Keil), although it might have the sense of robbing by withholding or refraining from doing that which is due, thus of a sacrilege committed by omission or deception. The Talm. does not know the verb קבע in this meaning; but it is variously found as a dialectic word for גזל.^[27]
Schultens' etymological explanation, capitium injicere (after Arab. ḳab', to draw back and conceal the head), is not satisfactory. The construction, with the double accus., follows the analogy of הכּהוּ נפשׁ and the like, Gesen. §139. 2. Regarding the sing. נפשׁ, even where several are spoken of, vid., under Pro 1:19.

Verses 24-25

Another tetrastich follows: 24 Have no intercourse with an angry man, And with a furious man go thou not; 25 Lest thou adopt his ways, And bring destruction upon thy soul.
The Piel רעה, Jdg 14:20, signifies to make or choose any one as a friend or companion (רעה, רע); the Hithpa. התרעה (cf. at Pro 18:24), to take to oneself (for oneself) any one as a friend, or to converse with one; אל־תּתרע sounds like אל־תּשׁתּע, Isa 41:10, with Pathach of the closed syllable from the apocope. The angry man is called בּעל אף, as the covetous man בּעל נפשׁ, Pro 23:2, and the mischievous man בּעל מזמּות, Pro 24:8; vid., regarding בּעל at Pro 1:19 and Pro 18:9. אישׁ חמות is related superlat. to אישׁ חמה, Pro 15:18 (cf. Pro 29:22), and signifies a hot-head of the highest degree. לא תבוא is meant as warning (cf. Pro 16:10). בּוא את, or בוא עם, Psa 26:4, to come along with one, is equivalent to go into fellowship or companionship with one, which is expressed by הלך את, Pro 13:20, as בוא ב means, Jos 23:7, Jos 23:12, to enter into communion with one, venire in consuetudinem. This בוא את is not a trace of a more recent period of the language. Also תּאלף, discas, cannot be an equivalent for it: Heb. poetry has at all times made use of Aramaisms as elegancies. אלף, Arab. אלף, ילף, Arab. âlifa, signifies to be entrusted with anything = to learn (Piel אלּף, to teach, Job 15:15, and in Elihu's speeches), or also to become confidential with one (whence אלּוּף, companion, confidant, Pro 2:17); this אלף is never a Heb. prose word; the bibl. אלּוּף is only used at a later period in the sense of teacher. ארחות .reh are the ways, the conduct (Pro 2:20, etc.), or manner of life (Pro 1:19) which any one enters upon and follows out, thus manners as well as lot, condition. In the phrase “to bring destruction,” לקח is used as in our phrase Schaden nehmen [to suffer injury]; the ancient language also represented the forced entrance of one into a state as a being laid hold on, e.g., Job 18:20, cf. Isa 13:8; here מוקשׁ is not merely equivalent to danger (Ewald, falsely: that thou takest not danger for thy soul), but is equivalent to destruction, sin itself is a snare (Pro 29:6); to bring a snare for oneself is equivalent to suffer from being ensnared. Whosoever comes into a near relation with a passionate, furious, man, easily accommodates himself to his manners, and, hurried forward by him and like him to outbreaks of anger, which does that which is not right before God, falls into ruinous complications.

Verses 26-27

A third distich follows: 26 Be not among those who strike hands, Among those who become surety for loans. 27 If thou hast nothing to pay, Why shall he take away thy bed from under thee?
To strike hands is equivalent to, to be responsible to any one for another, to stake one's goods and honour for him, Pro 6:1; Pro 11:15; Pro 17:18 - in a word, ערב, seq. acc., to pledge oneself for him (Gen 43:9), or for the loan received by him, משּׁאה, Deu 24:10 (from השּׁה, with ב, of the person and accus. of the thing: to lend something to one on interest). The proverb warns against being one of such sureties (write בּערבים with Cod. 1294, and old impressions such as the Venice, 1521), against acting as they do; for why wouldest thou come to this, that when thou cast not pay (שׁלּם, to render a full equivalent reckoning, and, generally, to pay, Pro 6:31),^[28] he (the creditor) take away thy bed from under thee? - for, as Pro 20:16 says, thus improvident suretyships are wont to be punished.

Verse 28

A fourth proverb - a distich - beginning with the warning אל: 28 Remove not the perpetual landmark Which thy ancestors have set up. 28a = Pro 23:10. Regarding the inviolability of boundaries established by the law, vid., at Pro 15:25. גּבוּל עולם denotes “the boundary mark set up from ancient times, the removal of which were a double transgression, because it is rendered sacred by its antiquity” (Orelli, p. 76). נסג = סוּג signifies to remove back, Hiph. to shove back, to move away. אשׁר has the meaning of (ὅριον) ὅ, τι, quippe quod. Instead of עולם, the Mishna reads, Pea v. 6, עולים, which in the Jerusalem Gemara one Rabbi understands of those brought up out of Egypt, another of the poor; for “to rise” (in the world) is a euphemism (לשׁון כבוד) for “to come down” (be reduced in circumstances).^[29]

Verse 29

After these four proverbs beginning with אל, a new series begins with the following tristich: 29 Seest thou a man who is expert in his calling - Before kings may he stand; Not stand before obscure men;i.e., he can enter into the service of kings, and needs not to enter into the service of mean men = he is entitled to claim the highest official post. חזית, in Pro 26:12 = Pro 29:20, interchanging with ראית, is perf. hypotheticum (cf. Pro 24:10; Pro 25:16): si videris; the conclusion which might begin with דּע כּי expresses further what he who sees will have occasion to observe. Rightly Luther: Sihestu einen Man endelich (vid., at Pro 21:5) in seinem geschefft, u.s.w. = seest thou a man expert in his business, etc.. מהיר denotes in all the three chief dialects one who is skilful in a manner not merely by virtue of external artistic ability, but also by means of intellectual mastery of it. התיצּב לפני, to enter on the situation of a servant before any one; cf. Job 1:6; Job 2:1. עמד לפני, 1Sa 16:21; 1Ki 10:8. Along with the pausal form יתיצּב, there is also found in Codd. the form יתיצּב (the ground-form to יתיצּב, whence that pausal form is lengthened), which Ben-Bileam defends, for he reckons this word among “the pathachized pausal forms.” חשׁכּים, in contrast to מלכים, are the obscuri = ignobiles. The Targ. translate the Heb. דּל and אביון by חשׁיך and חשׁוך. Kimchi compares Jer 39:10, where העם הדּלּים is translated by חשׁיכיּא (cf. 2Ki 24:14; 2Ki 25:12). חלכּה (חלכּה) is the old Heb. synonym in Ps 10. The poet seems here to transfer the Aram. usus loq. into the Heb.

Chap. 23

Verses 1-3

Pro 22:29, which speaks of a high position near the king, is appropriately followed by a hexastich referring to the slipperiness of the smooth ground of the king's court. 1 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, Consider well whom thou hast before thee. 2 And put thy knife to thy throat If thou art a man of good appetite. 3 Be not lustful after his dainties, Because it is deceitful food.
The ל of ללחום is that of end: ad cibum capiendum, thus as one invited by him to his table; in prose the expression would be לאכל לחם; לחם, to eat, is poet., Pro 4:17; Pro 9:5. The fut. תּבין clothes the admonition in the form of a wish or counsel; the infin. intens. בּין makes it urgent: consider well him whom thou hast before thee, viz., that he is not thine equal, but one higher, who can destroy thee as well as be useful to thee. With ושׂמתּ the jussive construction begun by תבין is continued. Zöckler and Dächsel, after Ewald and Hitzig, translate incorrectly: thou puttest..., the perf. consec. after an imperf., or, which is the same thing, a fut. meant optatively (e.g., Lev 19:18 with לא, and also Lev 19:34 without לא) continues the exhortation; to be thus understood, the author ought to have used the expression שׂכּין שׂמתּ and not ושׂמת שׂכין. Rightly Luther: “and put a knife to thy throat,” but continuing: “wilt thou preserve thy life,” herein caught in the same mistake of the idea with Jerome, the Syr., and Targ., to which נפשׁ here separates itself. שׂכּין (סכּין) (Arab. with the assimilated a sikkı̂n, plur. sekâkı̂n, whence sekâkı̂ni, cutler) designates a knife (R. סך שך, to stick, vid., at Isa 9:10). לוע, from לוּע, to devour, is the throat; the word in Aram. signifies only the cheek, while Lagarde seeks to interpret בּלעך infinitively in the sense of (Arab.) bwlw'ak, if thou longest for (from wl'a); but that would make 2b a tautology. The verb לוּע (cf. Arab. l'al', to pant for) shows for the substantive the same primary meaning as glutus from glutire, which was then transferred from the inner organ of swallowing (Kimchi, בית הבליעה, Parchon; הוּשׂט, aesophagus) to the external. “Put a knife to thy throat, is a proverbial expression, like our: the knife stands at his throat; the poet means to say: restrain thy too eager desire by means of the strongest threatening of danger - threaten as it were death to it” (Fleischer). In בּעל נפשׁ, נפשׁ means, as at Pro 13:2, desire, and that desire of eating, as at Pro 6:30. Rightly Rashi: if thou art greedy with hunger, if thou art a glutton; cf. Sir. 34:12 (31:12), “If thou sittest at a great table, then open not widely thy throat (φάρυγγα), and say not: There is certainly much on it!” The knife thus denotes the restraining and moderating of too good an appetite.
In 3a the punctuation fluctuates between תתאו (Michlol 131a) and תתאו; the latter is found in Cod. 1294, the Erfurt 2 and 3, the Cod. Jaman., and thus it is also to be written at Pro 23:6 and Pro 24:1; ויתאו, 1Ch 11:17 and Psa 45:12, Codd. and older Edd. (e.g., Complut. 1517, Ven. 1515, 1521) write with Pathach. מטעמּות, from טעם, signifies savoury dishes, dainties, like (Arab.) dhwâkt, from dhâk (to taste, to relish); cf. sapores, from sapere, in the proverb: the tit-bits of the king burn the lips (vid., Fleischer, Ali's Hundred Proverbs, etc., pp. 71, 104). With והוּא begins, as at Pro 3:29, a conditioning clause: since it is, indeed, the bread of deceit (the connection like עד־כּחבים, Pro 21:28), food which, as it were, deceives him who eats it, i.e., appears to secure for him the lasting favour of princes, and often enough herein deceives him; cf. the proverb by Burckhardt and Meidani: whoever eats of the sultan's soup burns his lips, even though it may be after a length of time (Fleischer). One must come near to a king, says Calovius, hitting the meaning of the proverb, as to a fire: not too near, lest he be burned; nor too remote, so that he may be warmed therewith.

Verses 4-5

All the forms of proverbs run through these appended proverbs. There now follows a pentastich: 4 Do not trouble thyself to become rich; Cease from such thine own wisdom. 5 Wilt thou let thine eyes fly after it, and it is gone? For it maketh itself, assuredly it maketh itself wings, Like an eagle which fleeth toward the heavens.
The middle state, according to Pro 30:8, is the best: he who troubleth himself (cf. Pro 28:20, hasteth) to become rich, placeth before himself a false, deceitful aim. יגע is essentially one with (Arab.) waji'a, to experience sorrow, dolere, and then signifies, like πονεῖν and κάμνειν, to become or to be wearied, to weary or trouble oneself, to toil and moil (Fleischer). The בּינה (cf. Pro 3:5) is just wisdom, prudence directed towards becoming rich; for striving of itself alone does not accomplish it, unless wisdom is connected with it, which is not very particular in finding out means in their moral relations; but is so much the more crafty, and, as we say, speculative. Rightly Aquila, the Venet., Jerome, and Luther: take not pains to become rich. On the contrary, the lxx reads אל תיגע להעשׁיר, stretch not thyself (if thou art poor) after a rich man; and the Syr. and Targ. אל תּגּע להעשׁיר, draw not near to the rich man; but, apart from the uncertainty of the expression and the construction in both cases, poetry, and proverbial poetry too, does not prefer the article; it never uses it without emphasis, especially as here must be the case with it not elided. These translators thought that 'בּו וגו, Pro 23:5, presupposed a subject expressed in Pro 23:4; but the subject is not העשׁיר, but the עשׁר [riches] contained in להעשׁיר. The self-intelligible it in “it maketh wings,” etc. is that about which trouble has been taken, about which there has been speculation. That is a deceitful possession; for what has been gained by many years of labour and search, often passes away suddenly, is lost in a moment. To let the eyes fly after anything, is equivalent to, to direct a (flying) look toward it: wilt thou let thine eyes rove toward the same, and it is gone? i.e., wilt thou expose thyself to the fate of seeing that which was gained with trouble and craft torn suddenly away from thee? Otherwise Luther, after Jerome: Let not thine eyes fly after that which thou cast not have; but apart from the circumstance that בּו ואיננּוּ cannot possibly be understood in the sense of ad opes quas non potes habere (that would have required באשׁר איננו), in this sense after the analogy of (ל) נשׂא נפשׁ אל, the end aimed at would have been denoted by לו and not by בו. Better Immanuel, after Rashi: if thou doublest, i.e., shuttest (by means of the two eyelids) thine eyes upon it, it is gone, i.e., has vanished during the night; but עוף, duplicare, is Aram. and not Heb. Rather the explanation is with Chajûg, after Isa 8:22.: if thou veilest (darkenest) thine eyes, i.e., yieldest thyself over to carelessness; but the noun עפעפּה shows that עוף, spoken of the eyes, is intended to signify to fly (to rove, flutter). Hitzig too artificially (altering the expression to להעשׁיר): if thou faintest, art weary with the eyes toward him (the rich patron), he is gone - which cannot be adopted, because the form of a question does not accord with it. Nor would it accord if ואיננו were thought of as a conclusion: “dost thou let thy look fly toward it? It is gone;” for what can this question imply? The ו of ואיננו shows that this word is a component part of the question; it is a question lla nakar, i.e., in rejection of the subject of the question: wilt thou cast thy look upon it, and it is gone? i.e., wilt thou experience instant loss of that which is gained by labour and acquired by artifice? On בו, cf. Job 7:8. 'עיניך וגו, “thou directest thine eyes to me: I am no more.” We had in Pro 12:19 another mode of designating viz. till I wink again an instant. The Chethı̂b 'התעוּף וגו is syntactically correct (cf. Pro 15:22; Pro 20:30), and might remain. The Kerı̂ is mostly falsely accentuated התּעיף, doubly incorrectly; for (1) the tone never retreats from a shut syllable terminating in î, e.g., להכין, Isa 40:20; בהכין, 1Ch 1:4; אבין, Job 23:8; and (2) there is, moreover, wanting here any legitimate occasion for the retrogression of the tone; thus much rather the form התּעיף (with Mehuppach of the last, and Zinnorith of the preceding open syllable) is to be adopted, as it is given by Opitz, Jablonsky, Michaelis, and Reineccius.
The subject of 5b is, as of 5a, riches. That riches take wings and flee away, is a more natural expression than that the rich patron flees away - a quaint figure, appropriate however at Nah 3:16, where the multitude of craftsmen flee out of Nineveh like a swarm of locusts. עשׂה has frequently the sense of acquirere, Gen 12:5, with לו, sibi acquirere, 1Sa 15:1; 1Ki 1:15; Hitzig compares Silius Ital. xvi. 351: sed tum sibi fecerat alas. The inf. intensivus strengthens the assertion: it will certainly thus happen.
In 5c all unnecessary discussion regarding the Chethı̂b ועיף is to be avoided, for this Chethı̂b does not exist; the Masora here knows only of a simple Chethı̂b and Kerı̂, viz., ועוּף (read יעוּף), not of a double one (ועיּף), and the word is not among those which have in the middle a י, which is to be read like ו. The manuscripts (e.g., also the Bragadin. 1615) have ועוּף, and the Kerı̂ יעוּף; it is one of the ten words registered in the Masora, at the beginning of which a י is to be read instead of the written ו. Most of the ancients translate with the amalgamation of the Kerı̂ and the Chethı̂b: and he (the rich man, or better: the riches) flees heavenwards (Syr., Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Jerome, and Luther). After the Kerı̂ the Venet. renders: ὡς ἀετὸς πτήσεται τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (viz., ὁ πλοῦτος). Rightly the Targ.: like an eagle which flies to heaven (according to which also it is accentuated), only it is not to be translated “am Himmel” [to heaven], but “gen Himmel” [towards heaven]: השּׁמים is the accusative of direction - the eagle flies heavenward. Bochart, in the Hierozoïcon, has collected many parallels to this comparison, among which is the figure in Lucian's Timon, where Pluto, the god of wealth, comes to one limping and with difficulty; but going away, outstrips in speed the flight of all birds. The lxx translates ὥσπερ ἀετοῦ καὶ ὑποστρέφει εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ προεστηκότος αὐτοῦ. Hitzig accordingly reads שׁבו לבית משׂגּבּו, and he (the rich patron) withdraws from thee to his own steep residence. But ought not οἶκος τοῦ προεστηκότος αὐτοῦ to be heaven, as the residence of Him who administers wealth, i.e., who gives and again takes it away according to His free-will?

Verses 6-8

There now follows a proverb with unequally measured lines, perhaps a heptastich: 6 Eat not the bread of the jealous, And let not thyself lust after his dainties; 7 For as one who calculates with himself, so is he: “Eat and drink,” saith he to thee; But his heart is not with thee. 8 Thy morsel which thou hast enjoyed wilt thou cast up, And hast lost thy pleasant words.
As טוב עין, Pro 22:9, benignus oculo, denotes the pleasantness and joy of social friendship; so here (cf. Deu 15:9; Mat 15:15) רע עין, malignus oculo, the envy and selfishness of egoism seeking to have and retain all for itself. The lxx ἀνδρὶ βασκάνῳ, for the look of the evil eye, עין רע, עינא בישׁא (cattivo occhio), refers to enchantment; cf. βασκαίνειν, fascinare, to bewitch, to enchant, in modern Greek, to envy, Arab. 'an, to eye, as it were, whence ma‛jûn, ma‛ı̂n, hit by the piercing look of the envious eye, invidiae, as Apuleius says, letali plaga percussus (Fleischer). Regarding תּתאו with Pathach, vid., the parallel line 3a. 7a is difficult. The lxx and Syr. read שׂער [hair]. The Targ. renders תּרעא רמא, and thus reads שׁער [fool], and thus brings together the soul of the envious person and a high portal, which promises much, but conceals only deception behind (Ralbag). Joseph ha-Nakdan reads^[30] שׂער with sîn; and Rashi, retaining the schîn, compares the “sour figs,” Jer 29:17. According to this, Luther translates: like a ghost (a monster of lovelessness) is he inwardly; for, as it appears in שׂער, the goat-like spectre שׂעיר hovered before him. Schultens better, because more in conformity with the text: quemadmodum suam ipsius animam abhorret (i.e., as he does nothing to the benefit of his own appetite) sic ille (erga alios multo magis). The thought is appropriate, but forced. Hitzig for once here follows Ewald; he does not, however, translate: “like as if his soul were divided, so is it;” but: “as one who is divided in his soul, so is he;” but the verb שׁער, to divide, is inferred from שׁער, gate = division, and is as foreign to the extra-bibl. usus loq. as it is to the bibl. The verb שׁער signifies to weigh or consider, to value, to estimate. These meanings Hitzig unites together: in similitudinem arioli et conjectoris aestimat quod ignorat, perhaps meaning thereby that he conjecturally supposes that as it is with him, so it is with others: he dissembles, and thinks that others dissemble also. Thus also Jansen explains. The thought is far-fetched, and does not cover itself by the text. The translation of the Venet. also: ὡς γὰρ ἐμέτρησεν ἐν ψυχῇ οἱ οὕτως ἐστίν (perhaps: he measures to others as penuriously as to himself), does not elucidate the text, but obscures it. Most moderns (Bertheau, Zöckler, Dächsel, etc.): as he reckons in his soul, so is he (not as he seeks to appear for a moment before thee). Thus also Fleischer: quemadmodum reputat apud se, ita est (sc. non ut loquitur), with the remark that שׁער (whence שׁער, measure, market value, Arab. si'r), to measure, to tax to as to determine the price, to reckon; and then like חשׁב, in general, to think, and thus also Meîri with the neut. rendering of ita est. But why this circumlocution in the expression? The poet ought in that case just to have written כי לא למו דבּר בשׂפתיו כן הוא, for he is not as he speaks with his mouth. If one read שׁער (Symmachus, εἰκάζων), then we have the thought adapted to the portrait that is drawn; for like one calculating by himself, so is he, i.e., he is like one who estimates with himself the value of an object; for which we use the expression: he reckons the value of every piece in thy mouth. However, with this understanding the punctuation also of שׁער as finite may be retained and explained after Isa 26:18 : for as if he reckoned in his soul, so is he; but in this the perf. is inappropriate; by the particip. one reaches the same end^[31] by a smoother way. True, he says to thee: eat and drink (Sol 5:1), he invites thee with courtly words; but his heart is not with thee (בּל, like Pro 24:23): he only puts on the appearance of joy if thou partakest abundantly, but there lurks behind the mask of liberal hospitality the grudging niggardly calculator, who poisons thy every bite, every draught, by his calculating, grudging look. Such a feast cannot possibly do good to the guest: thy meal (פּת, from פּתת; cf. κλᾶν τὸν ἄρτον, Aram. פּרס לחמא, to divide and distribute bread, whence פּרנס, to receive aliment, is derived) which thou hast eaten thou wilt spue out, i.e., wilt vomit from disgust that thou hast eaten such food, so that that which has been partaken of does thee no good. פּתּך is also derived from פּתּה:^[32] has he deceived thee (with his courtly words), but with this אכלתּ, which, as the Makkeph rightly denotes, stands in an attributive relation to פתך, does not agree. תקיאנּה is Hiph. of קוא, as transitive: to make vomiting; in Arab. the fut. Kal of ka terminates in î. The fair words which the guest, as the perf. consec. expresses, has lavished, are the words of praise and thanks in which he recognises the liberality of the host appearing so hospitable. Regarding the penult. accenting of the perf. consec. by Mugrasch, as Pro 30:9, vid., under Psa 27:1. Pinsker (Babyl.-Hebr. Punktationssystem, p. 134) conjectures that the line 8b originally formed the concluding line of the following proverb. But at the time of the lxx (which erroneously expresses ושׁחת) it certainly stood as in our text.

Verse 9

Another case in which good words are lost:
Speak not to the ears of a fool,
For he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
To speak in the ears of any one, does not mean to whisper to him, to so to speak that it is distinctly perceived. כּסיל, as we have no often explained, is the intellectually heavy and dull, like pinguis and tardus; Arab. balyd, clumsy, intellectually immoveable (cf. bld, the place where one places himself firmly down, which one makes his point of gravity). The heart of such an one is covered over (Psa 119:70), as with grease, against all impressions of better knowledge; he has for the knowledge which the words spoken design to impart to him, no susceptibility, no mind, but only contempt. The construction בּוּז ל has been frequently met with from Pro 6:30.

Verses 10-11

The following proverb forms a new whole from component parts of Pro 22:28 and Pro 22:22.: 10 Remove not ancient landmarks; And into the fields of orphans enter thou not. 11 For their Saviour is a mighty one; He will conduct their cause against thee. בּוא ב separates itself here to the meaning of injuste invadere et occupare; French, empiéter sur son voisin, advance not into the ground belonging to thy neighbour (Fleischer). If orphans have also no goel among their kindred (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, ἀγχιστεύς) to redeem by purchase (Lev 25:25) their inheritance that has passed over into the possession of another, they have another, and that a mighty Saviour, Redemptor, who will restore to them that which they have lost - viz. God (Jer 50:34) - who will adopt their cause against any one who has unjustly taken from them.

Verse 12

The following proverb warrants us to pause here, for it opens up, as a compendious echo of Pro 22:17-21, a new series of proverbs of wisdom: 12 Apply thine heart to instruction, And thine ear to the utterances of knowledge.
We may, according as we accent in למּוּסר the divine origin or the human medium, translate, offer disciplinae (Schultens), or adhibe ad disciplinam cor tuum (Fleischer). This general admonition is directed to old and young, to those who are to be educated as well as to those who are educated. First to the educator:

Verses 13-14

Pro 23:13-14 13 Withhold not correction from the child; For thou will beat him with the rod, and he will not die. 14 Thou beatest him with the rod, And with it deliverest his soul from hell.
The exhortation, 13a, presupposes that education by word and deed is a duty devolving on the father and the teacher with regard to the child. In 13b, כּי is in any case the relative conjunction. The conclusion does not mean: so will he not fall under death (destruction), as Luther also would have it, after Deu 19:21, for this thought certainly follows Pro 23:14; nor after Pro 19:18 : so may the stroke not be one whereof he dies, for then the author ought to have written אל־תּמיתנּוּ; but: he will not die of it, i.e., only strike if he has deserved it, thou needest not fear; the bitter medicine will be beneficial to him, not deadly. The אתּה standing before the double clause, Pro 23:14, means that he who administers corporal chastisement to the child, saves him spiritually; for שׁאול does not refer to death in general, but to death falling upon a man before his time, and in his sins, vid., Pro 15:24, cf. Pro 8:26.

Verses 15-16

The following proverb passes from the educator to the pupil: 15 My son, if thine heart becometh wise, My heart also in return will rejoice; 16 And my reins will exult If thy lips speak right things.
Wisdom is inborn in no one. A true Arab. proverb says, “The wise knows how the fool feels, for he himself was also once a fool;”^[33] and folly is bound up in the heart of a child, according to Pro 22:15, which must be driven out by severe discipline. 15b, as many others, cf. Pro 22:19, shows that these “words of the wise” are penetrated by the subjectivity of an author; the author means: if thy heart becomes wise, so will mine in return, i.e., corresponding to it (cf. גּם, Gen 20:6), rejoice. The thought of the heart in Pro 23:15 repeats itself in Pro 23:16, with reference to the utterance of the mouth. Regarding מישׁרים, vid., Pro 1:5. Regarding the “reins,” כּליות (perhaps from כּלה, to languish, Job 19:21), with which the tender and inmost affections are connected, vid., Psychologie, p. 268f.

Verses 17-18

The poet now shows how one attains unto wisdom - the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God: 17 Let not thine heart strive after sinners, But after the fear of Jahve all the day. 18 Truly there is a future, And thy hope shall not come to naught.
The lxx, Jerome, the Venet., and Luther, and the Arab. interpreters, render 17b as an independent clause: “but be daily in the fear of the Lord.” That is not a substantival clause (cf. Pro 22:7), nor can it be an interjectional clause, but it may be an elliptical clause (Fleischer: from the prohibitive אל־תקנא is to be taken for the second parallel member the v. subst. lying at the foundation of all verbs); but why had the author omitted היה dettim? Besides, one uses the expressions, to act (עשׂה), and to walk (הלך) in the fear of God, but not the expression to be (היה) in the fear of God. Thus בּיראת, like בחטּאים, is dependent on אל־תּקנּא; and Jerome, who translates: Non aemuletur cor tuum peccatores, sed in timore Domini esto tota die, ought to have continued: sed timorem Domini tota die; for, as one may say in Latin: aemulari virtutes, as well as aemulari aliquem, so also in Heb. קנּא ב, of the envying of those persons whose fortune excites to dissatisfaction, because one has not the same, and might yet have it, Pro 3:31; Pro 24:1, Pro 24:19, as well as of emulation for a thing in which one might not stand behind others: envy not sinners, envy much rather the fear of God, i.e., let thyself be moved with eager desire after it when its appearance is presented to thee. There is no O.T. parallel for this, but the Syr. tan and the Greek ζηλοτυποῦν are used in this double sense. Thus Hitzig rightly, and, among the moderns, Malbim; with Aben Ezra, it is necessary to take ביראת for באישׁ יראת, this proverb itself declares the fear of God to be of all things the most worthy of being coveted.
In Pro 23:18, Umbreit, Elster, Zöckler, and others interpret the כּי as assigning a reason, and the אם as conditioning: for when the end (the hour of the righteous judgment) has come; Bertheau better, because more suitable to the ישׁ and the אחרית: when an end (an end adjusting the contradictions of the present time) comes, as no doubt it will come, then thy hope will not be destroyed; but, on the other hand, the succession of words in the conclusion (vid., at Pro 3:34) opposes this; also one does not see why the author does not say directly כי ישׁ אחרית, but expresses himself thus conditionally.^[34]
If אם is meant hypothetically, then, with the lxx ἐὰν γὰρ τηρήσῃς αὐτὰ ἔκγονα, we should supply after it תּשׁמרנּה, that had fallen out. Ewald's: much rather there is yet a future (Dächsel: much rather be happy there is...), is also impossible; for the preceding clause is positive, not negative. The particles כּי אם, connected thus, mean: for if (e.g., Lam 3:32); or also relatively: that if (e.g., Jer 26:15). After a negative clause they have the meaning of “unless,” which is acquired by means of an ellipsis; e.g., Isa 55:10, it turns not back thither, unless it has watered the earth (it returns back not before then, not unless this is done). This “unless” is, however, used like the Lat. nisi, also without the conditioning clause following, e.g., Gen 28:17, hic locus non est nisi domus Dei. And hence the expression כי אם, after the negation going before, acquires the meaning of “but,” e.g., 17b: let not thy heart be covetous after sinners, for thou canst always be zealous for the fear of God, i.e., much rather for this, but for this. This pleonasm of אם sometimes occurs where כי is not used confirmatively, but affirmatively: the “certainly if” forms the transition, e.g., 1Ki 20:6 (vid., Keil's Comm. l.c.), whose “if” is not seldom omitted, so that כי אם has only the meaning of an affirmative “certainly,” not “truly no,” which it may also have, 1Sa 25:34, but “truly yes.” Thus כי אם is used Jdg 15:7; 2Sa 15:21 (where אם is omitted by the Kerı̂); 2Ki 5:20; Jer 51:14; and thus it is also meant here, 18a, notwithstanding that כי אם, in its more usual signification, “besides only, but, nisi,” precedes, as at 1Sa 21:6, cf. 5. The objection by Hitzig, that with this explanation: “certainly there is a future,” Pro 23:18 and Pro 23:17 are at variance, falls to the ground, if one reflects on the Heb. idiom, in which the affirmative signification of כי is interpenetrated by the confirmative. אחרית used thus pregnantly, as here (Pro 24:14), is the glorious final issue; the word in itself designates the end into which human life issues (cf. Psa 37:37.); here, the end crowning the preceding course. Jeremiah (Jer 29:11) in this sense connects אחרית ותקוה [end and expectation]. And what is here denied of the תּקיה, the hope (not as certain Jewish interpreters dream, the thread of life) of him who zealously strives after the fear of God, is affirmed, at Psa 37:38, of the godless: the latter have no continuance, but the former have such as is the fulfilling of his hope.

Verses 19-21

Among the virtues which flow from the fear of God, temperance is made prominent, and the warning against excess is introduced by the general exhortation to wisdom: 19 Hear thou, my son, and become wise, And direct thy heart straight forward on the way. 20 And be not among wine-drinkers, And among those who devour flesh; 21 For the drunkard and glutton become poor, And sleepiness clotheth in rags.
The אתּה, connected with שׁמע, imports that the speaker has to do with the hearer altogether by himself, and that the latter may make an exception to the many who do not hear (cf. Job 33:33; Jer 2:31). Regarding אשּׁר, to make to go straight out, vid., at Pro 4:14; the Kal, Pro 9:6, and also the Piel, Pro 4:14, mean to go straight on, and, generally, to go. The way merely, is the one that is right in contrast to the many byways. Fleischer: “the way sensu eximio, as the Oriental mystics called the way to perfection merely (Arab.) âlaṭryḳ; and him who walked therein, âlsâlak, the walker or wanderer.”^[35] אל־תּתי ב, as at Pro 22:26, the “Words of the Wise,” are to be compared in point of style. The degenerate and perverse son is more clearly described, Deu 21:20, as זולל וסבא. These two characteristics the poet distributes between 20a and 20b. סבא means to drink (whence סבא, drink = wine, Isa 1:22) wine or other intoxicating drinks; Arab. sabâ, vinum potandi causa emere. To the יין here added, בּשׂר in the parallel member corresponds, which consequently is not the fleshly body of the gluttons themselves, but the prepared flesh which they consume at their luxurious banquets. The lxx incorrectly as to the word, but not contrary to the sense, “be no wine-bibber, and stretch not thyself after picknicks (συμβολαῖς), and buying in of flesh (κρεῶν τε ἀγορασμοῖς),” whereby זללי is translated in the sense of the Aram. זבני (Lagarde). זלל denotes, intransitively, to be little valued (whence זולל, opp. יקר, Jer 15:19), transitively to value little, and as such to squander, to lavish prodigally; thus: qui prodigi sunt carnis sibi; למו is dat. commodi. Otherwise Gesenius, Fleischer, Umbreit, and Ewald: qui prodigi sunt carnis suae, who destroy their own body; but the parallelism shows that flesh is meant wherewith they feed themselves, not their own flesh (בּשׂר למו, like חמת־למו, Psa 58:5), which, i.e., its health, they squander. זולל also, in phrase used in Deu 21:20 (cf. with Hitzig the formula φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, Mat 11:19), denotes not the dissolute person, as the sensualist, πορνοκόπος (lxx), but the συμβολοκόπος (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion), κρεωβόρος (Venet.), זלל בּסר (Onkelos), i.e., flesh-eater, ravenous person, glutton, in which sense it is rendered here, by the Syr. and Targ., by אסוט (אסיט), i.e., ἄσωτος. Regarding the metaplastic fut. Niph. יוּרשׁ (lxx πτωχεύσει), vid., at Pro 20:13, cf. Pro 11:25. נוּמה (after the form of בּוּשׁה, דּוּגה, צוּרה) is drowsiness, lethargy, long sleeping, which necessarily follows a life of riot and revelry. Such a slothful person comes to a bit of bread (Pro 21:17); and the disinclination and unfitness for work, resulting from night revelry, brings it about that at last he must clothe himself in miserable rags. The rags are called קרע and ῥάκος, from the rending (tearing), Arab. ruk'at, from the patching, mending. Lagarde, more at large, treats of this word here used for rags.

Verses 22-25

The parainesis begins anew, and the division is open to question. Pro 23:22-24 can of themselves be independent distichs; but this is not the case with Pro 23:25, which, in the resumption of the address and in expression, leans back on Pro 23:22. The author of this appendix may have met with Pro 23:23 and Pro 23:24 (although here also his style, as conformed to that of Pro 1:9, is noticeable, cf. 23b with Pro 1:2), but Pro 23:22 and Pro 23:25 are the form which he has given to them.
Thus Pro 23:22-25 are a whole: - 22 Hearken to thy father, to him who hath begotten thee, And despise not thy mother when she has grown old. 23 Buy the truth, and sell it not, Wisdom and discipline and understanding. 24 The father of a righteous man rejoiceth greatly; (And) he that is the father of a wise man - he will rejoice. 25 Let thy father and thy mother be glad; And her that bare thee exult.
The octastich begins with a call to childlike obedience, for שׁמע ל, to listen to any one, is equivalent to, to obey him, e.g., Psa 81:9, Psa 81:14 (cf. “hearken to his voice,” Psa 95:7). זה ילדך is a relative clause (cf. Deu 32:18, without זה or אשׁר), according to which it is rightly accentuated (cf. on the contrary, Psa 78:54). 22b, strictly taken, is not to be translated neve contemne cum senuerit matrem tuam (Fleischer), but cum senuerit mater tua, for the logical object to אל־תּבוּז is attracted as subj. of זקנה (Hitzig). There now follows the exhortation comprehending all, and formed after Pro 4:7, to buy wisdom, i.e., to shun no expense, no effort, no privation, in order to attain to the possession of wisdom; and not to sell it, i.e., not to place it over against any earthly possession, worldly gain, sensual enjoyment; not to let it be taken away by any intimidation, argued away by false reasoning, or prevailed against by enticements into the way of vice, and not to become unfaithful to it by swimming with the great stream (Exo 23:2); for truth, אמת, is that which endures and proves itself in all spheres, the moral as well as the intellectual. In 23b, in like manner as Pro 1:3; Pro 22:4, a threefold object is given to קנה instead of אמת: there are three properties which are peculiar to truth, the three powers which handle it: חכמה is knowledge solid, pressing into the essence of things; מוּסר is moral culture; and בּינה the central faculty of proving and distinguishing (vid., Pro 1:3-5). Now Pro 23:24 says what consequences are for the parents when the son, according to the exhortation of Pro 23:23, makes truth his aim, to which all is subordinated. Because in אמת the ideas of practical and theoretical truth are inter-connected. צדּיק and חכם are also here parallel to one another. The Chethı̂b of 24a is גּול יגוּל, which Schultens finds tenable in view of (Arab.) jal, fut jajûlu (to turn round; Heb. to turn oneself for joy) but the Heb. usus loq. knows elsewhere only גּיל יגיל, as the Kerı̂ corrects. The lxx, misled by the Chethı̂b, translates καλῶς ἐκτρέφει (incorrect ἐκτρυφήσει), i.e., גּדּל יגדּל. In 24b, וישׂמח is of the nature of a pred. of the conclusion (cf. Gen 22:24; Psa 115:7), as if the sentence were: has one begotten a wise man, then (cf. Pro 17:21) he has joy of him; but the Kerı̂ effaces this Vav apodosis, and assigns it to יולד as Vav copul. - an unnecessary mingling of the syntactically possible, more emphatic expression. This proverbial whole now rounds itself off in Pro 23:25 by a reference to Pro 23:22 - the Optative here corresponding to the Impr. and Prohib. there: let thy father and thy mother rejoice (lxx εὐφρανέσθω), and let her that bare thee exult (here where it is possible the Optat. form ותגל).

Verses 26-28

This hexastich warns against unchastity. What, in chap. 1-9, extended discourses and representations exhibited to the youth is here repeated in miniature pictures. It is the teacher of wisdom, but by him Wisdom herself, who speaks: 26 Give me, my son, thine heart; And let thine eyes delight in my ways. 27 For the harlot is a deep ditch, And the strange woman a narrow pit. 28 Yea, she lieth in wait like a robber, And multiplieth the faithless among men
We have retained Luther's beautiful rendering of Pro 23:26,^[36] in which this proverb, as a warning word of heavenly wisdom and of divine love, has become dear to us. It follows, as Symmachus and the Venet., the Chethı̂b תּרצנה (for תרצינה, like Exo 2:16; Job 5:12), the stylistic appropriateness of which proceeds from Pro 16:7, as on the other hand the Kerı̂ תּצּרנה (cf. 1Sa 14:27) is supported by Pro 22:12, cf. Pro 5:2. But the correction is unnecessary, and the Chethı̂b sounds more affectionate, hence it is with right defended by Hitzig. The ways of wisdom are ways of correction, and particularly of chastity, thus placed over against “the ways of the harlot,” Pro 7:24. Accordingly the exhortation, Pro 23:26, verifies itself; warning, by Pro 23:27, cf. Pro 22:14, where עמקּה was written, here as at Job 12:22, with the long vowel עמוּקה (עמקה). בּאר צרה interchanges with שׁוּחה עמוקה, and means, not the fountain of sorrow (Löwenstein), but the narrow pit. בּאר is fem. gen., Pro 26:21., and צר means narrow, like étroit (old French, estreit), from strictus. The figure has, after Pro 22:14, the mouth of the harlot in view. Whoever is enticed by her syren voice falls into a deep ditch, into a pit with a narrow mouth, into which one can more easily enter than escape from. Pro 23:28 says that it is the artifice of the harlot which draws a man into such depth of wickedness and guilt. With אף, which, as at Jdg 5:29, belongs not to היא but to the whole sentence, the picture of terror is completed. The verb חתף (whence Arab. ḥataf, death, natural death) means to snatch away. If we take חתף as abstr.: a snatching away, then it would here stand elliptically for חתף (בּעל) אישׁ, which in itself is improbable (vid., Pro 7:22, עכס) and also unnecessary, since, as מלך, עבד, הלך, etc. show, such abstracta can pass immediately into concreta, so that חתף thus means the person who snatches away, i.e., the street robber, latro (cf. חטף .fc(, Arab. khaṭaf, Psa 10:9, rightly explained by Kimchi as cogn.). In 28b, תוסיף cannot mean abripit (as lxx, Theodotion, and Jerome suppose), for which the word תּספּה (תּאסף) would have been used.^[37]
But this verbal idea does not harmonize with the connection; תוסיף means, as always, addit (auget), and that here in the sense of multiplicat. The same thing may be said of בּוגדים as is said (Pro 11:15) of תּוקעים. Hitzig's objection, “הוסיף, to multiply, with the accusative of the person, is not at all used,” is set aside by Pro 19:4. But we may translate: the faithless, or: the breach of faith she increases. Yet it always remains a question whether בּאדם is dependent on בוגדים, as Ecc 8:9, cf. 2Sa 23:3, on the verb of ruling (Hitzig), or whether, as frequently בּאדם, e.g., Psa 78:60, it means inter homines (thus most interpreters). Uncleanness leads to faithlessness of manifold kinds: it makes not only the husband unfaithful to his wife, but also the son to his parents, the scholar to his teacher and pastor, the servant (cf. the case of Potiphar's wife) to his master. The adulteress, inasmuch as she entices now one and now another into her net, increases the number of those who are faithless towards men. But are they not, above all, faithless towards God? We are of opinion that not בוגדים, but תוסיף, has its complement in באדם, and needs it: the adulteress increases the faithless among men, she makes faithlessness of manifold kinds common in human society. According to this, also, it is accentuated; ובוגדים is placed as object by Mugrasch, and באדם is connected by Mercha with תוסיף.

Verses 29-35

The author passes from the sin of uncleanness to that of drunkenness; they are nearly related, for drunkenness excites fleshly lust; and to wallow with delight in the mire of sensuality, a man, created in the image of God, must first brutalize himself by intoxication. The Mashal in the number of its lines passes beyond the limits of the distich, and becomes a Mashal ode. 29 Whose is woe? Whose is grief? Whose are contentions, whose trouble, whose wounds without cause? Whose dimness of eyes? 30 Theirs, who sit late at the wine, Who turn in to taste mixed wine. 31 Look not on the wine as it sparkleth red, As it showeth its gleam in the cup, Glideth down with ease. 32 The end of it is that it biteth like a serpent, And stingeth like a basilisk. 33 Thine eyes shall see strange things, And thine heart shall speak perverse things; 34 And thou art as one lying in the heart of the sea, And as one lying on the top of a mast. 35 “They have scourged me-it pained me not; They have beaten me - I perceived it not. When shall I have wakened from sleep? Thus on I go, I return to it again.”
The repeated למי^[38] asks who then has to experience all that; the answer follows in Pro 23:30. With אוי, the אבוי occurring only here accords; it is not a substantive from אבה (whence אבון) after the form of צחק, in the sense of egestas; but, like the former [אוי], an interjection of sorrow (Venet. τίνι αἲ, τίνι φεῦ). Regarding מדינים (Chethı̂b מדונים), vid., at Pro 6:14. שׂיח signifies (vid., at Pro 6:22) meditation and speech, here sorrowful thought and sorrowful complaint (1Sa 1:16; Psa 55:18; cf. הגה, הגיג), e.g., over the exhausted purse, the neglected work, the anticipated reproaches, the diminishing strength. In the connection פּצעים חנּם (cf. Psa 35:19) the accus. adv. חנם (French gratuitement) represents the place of an adjective: strokes which one receives without being in the situation from necessity, or duty to expect them, strokes for nothing and in return for nothing (Fleischer), wounds for a long while (Oetinger). חכללוּת עינים is the darkening (clouding) of the eyes, from חצל, to be dim, closed, and transferred to the sensation of light: to be dark (vid., at Gen 49:12; Psa 10:8); the copper-nose of the drunkard is not under consideration; the word does not refer to the reddening, but the dimming of the eyes, and of the power of vision. The answer, Pro 23:30, begins, in conformity with the form of the question, with ל (write למאחרים, with Gaja to ל, according to Metheg-Setzung, §20, Michlol 46b): pain, and woe, and contention they have who tarry late at the wine (cf. Isa 5:11), who enter (viz., into the wine-house, Ecc 2:4, the house of revelry) “to search” mingled drink (vid., at Pro 9:2; Isa 5:22). Hitzig: “they test the mixing, as to the relation of the wine to the water, whether it is correct.” But לחקור is like גּבּרים, Isa 5:22, meant in mockery: they are heroes, viz., heroes in drinking; they are searchers, such, namely, as seek to examine into the mixed wine, or also: thoroughly and carefully taste it (Fleischer).
The evil consequences of drunkenness are now registered. That one may not fall under this common sin, the poet, Pro 23:31, warns against the attraction which the wine presents to the sight and to the sense of taste: one must not permit himself to be caught as a prisoner by this enticement, but must maintain his freedom against it. התאדּם, to make, i.e., to show oneself red, is almost equivalent to האדים; and more than this, it presents the wine as itself co-operating and active by its red play of colours (Fleischer). Regarding the antiptosis (antiphonesis): Look not on the wine that is..., vid., at Gen 1:3; yet here, where ראה means not merely “to see,” but “to look at,” the case is somewhat different. In 31b, one for the most part assumes that עינו signifies the eye of the wine, i.e., the pearls which play on the surface of the wine (Fleischer). And, indeed, Hitzig's translation, after Num 11:7 : when it presents its appearance in the cup, does not commend itself, because it expresses too little. On the other hand, it is saying too much when Böttcher maintains that עין never denotes the mere appearance, but always the shining aspect of the object. But used of wine, עין appears to denote not merely aspect as such, but its gleam, glance; not its pearls, for which עיני would be the word used, but shining glance, by which particularly the bright glance, as out of deep darkness, of the Syro-Palestinian wine is thought of, which is for the most part prepared from red (blue) grapes, and because very rich in sugar, is thick almost like syrup. Jerome translates עינו well: (cum splenduerit in vitro) color ejus. But one need not think of a glass; Böttcher has rightly said that one might perceive the glittering appearance also in a metal or earthen vessel if one looked into it. The Chethı̂b בכיס is an error of transcription; the Midrash makes the remark on this, that בּכּיס fits the wine merchant, and בּכּוס the wine drinker. From the pleasure of the eye, 31c passes over to the pleasures of the taste: (that, or, as it) goeth down smoothly (Luther); the expression is like Ecc 7:10. Instead of הלך (like jâry, of fluidity) there stands here התהלך, commonly used of pleasant going; and instead of למישׁרים with ל, the norm בּמישׁרים with ב of the manner; directness is here easiness, facility (Arab. jusr); it goes as on a straight, even way unhindered and easily down the throat.^[39]
Pro 23:32 shows how it issues with the wine, viz., with those who immoderately enjoy it. Is אחריתו [its end] here the subject, as at Pro 5:4? We must in that case interpret ישּׁך and יפרשׁ as attributives, as the Syr. and Targ. translate the latter, and Ewald both. The issue which it brings with it is like the serpent which bites, etc., and there is nothing syntactically opposed to this (cf. e.g., Psa 17:12); the future, in contradistinction to the participle, would not express properties, but intimations of facts. But the end of the wine is not like a serpent, but like the bite of a serpent. The wine itself, and independent of its consequences, is in and of itself like a serpent. In accordance with the matter, אחריתו may be interpreted, with Hitzig (after Jerome, in novissimo), as acc. adverb. = באחריתו, Jer 17:11. But why did not the author more distinctly write this word 'בא? The syntactic relation is like Pro 29:21 : אחריתו is after the manner of a substantival clause, the subject to that which follows as its virtual predicate: “its end is: like a serpent it biteth = this, that it biteth like a serpent.” Regarding צפעני, serpens regulus (after Schultens, from צפע = (Arab.) saf', to breathe out glowing, scorching), vid., at Isa 7:8. The Hiph. הפרישׁ Schultens here understands of the division of the liver, and Hitzig, after the lxx, Vulgate, and Venet., of squirting the poison; both after the Arab. farth. But הפרישׁ, Syr. afrês, also signifies, from the root-idea of dividing and splitting, to sting, poindre, pointer, as Rashi and Kimchi gloss, whence the Aram. פּרשׁ, an ox-goad, with which the ancients connect פרשׁ (of the spur), the name for a rider, eques, and also a horse (cf. on the contrary, Fleischer in Levy, W.B. ii. 574); a serpent's bite and a serpent's sting (Lat. morsus, ictus, Varro: cum pepugerit colubra) are connected together by the ancients.^[40]
The excited condition of the drunkard is now described. First, Pro 23:33 describes the activity of his imagination as excited to madness. It is untenable to interpret זרות here with Rashi, Aben Ezra, and others, and to translate with Luther: “so shall thine eyes look after other women” (circumspicient mulieres impudicas, Fleischer, for the meaning to perceive, to look about for something, to seek something with the eyes, referring to Gen 41:33). For זרות acquires the meaning of mulieres impudicae only from its surrounding, but here the parallel תּהפּכות (perverse things) directs to the neut. aliena (cf. Pro 15:28, רעות), but not merely in the sense of unreal things (Ralbag, Meîri), but: strange, i.e., abnormal, thus bizarre, mad, dreadful things. An old Heb. parable compares the changing circumstances which wine produces with the manner of the lamb, the lion, the swine, the monkey; here juggles and phantoms of the imagination are meant, which in the view and fancy of the drunken man hunt one another like monkey capers. Moreover, the state of the drunken man is one that is separated from the reality of a life of sobriety and the safety of a life of moderation, 34a: thou act like one who lies in the heart of the sea. Thus to lie in the heart, i.e., the midst, of the sea as a ship goes therein, Pro 30:19, is impossible; there one must swim but swimming is not lying, and to thing on a situation like that of Jonah; Jon 1:5, one must think also of the ship; but שׁכב does not necessarily mean “to sleep,” and, besides, the sleep of a passenger in the cabin on the high sea is of itself no dangerous matter. Rightly Hitzig: on the depth of the sea (cf. Jon 2:4) - the drunken man, or the man overcome by wine (Isa 28:7), is like one who has sunk down into the midst of the sea; and thus drowned, or in danger of being drowned, he is in a condition of intellectual confusion, which finally passes over into perfect unconsciousness, cut off from the true life which passes over him like one dead, and in this condition he has made a bed for himself, as שׁכב denotes. With בלב, בּראשׁ stands in complete contrast: he is like one who lies on the top of the mast. חבּל, after the forms דּבּר, שׁלּם, is the sail-yard fastened by ropes, חבלים ,sepo (Isa 33:23). To lay oneself down on the sail-yard happens thus to no one, and it is no place for such a purpose; but as little as one can quarter him who is on the ridge of the roof, in the ‘Alîja, because no one is able to lie down there, so little can he in the bower [Mastkorb] him who is here spoken of (Böttcher). The poet says, but only by way of comparison, how critical the situation of the drunkard is; he compares him to one who lies on the highest sail-yard, and is exposed to the danger of being every moment thrown into the sea; for the rocking of the ship is the greater in proportion to the height of the sail-yard. The drunkard is, indeed, thus often exposed to the peril of his life; for an accident of itself not great, or a stroke, may suddenly put an end to his life.
The poet represents the drunken man as now speaking to himself. He has been well cudgelled; but because insensible, he has not felt it, and he places himself now where he will sleep out his intoxication. Far from being made temperate by the strokes inflicted on him, he rejoices in the prospect, when he has awaked out of his sleep, of beginning again the life of drunkenness and revelry which has become a pleasant custom to him. חלה means not only to be sick, but generally to be, or to become, affected painfully; cf. Jer 5:3, where חלוּ is not the 3rd pl. mas. of חיל, but of חלה. The words מתי אקיץ are, it is true, a cry of longing of a different kind from Job 7:4. The sleeping man cannot forbear from yielding to the constraint of nature: he is no longer master of himself, he becomes giddy, everything goes round about with him, but he thinks with himself: Oh that I were again awake! and so little has his appetite been appeased by his sufferings, that when he is again awakened, he will begin where he left off yesterday, when he could drink no more. מתי is here, after Nolde, Fleischer, and Hitzig, the relative quando (quum); but the bibl. usus loq. gives no authority for this. In that case we would have expected הקיצותי instead of אקיץ. As the interrog. מתי is more animated than the relat., so also אוסיף אבקשׁנּוּ is more animated (1Sa 2:3) than אוסיף לבקּשׁ. The suffix of אבקשׁנו refers to the wine: raised up, he will seek that which has become so dear and so necessary to him.

Chap. 24

Verses 1-2

After this divergence (in Pro 23:29-35) from the usual form of the proverb, there is now a return to the tetrastich: 1 Envy not evil men, And desire not to have intercourse with them. 2 For their heart thinketh of violence, And their lips speak mischief.
The warning, not to envy the godless, is also found at Pro 3:31; Pro 23:17; Pro 24:19, but is differently constructed in each of these passages. Regarding תּתאו with Pathach, vid., at Pro 23:3. אנשׁי רעה (cf. רע, Pro 28:5) are the wicked, i.e., such as cleave to evil, and to whom evil clings. The warning is grounded in this, that whoever have intercourse with such men, make themselves partners in greater sins and evil: for their heart broodeth (write כּי שׁד, Munach Dechî) violence, i.e., robbery, plunder, destruction, murder, and the like. With שׁד (in the Mishle only here and at Pro 21:7, cf. שׁדּד, Pro 19:26) connects itself elsewhere חמס, here (cf. Hab 1:3) עמל, labor, molestia, viz., those who prepare it for others by means of slanderous, crafty, uncharitable talk.

Verses 3-4

The warning against fellowship with the godless is followed by the praise of wisdom, which is rooted in the fear of God. 3 By wisdom is the house builded, And by understanding is it established. 4 And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled With all manner of precious and pleasant goods.
What is meant by the “building of the house” is explained at Pro 14:1. It is wisdom, viz., that which originates from God, which is rooted in fellowship with Him, by which every household, be it great or small, prospers and attains to a successful and flourishing state; כּונן, as parallel word to בּנה (Pro 3:19; Pro 2:12), is related to it as statuere to extruere; the Hithpal (as at Num 21:17) means to keep oneself in a state of continuance, to gain perpetuity, to become established. That ימּלאוּ by Athnach has not passed over into the pausal ימּלאוּ, arises from this, that the Athnach, by the poetical system of accents, has only the force of the prose accent Sakef; the clause completes itself only by 4b; the pausal form on that account also is not found, and it is discontinued, because the Athnach does not produce any pausal effect (vid., at Psa 45:6). The form of expression in Pro 24:4 is like Pro 1:13; Pro 3:10. But the חדרים, of storerooms (lxx as Isa 26:20, ταμιεῖα), and נעים, like Pro 22:18; Pro 23:8, is peculiar to this collection.

Verses 5-6

The praise of wisdom is continued: it brings blessings in the time of peace, and gives the victory in war. 5 A wise man is full of strength; And a man of understanding showeth great power. 6 For with wise counsel shalt thou carry on successful war; And safety is where counsellors are not wanting.
The ב of בּעוז (thus with Pathach in old impressions, Cod. 1294, Cod. Jaman., and elsewhere with the Masoretic note לית ומלא) introduces, as that of בכּח, Psa 24:4, the property in which a person or thing appears; the article (cf. העזבים, Pro 2:13, Gesen, §35, 2A) is that of gender. The parallel מאמץ כח, a Greek translates by ὑπὲρ κραταιὸν ἰσχύΐ = מאמּיץ כּח (Job 9:4; Isa 40:26). But after 5a it lies nearer that the poet means to express the power which lies in wisdom itself (Ecc 7:19), and its superiority to physical force (Pro 21:22); the lxx, Syr., and Targ. also, it is true, translate 5a as if מעז (prae potente) were the words used. אמּץ כּח means to strengthen the strength, and that is (Nah 2:2) equivalent to, to collect the strength (to take courage), here and at Amo 2:14, to show strong (superior) strength. The reason is gathered from Pro 20:18 and Pro 11:14. The לך here added, Hitzig is determined to read תּעשׂה: for with prudent counsel the war shall be carried out by thee. The construction of the passive with ל of the subject is correct in Heb. (vid., at Pro 14:20) as well as in Aram.,^[41] and עשׂה frequently means, in a pregnant sense: to complete, to carry out, to bring to an end; but the phrase עשׂה מלחמה means always to carry on war, and nothing further. לך is the dat. commod., as in נלחם ל, to wage war (to contend) for any one, e.g., Exo 14:14. Instead of ברב, the lxx reads בלב; regarding γεωργίου μεγάλου for מאמץ כח, without doubt a corrupt reading, vid., Lagarde.

Verse 7

Till now in this appendix we have found only two distichs (vid., vol. i. p. 17); now several of them follow. From this, that wisdom is a power which accomplishes great things, it follows that it is of high value, though to the fool it appears all too costly. 7 Wisdom seems to the fool to be an ornamental commodity; He openeth not his mouth in the gate.
Most interpreters take ראמות for רמות (written as at 1Ch 6:58; cf. Zec 14:10; ראשׁ, Pro 10:4; קאם, Hos 10:14), and translate, as Jerome and Luther: “Wisdom is to the fool too high;” the way to wisdom is to him too long and too steep, the price too costly, and not to be afforded. Certainly this thought does not lie far distant from what the poet would say; but why does he say חכמות, and not חכמה? This חכמות is not a numerical plur., so as to be translated with the Venet.: μετέωροι τῷ ἄφρονι αἱ ἐπιστῆμαι; it is a plur., as Psa 49:4 shows; but, as is evident from the personification and the construction, Pro 1:20, one inwardly multiplying and heightening, which is related to חכמה as science or the contents of knowledge is to knowledge. That this plur. comes here into view as in chap. 1-9 (vid., vol. i. p. 34), is definitely accounted for in these chapters by the circumstance that wisdom was to be designated, which is the mediatrix of all wisdom; here, to be designated in intentional symphony with ראמות, whose plur. ending ôth shall be for that very reason, however, inalienable. Thus ראמות will be the name of a costly foreign bijouterie, which is mentioned in the Book of Job, where the unfathomableness and inestimableness of wisdom is celebrated; vid., Job 27:18, where we have recorded what we had to say at the time regarding this word. But what is now the meaning of the saying that wisdom is to the fool a pearl or precious coral? Joël Bril explains: “The fool uses the sciences like a precious stone, only for ornament, but he knows not how to utter a word publicly,” This is to be rejected, because ראמות is not so usual a trinket or ornament as to serve as an expression of this thought. The third of the comparison lies in the rarity, costliness, unattainableness; the fool despises wisdom, because the expenditure of strength and the sacrifices of all kinds which are necessary to put one into the possession of wisdom deter him from it (Rashi). This is also the sense which the expression has when ראמות = רמות; and probably for the sake of this double meaning the poet chose just this word, and not פנינים, גבישׁ, or any other name, for articles of ornament (Hitzig). The Syr. has incorrectly interpreted this play upon words: sapientia abjecta stulto; and the Targumist: the fool grumbles (מתרעם) against wisdom.^[42]
He may also find the grapes to be sour because they hang too high for him; here it is only said that wisdom remains at a distance from him because he cannot soar up to its attainment; for that very reason he does not open his mouth in the gate, where the council and the representatives of the people have their seats: he has not the knowledge necessary for being associated in counselling, and thus must keep silent; and this is indeed the most prudent thing he can do.

Verse 8

From wisdom, which is a moral good, the following proverb passes over to a kind of σοφία δαιμονιώδης:
He that meditateth to do evil,
We call such an one an intriguer.
A verbal explanation and definition like Pro 21:24 (cf. p. 29), formed like Pro 16:21 from נבון. Instead of בּעל־מזמּות [lord of mischief] in Pro 12:2, the expression is 'אישׁ מ (cf. at Pro 22:24). Regarding מזמות in its usual sense, vid., Pro 5:2. Such definitions have of course no lexicographical, but only a moral aim. That which is here given is designed to warn one against gaining for himself this ambiguous title of a refined (cunning, versutus) man; one is so named whose schemes and endeavours are directed to the doing of evil. One may also inversely find the turning-point of the warning in 8b: “he who projects deceitful plans against the welfare of others, finds his punishment in this, that he falls under public condemnation as a worthless intriguer” (Elster). But מזמות is a ῥῆμα μέσον, vid., Pro 5:2; the title is thus equivocal, and the turning-point lies in the bringing out of his kernel: מחשּׁב להרע = meditating to do evil.

Verse 9

This proverb is connected by זמת with Pro 24:8, and by אויל with Pro 24:7; it places the fool and the mocker over against one another.
The undertaking of folly is sin;
And an abomination to men is the scorner.
Since it is certain that for 9b the subject is “the scorner,” so also “sin” is to be regarded as the subject of 9a. The special meaning flagitium, as Pro 21:27, זמּה will then not have here, but it derives it from the root-idea “to contrive, imagine,” and signifies first only the collection and forthputting of the thoughts towards a definite end (Job 17:11), particularly the refined preparation, the contrivance of a sinful act. In a similar way we speak of a sinful beginning or undertaking. But if one regards sin in itself, or in its consequences, it is always a contrivance or desire of folly (gen. subjecti), or: one that bears on itself (gen. qualitatis) the character of folly; for it disturbs and destroys the relation of man to God and man, and rests, as Socrates in Plato says, on a false calculation. And the mocker (the mocker at religion and virtue) is תועבת לאדם. The form of combination stands here before a word with ל, as at Job 18:2; Job 24:5, and frequently. but why does not the poet say directly תועבת אדם? Perhaps to leave room for the double sense, that the mocker is not only an abomination to men, viz., to the better disposed; but also, for he makes others err as to their faith, and draws them into his frivolous thoughts, becomes to them a cause of abomination, i.e., of such conduct and of such thoughts as are an abomination before God (Pro 15:9, Pro 15:26).

Verse 10

The last of these four distichs stands without visible connection:
Hast thou shown thyself slack in the day of adversity,
Then is thy strength small.
The perf. 10a is the hypothetic, vid., at Pro 22:29. If a man shows himself remiss (Pro 18:9), i.e., changeable, timorous, incapable of resisting in times of difficulty, then shall he draw therefrom the conclusion which is expressed in 10b. Rightly Luther, with intentional generalization, “he is not strong who is not firm in need.” But the address makes the proverb an earnest admonition, which speaks to him who shows himself weak the judgment which he has to pronounce on himself. And the paronomasia צרה and צר may be rendered, where possible, “if thy strength becomes, as it were, pressed together and bowed down by the difficulty just when it ought to show itself (viz., להרחיב לך), then it is limited, thou art a weakling.” Thus Fleischer accordingly, translating: si segnis fueris die angustiae, angustae sunt vires tuae. Hitzig, on the contrary, corrects after Job 7:11, רוּחך “Klemm (klamm) ist dein Mut” [= strait is thy courage]. And why? Of כסה [strength], he remarks, one can say כשׁל [it is weak] (Psa 31:11), but scarcely צר [strait, straitened]; for force is exact, and only the region of its energy may be wide or narrow. To this we answer, that certainly of strength in itself we cannot use the word כסה drow eht esu t in the sense here required; the confinement (limitation) may rather be, as with a stream, Isa 59:19, the increasing (heightening) of its intensity. But if the strength is in itself anything definite, then on the other hand its expression is something linear, and the force in view of its expression is that which is here called צר, i.e., not extending widely, not expanding, not inaccessible. צר is all to which narrow limits are applied. A little strength is limited, because it is little also in its expression.

Verses 11-12

Now, again, we meet with proverbs of several lines. The first here is a hexastich: 11 Deliver them that are taken to death, And them that are tottering to destruction, oh stop them! 12 If thou sayest, “We knew not of it indeed,” - It is not so: The Weigher of hearts, who sees through it, And He that observeth thy soul, He knoweth it, And requiteth man according to his work.
If אם is interpreted as a particle of adjuration, then אם־תּחשׂוך is equivalent to: I adjure thee, forbear not (cf. Neh 13:25 with Isa 58:1), viz., that which thou hast to do, venture all on it (lxx, Syr., Jerome). But the parallelism requires us to take together מטים להרג (such as with tottering steps are led forth to destruction) as object along with אם־תחשׂוך, as well as לקחים למּות (such as from their condition are carried away to death, cf. Exo 14:11) as object to הצּל, in which all the old interpreters have recognised the imper., but none the infin. (eripere ... ne cesses, which is contrary to Heb. idiom, both in the position of the words and in the construction). אם also is not to be interpreted as an interrogative; for, thus expressed, an retinetis ought rather to have for the converse the meaning: thou shalt indeed not do it! (cf. e.g., Isa 29:16). And אם cannot be conditional: si prohibere poteris (Michaelis and others), for the fut. after אם has never the sense of a potential. Thus אם is, like לוּ, understood in the sense of utinam, as it is used not merely according to later custom (Hitzig), but from ancient times (cf. e.g., Exo 32:32 with Gen 23:13). כּי־תאמר (reminding^[43] us of the same formula of the Rabbinical writings) introduces an objection, excuse, evasion, which is met by הלא; introducing “so say I on the contrary,” it is of itself a reply, vid., Deu 7:17. זה we will not have to interpret personally (lxx τοῦτον); for, since Pro 24:11 speaks of several of them, the neut. rendering (Syr., Targ., Venet., Luther) in itself lies nearer, and זה, hoc, after ידע, is also in conformity with the usus loq.; vid., at Psa 56:10. But the neut. זה does not refer to the moral obligation expressed in Pro 24:11; to save human life when it is possible to do so, can be unknown to no one, wherefore Jerome (as if the words of the text were אין לאל ידנוּ זה): vires non suppetunt. זה refers to the fact that men are led to the tribunal; only thus is explained the change of ידעתי, which was to be expected, into ידענוּ: the objection is, that one certainly did not know, viz., that matters had come to an extremity with them, and that a short process will be made with them. To this excuse, with pretended ignorance, the reply of the omniscient God stands opposed, and suggests to him who makes the excuse to consider: It is not so: the Searcher of hearts (vid., at Pro 16:2), He sees through it, viz., what goes on in thy heart, and He has thy soul under His inspection (נצר, as Job 7:20 : lxx καὶ ὁ πλάσας; יצרו, which Hitzig prefers, for he thinks that נצר must be interpreted in the sense of to guard, preserve; Luther rightly); He knows, viz., how it is with thy mind, He looks through it, He knows (cf. for both, Psa 139:1-4), and renders to man according to his conduct, which, without being deceived, He judges according to the state of the heart, out of which the conduct springs. It is to be observed that Pro 24:11 speaks of one condemned to death generally, and not expressly of one innocently condemned, and makes no distinction between one condemned in war and in peace. One sees from this that the Chokma generally has no pleasure in this, that men are put to death by men, not even when it is done legally as punishment for a crime. For, on the one side, it is true that the punishment of the murderer by death is a law proceeding from the nature of the divine holiness and the inviolability of the divine ordinance, and the worth of man as formed in the image of God, and that the magistrate who disowns this law as a law, disowns the divine foundation of his office; but, on the other side, it is just as true that thousands and thousands of innocent persons, or at least persons not worthy of death, have fallen a sacrifice to the abuse or the false application of this law; and that along with the principle of recompensative righteousness, there is a principle of grace which rules in the kingdom of God, and is represented in the O.T. by prophecy and the Chokma. It is, moreover, a noticeable fact, that God did not visit with the punishment of death the first murderer, the murderer of the innocent Abel, his brother, but let the principle of grace so far prevail instead of that of law, that He even protected his life against any avenger of blood. But after that the moral ruin of the human race had reached that height which brought the Deluge over the earth, there was promulgated to the post-diluvians the word of the law, Gen 9:6, sanctioning this inviolable right of putting to death by the hand of justice. The conduct of God regulates itself thus according to the aspect of the times. In the Mosaic law the greatness of guilt was estimated not externally (cf. Num 35:31), but internally, a very flexible limitation in its practical bearings. And that under certain circumstances grace might have the precedence of justice, the parable having in view the pardon of Absalom (2 Sam 14) shows. But a word from God, like Eze 18:23, raises grace to a principle, and the word with which Jesus (Joh 8:11) dismisses the adulteress is altogether an expression of this purpose of grace passing beyond the purpose of justice. In the later Jewish commonwealth, criminal justice was subordinated to the principle of predominating compassion; practical effect was given to the consideration of the value of human life during the trial, and even after the sentence was pronounced, and during a long time no sentence of death was passed by the Sanhedrim. But Jesus, who was Himself the innocent victim of a fanatical legal murder, adjudged, it is true, the supremacy to the sword; but He preached and practised love, which publishes grace for justice. He was Himself incarnate Love, offering Himself for sinners, the Mercy which Jahve proclaims by Eze 18:23. The so-called Christian state [“Citivas Dei”] is indeed in manifest opposition to this. But Augustine declares himself, on the supposition that the principle of grace must penetrate the new ear, in all its conditions, that began with Christianity, for the suspension of punishment by death, especially because the heathen magistrates had abused the instrument of death, which, according to divine right, they had control over, to the destruction of Christians; and Ambrosius went so far as to impress it as a duty on a Christian judge who had pronounced the sentence of death, to exclude himself from the Holy Supper. The magisterial control over life and death had at that time gone to the extreme height of bloody violence, and thus in a certain degree it destroyed itself. Therefore Jansen changes the proverb (Pro 24:11) with the words of Ambrosius into the admonition: Quando indulgentia non nocet publico, eripe intercessione, eripe gratia tu sacerdos, aut tu imperator eripe subscriptionie indulgentiae. When Samuel Romilly's Bill to abolish the punishment of death for a theft amounting to the sum of five shillings passed the English House of Commons, it was thrown out by a majority in the House of Lords. Among those who voted against the Bill were one archbishop and five bishops. Our poet here in the Proverbs is of a different mind. Even the law of Sinai appoints the punishment of death only for man-stealing. The Mosaic code is incomparably milder than even yet the Carolina. In expressions, however, like the above, a true Christian spirit rules the spirit which condemns all blood-thirstiness of justice, and calls forth to a crusade not only against the inquisition, but also against such unmerciful, cruel executions even as they prevailed in Prussia in the name of law in the reign of Friedrich Wilhelm I, the Inexorable.

Verses 13-14

The proverb now following stands in no obvious relation with the preceding. But in both a commencement is made with two lines, which contain, in the former, the principal thought; in this here, its reason: 13 My son, eat honey, for it is good, And honeycomb is sweet to thy taste. 14 So apprehend wisdom for thy soul; When thou hast found it, there is a future, And thy hope is not destroyed.
After its nearest fundamental thought, טוב, Arab. ṭejjib, means that which smells and tastes well; honey (דּבשׁ, from דּבשׁ, to be thick, consistent) has, besides, according to the old idea (e.g., in the Koran), healing virtue, as in general bitterness is viewed as a property of the poisonous, and sweetness that of the wholesome. נפתו is second accus. dependent on אכל־, for honey and honeycomb were then spoken of as different; נפת (from נפת, to pour, to flow out) is the purest honey (virgin-honey), flowing of itself out of the comb. With right the accentuation takes 13b as independent, the substantival clause containing the reason, “for it is good:” honeycomb is sweet to thy taste, i.e., applying itself to it with the impression of sweetness; על, as at Neh 2:5; Psa 16:6 (Hitzig).
In the כּן of 14a, it is manifest that Pro 24:13 is not spoken for its own sake. To apprehend wisdom, is elsewhere equivalent to, to receive it into the mind, Pro 1:2; Ecc 1:17 (cf. דעת בינה, Pro 4:1, and frequently), according to which Böttcher also here explains: learn to understand wisdom. But כן unfolds itself in 14bc: even as honey has for the body, so wisdom has for the soul, beneficent wholesome effects. דעה חכמה is thus not absolute, but is meant in relation to these effects. Rightly Fleischer: talem reputa; Ewald: sic (talem) scito spaientiam (esse) animae tuae, know, recognise wisdom as something advantageous to thy soul, and worthy of commendation. Incorrectly Hitzig explains אם־מצאת, “if the opportunity presents itself.” Apart from this, that in such a case the words would rather have been כּי תמצא, to find wisdom is always equivalent to, to obtain it, to make it one's own, Pro 3:13; Pro 8:35; cf. Pro 2:5; Pro 8:9. דּעה^[44] stands for דּעה, after the form רדה; שׁבה (after Böttcher, §396, not without the influence of the following commencing sound), cf. the similar transitions of ā into ě placed together at Psa 20:4; the form דּעה is also found, but דּעה is the form in the Cod. Hilleli,^[45] as confirmed by Moses Kimchi in Comm., and by David Kimchi, Michlol 101b. With ישׁו begins the apodosis (lxx, Jerome, Targ., Luther, Rashi, Ewald, and others). In itself, וישׁ (cf. Gen 47:6) might also continue the conditional clause; but the explanation, si inveneris (eam) et ad postremum ventum erit (Fleischer, Bertheau, Zöckler), has this against it, that ישׁ אחרית does not mean: the end comes, but: there is an end, Pro 23:18; cf. Pro 19:18; here: there is an end for thee, viz., an issue that is a blessed reward. The promise is the same as at Pro 23:18. In our own language we speak of the hope of one being cut off; (Arab.) jaz'a, to be cut off, is equivalent to, to give oneself up to despair.

Verses 15-16

Pro 24:15-16 15 Lie not in wait, oh wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous; Assault not his resting-place. 16 For seven times doth the righteous fall and rise again, But the wicked are overthrown when calamity falls on them.
The ארב [lying in wait] and שׁדּד [practising violence], against which the warning is here given, are not directed, as at Pro 1:11; Pro 19:26, immediately against the person, but against the dwellingplace and resting-place (רבץ, e.g., Jer 50:6, as also נוה, 3:33) of the righteous, who, on his part, does injustice and wrong to no one; the warning is against coveting his house, Exo 20:17, and driving him by cunning and violence out of it. Instead of רשׁע, Symmachus and Jerome have incorrectly read רשׁע daer, and from this misunderstanding have here introduced a sense without sense into Pro 24:15; many interpreters (Löwenstein, Ewald, Elster, and Zöckler) translate with Luther appositionally: as a wicked man, i.e., “with mischievous intent,” like one stealthily lurking for the opportunity of taking possession of the dwelling of another, as if this could be done with a good intent: רשׁע is the vocative (Syr., Targ., Venet.: ἀσεβές), and this address (cf. Psa 75:5.) sharpens the warning, for it names him who acts in this manner by the right name. The reason, 16a, sounds like an echo of Job 5:19. שׁבע signifies, as at Psa 119:164, seven times; cf. מאה, Pro 17:10. וקם (not וקם) is perf. consec., as וחי, e.g., Gen 3:22 : and he rises afterwards (notwithstanding), but the transgressors come to ruin; בּרעה, if a misfortune befall them (cf. Pro 14:32), they stumble and fall, and rise no more.

Verses 17-18

Warning against a vindictive disposition, and joy over its satisfaction. 17 At the fall of thine enemy rejoice not, And at his overthrow let not thine heart be glad; 18 That Jahve see it not, and it be displeasing to Him, And He turns away His anger from Him.
The Chethı̂b, which in itself, as the plur. of category, אויביך, might be tolerable, has 17b against it: with right, all interpreters adhere to the Kerı̂ אויבך (with i from ē in doubled close syllable, as in the like Kerı̂, 1Sa 24:5). וּבבּשׁלו, for וּבהכּשׁלו, is the syncope usual in the inf. Niph. and Hiph., which in Niph. occurs only once with the initial guttural (as בּעטף) or half guttural (לראות). רעו is not adj. here as at 1Sa 25:3, but perf. with the force of a fut. (Symmachus: καὶ μὴ ἀρέσῃ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ). The proverb extends the duty of love even to an enemy; for it requires that we do good to him and not evil, and warns against rejoicing when evil befalls him. Hitzig, indeed, supposes that the noble morality which is expressed in Pro 24:17 is limited to a moderate extent by the motive assigned in 18b. Certainly the poet means to say that God could easily give a gracious turn for the better, as to the punishment of the wicked, to the decree of his anger against his enemy; but his meaning is not this, that one, from joy at the misfortune of others, ought to desist from interrupting the process of the destruction of his enemy, and let it go on to its end; but much rather, that one ought to abstain from this joy, so as not to experience the manifestation of God's displeasure thereat, but His granting grace to him against whom we rejoice to see God's anger go forth.^[46]

Verses 19-20

Warning against envying the godless for their external prosperity: 19 Be not enraged on account of evil-doers, Envy not the godless; 20 For the wicked men shall have no future, The light of the godless is extinguished.
Ver. 19 is a variation of Psa 37:1; cf. also Pro 3:21 (where with בכל־דרכיו following the traditional תבחר is more appropriate than תתחר, which Hupfeld would here insert). תּתחר is fut. apoc. of התחרה, to be heated (to be indignant), distinguished from the Tiphel תּחרה, to be jealous. The ground and occasion of being enraged, and on the other side, of jealousy or envy, is the prosperity of the godless, Psa 73:3; cf. Jer 12:1. This anger at the apparently unrighteous division of fortune, this jealousy at the success in which the godless rejoice, rest on short-sightedness, which regards the present, and looks not on to the end. אחרית, merely as in the expression 'ישׁ אח, 14b (cf. Psa 37:37), always denotes the happy, glorious issue indemnifying for past sufferings. Such an issue the wicked man has not; his light burns brightly on this side, but one day it is extinguished. In 20b is repeated Pro 13:9; cf. Pro 20:20.

Verses 21-22

A warning against rebellious thoughts against God and the king: 21 My son, honour Jahve and the king, And involve not thyself with those who are otherwise disposed; 22 For suddenly their calamity ariseth, And the end of their years, who knoweth it?
The verb שׁנה, proceeding from the primary idea of folding (complicare, duplicare), signifies transitively to do twice, to repeat, Pro 17:9; Pro 26:11, according to which Kimchi here inappropriately thinks on relapsing; and intransitively, to change, to be different, Est 1:7; Est 3:8. The Syr. and Targ. translate the word שׁטיי, fools; but the Kal (טעמו) שׁנה occurs, indeed, in the Syr., but not in the Heb., in the meaning alienata est (mens ejus); and besides, this meaning, alieni, is not appropriate here. A few, however, with Saadia (cf. Deutsch-Morgenländische Zeitschr. xxi. 616), the dualists (Manichees), understand it in a dogmatic sense; but then שׁונים must be denom. of שׁנים, while much more it is its root-word. Either שׁונים means those who change, novantes = novarum rerum studiosi, which is, however, exposed to this objection, that the Heb. שׁנה, in the transitive sense to change, does not elsewhere occur; or it means, according to the usus loq., diversos = diversum sentientes (C. B. Michaelis and others), and that with reference to 21a: הממרים דבריהם ומצותם (Meîri, Immanuel), or משׁנים מנהג החכמה (Ahron b. Joseph). Thus they are called (for it is a common name of a particular class of men) dissidents, oppositionists, or revolutionaries, who recognise neither the monarchy of Jahve, the King of kings, nor that of the earthly king, which perhaps Jerome here means by the word detractoribus (= detractatoribus). The Venet. incorrectly, σὺν τοῖς μισοῦσι, i.e., שׂונאים. with ב at Pro 14:10, התערב meant to mix oneself up with something, here with עם, to mix oneself with some one, i.e., to make common cause with him.
The reason assigned in Pro 24:22 is, that although such persons as reject by thought and action human and divine law may for a long time escape punishment, yet suddenly merited ruin falls on them. איד is, according to its primary signification, weighty, oppressive misfortune, vid., i. 27. In יקוּם it is thought of as hostile power (Hos 10:14); or the rising up of God as Judge (e.g., Isa 33:10) is transferred to the means of executing judgment. פּיד (= פּוד of פוד or פיד ro פו, Arab. fâd, fut. jafûdu or jafı̂du, a stronger power of bâd, cogn. אבד) is destruction (Arab. fied, fı̂d, death); this word occurs, besides here, only thrice in the Book of Job. But to what does שׁניהם refer? Certainly not to Jahve and the king (lxx, Schultens, Umbreit, and Bertheau), for in itself it is doubtful to interpret the genit. after פיד as designating the subject, but improper to comprehend God and man under one cipher. Rather it may refer to two, of whom one class refuse to God, the other to the king, the honour that is due (Jerome, Luther, and at last Zöckler); but in the foregoing, two are not distinguished, and the want of reverence for God, and for the magistrates appointed by Him, is usually met with, because standing in interchangeable relationship, in one and the same persons. Is there some misprint then in this word? Ewald suggests שׁניהם, i.e., of those who show themselves as שׁונים (altercatores) towards God and the king. In view of קמיהם, Exo 32:25, this brevity of expression must be regarded as possible. But if this were the meaning of the word, then it ought to have stood in the first member (איד שׁניהם), and not in the second. No other conjecture presents itself. Thus שׁניהם is perhaps to be referred to the שׁונים, and those who engage with them: join thyself not with the opposers; for suddenly misfortune will come upon them, and the destruction of both (of themselves and their partisans), who knows it? But that also is not satisfactory, for after the address שׁניכם was to have been expected, 22b. Nothing remains, therefore, but to understand שׁניהם, with the Syr. and Targ., as at Job 36:11; the proverb falls into rhythms פּתאם and פּיד, שׁונים and שׁניהם. But “the end of their year” is not equivalent to the hour of their death (Hitzig), because for this פּידם (cf. Arab. feid and fı̂d, death) was necessary; but to the expiring, the vanishing, the passing by of the year during which they have succeeded in maintaining their ground and playing a part. There will commence a time which no one knows beforehand when all is over with them. In this sense, “who knoweth,” with its object, is equivalent to “suddenly ariseth,” with its subject. In the lxx, after Pro 24:22, there follow one distich of the relations of man to the word of God as deciding their fate, one distich of fidelity as a duty towards the king, and the duty of the king, and one pentastich or hexastich of the power of the tongue and of the anger of the king. The Heb. text knows nothing of these three proverbs. Ewald has, Jahrb. xi. 18f., attempted to translate them into Heb., and is of opinion that they are worthy of being regarded as original component parts of chap. 1-29, and that they ought certainly to have come in after Pro 24:22. We doubt this originality, but recognise their translation from the Heb. Then follows in the lxx the series of Prov; Pro 30:1-14, which in the Heb. text bear the superscription of “the Words of Agur;” the second half of the “Words of Agur,” together with the “Words of Lemuel,” stand after Pro 24:34 of the Heb. text. The state of the matter is this, that in the copy from which the Alexandrines translated the Appendix 30:1-31:9, stood half of it, after the “Words of the Wise” [which extend from Pro 22:17 to Pro 24:22], and half after the supplement headed “these also are from wise men” [[[Bible_(King_James)/Proverbs|Pro 24:23-34]]], so that only the proverbial ode in praise of the excellent matron [[[Bible_(King_James)/Proverbs|Pro 31:10]]] remains as an appendix to the Book of Hezekiah's collection, chap. 25-29.

Verses 23-25

The curse of partiality and the blessing of impartiality: Respect of persons in judgment is by no means good: 24 He that saith to the guilty, “Thou art in the right,” Him the people curse, nations detest. 25 But to them who rightly decide, it is well, And upon them cometh blessing with good.
Partiality is either called שׂאת פנים, Pro 18:5, respect to the person, for the partisan looks with pleasure on the פני, the countenance, appearance, personality of one, by way of preference; or הכּר־פּנים, as here and at Pro 28:21, for he places one person before another in his sight, or, as we say, has a regard to him; the latter expression is found in Deu 1:17; Deu 16:19. הכּיר (vid., Pro 20:11) means to regard sharply, whether from interest in the object, or because it is strange. בּל Heidenheim regards as weaker than לא; but the reverse is the case (vid., vol. i. p. 204), as is seen from the derivation of this negative (= balj, from בּלה, to melt, to decay); thus it does not occur anywhere else than here with the pred. adj. The two supplements delight in this בל, Deu 22:29; Deu 23:7, 35. The thesis 23b is now confirmed in Pro 24:24 and Pro 24:25, from the consequences of this partiality and its opposite: He that saith (אמר, with Mehuppach Legarmeh from the last syllable, as rightly by Athias, Nissel, and Michaelis, vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 32) to the guilty: thou art right, i.e., he who sets the guilty free (for רשׁע and צדּיק have here the forensic sense of the post-bibl. חיּב and זכּי), him they curse, etc.; cf. the shorter proverb, Pro 17:15, according to which a partial, unjust judge is an abomination to God. Regarding נקב (קבב) here and at Pro 11:26, Schultens, under Job 3:8, is right; the word signifies figere, and hence to distinguish and make prominent by distinguishing as well as by branding; cf. defigere, to curse, properly, to pierce through. Regarding זעם, vid., at Pro 22:14. עמּים and לאמּים (from עמם and לאם, which both mean to bind and combine) are plur. of categ.: not merely individuals, not merely families, curse such an unrighteous judge and abhor him, but the whole people in all conditions and ranks of society; for even though such an unjust judge bring himself and his favourites to external honour, yet among no people is conscience so blunted, that he who absolves the crime and ennobles the miscarriage of justice shall escape the vox populi. On the contrary, it goes well (ינעם, like Pro 2:10; Pro 9:17, but here with neut. indef. subj. as ייטב, Gen 12:13, and frequently) with those who place the right, and particularly the wrong, fully to view; מוכיח is he who mediates the right, Job 9:33, and particularly who proves, censures, punishes the wrong, Pro 9:7, and in the character of a judge as here, Amo 5:10; Isa 29:21. The genitive connection ברכּת־טוב is not altogether of the same signification as יין הטּוב, wine of a good sort, Sol 7:10, and אושׁת רע, a woman of a bad kind, Pro 6:24, for every blessing is of a good kind; the gen. טוב thus, as at Psa 21:4, denotes the contents of the blessing; cf. Eph 1:3, “with all spiritual blessings,” in which the manifoldness of the blessing is presupposed.

Verse 26

Then follows a distich with the watchword נצחים: 26 He kisseth the lips Who for the end giveth a right answer.
The lxx, Syr., and Targ. translate: one kisseth the lips who, or: of those who...; but such a meaning is violently forced into the word (in that case the expression would have been שׂפתי משׁיב or שׂפתים משׁיבים). Equally impossible is Theodotion's χείλεσι καταφιληθήσεται, for ישּׁק cannot be the fut. Niph. Nor is it: lips kiss him who... (Rashi); for, to be thus understood, the word ought to have been למשׁיב. משׁיב is naturally to be taken as the subj., and thus it supplies the meaning: he who kisseth the lips giveth an excellent answer, viz., the lips of him whom the answer concerns (Jerome, Venet., Luther). But Hitzig ingeniously, “the words reach from the lips of the speaker to the ears of the hearer, and thus he kisses his ear with his lips.” But since to kiss the ear is not a custom, not even with the Florentines, then a welcome answer, if its impression is to be compared to a kiss, is compared to a kiss on the lips. Hitzig himself translates: he commends himself with the lips who...; but נשׁק may mean to join oneself, Gen 41:40, as kissing is equivalent to the joining of the lips; it does not mean intrans. to cringe. Rather the explanation: he who joins the lips together...; for he, viz., before reflecting, closed his lips together (suggested by Meîri); but נשׁק, with שׂפתים, brings the idea of kissing, labra labris jungere, far nearer. This prevails against Schultens' armatus est (erit) labia, besides נשׁק, certainly, from the primary idea of connecting (laying together) (vid., Psa 78:9), to equip (arm) oneself therewith; but the meaning arising from thence: with the lips he arms himself... is direct nonsense. Fleischer is essentially right, Labra osculatur (i.e., quasi osculum oblatum reddit) qui congrua respondet. Only the question has nothing to do with a kiss; but if he who asks receives a satisfactory answer, an enlightening counsel, he experiences it as if he received a kiss. The Midrash incorrectly remarks under דּברים נצחים, “words of merited denunciation,” according to which the Syr. translates. Words are meant which are corresponding to the matter and the circumstances, and suitable for the end (cf. Pro 8:9). Such words are like as if the lips of the inquirer received a kiss from the lips of the answerer.

Verse 27

Warning against the establishing of a household where the previous conditions are wanting:
Set in order thy work without,
And make it ready for thyself beforehand in the fields, -
After that then mayest thou build thine house.
The interchange of בּחוּץ and בּשּׂדה shows that by מלאכת השּׂדה field-labour, 1Ch 27:26, is meant. הכין, used of arrangement, procuring, here with מלאכה, signifies the setting in order of the word, viz., the cultivation of the field. In the parallel member, עתּדה, carrying also its object, in itself is admissible: make preparations (lxx, Syr.); but the punctuation עתּדהּ (Targ., Venet.; on the other hand, Jerome and Luther translate as if the words were ועתדה השּׂדה) is not worthy of being contended against: set it (the work) in the fields in readiness, i.e., on the one hand set forward the present necessary work, and on the other hand prepare for that which next follows; thus: do completely and circumspectly what thy calling as a husbandman requires of thee - then mayest thou go to the building and building up of thy house (vid., at Pro 24:3, Pro 14:1), to which not only the building and setting in order of a convenient dwelling, but also the bringing home of a housewife and the whole setting up of a household belongs; prosperity at home is conditioned by this - one fulfils his duty without in the fields actively and faithfully. One begins at the wrong end when he begins with the building of his house, which is much rather the result and goal of an intelligent discharge of duty within the sphere of one's calling. The perf., with ו after a date, such as אחר, עוד מעט, and the like, when things that will or should be done are spoken of, has the fut. signification of a perf. consec., Gen 3:5; Exo 16:6., Pro 17:4; Ewald, §344b.

Verse 28

Warning against unnecessary witnessing to the disadvantage of another:
Never be a causeless witness against thy neighbour;
And shouldest thou use deceit with thy lips?
The phrase עד־חנּם does not mean a witness who appears against his neighbour without knowledge of the facts of the case, but one who has no substantial reason for his giving of testimony; חנּם means groundless, with reference to the occasion and motive, Pro 3:30; Pro 23:29; Pro 26:2. Other designations stood for false witnesses (lxx, Syr., Targ.). Rightly Jerome, the Venet., and Luther, without, however, rendering the gen. connection עד־חנם, as it might have been by the adj.
In 28b, Chajûg derives והפתּית from פּתת, to break in pieces, to crumble; for he remarks it might stand, with the passing over of ô into î, for והפתּות [and thou wilt whisper]. But the ancients had no acquaintance with the laws of sound, and therefore with naive arbitrariness regarded all as possible; and Böttcher, indeed, maintains that the Hiphil of פתת may be הפתּית as well as הפתּות; but the former of these forms with î could only be metaplastically possible, and would be הפתּית (vid., Hitzig under Jer 11:20). And what can this Hiph. of פתת mean? “To crumble” one's neighbours (Chajûg) is an unheard of expression; and the meanings, to throw out crumbs, viz., crumbs of words (Böttcher), or to speak with a broken, subdued voice (Hitzig), are extracted from the rare Arab. fatâfit (faṭafiṭ), for which the lexicographers note the meaning of a secret, moaning sound. When we see והפתית standing along with בּשׂפתיך, then before all we are led to think of פתה [to open], Pro 20:19; Ps. 73:36. But we stumble at the interrog. ה, which nowhere else appears connected with ו. Ewald therefore purposes to read והפתּית [and will open wide] (lxx μηδὲ πλατύνου): “that thou usest treachery with thy lips;” but from הפתה, to make wide open, Gen 9:27, “to use treachery” is, only for the flight of imagination, not too wide a distance. On וה, et num, one need not stumble; והלוא, 2Sa 15:35, shows that the connection of a question by means of ו is not inadmissible; Ewald himself takes notice that in the Arab. the connection of the interrogatives 'a and hal with w and f is quite common;^[47] and thus he reaches the explanation: wilt thou befool then by thy lips, i.e., pollute by deceit, by inconsiderate, wanton testimony against others? This is the right explanation, which Ewald hesitates about only from the fact that the interrog. ה comes in between the ו consec. and its perf., a thing which is elsewhere unheard of. But this difficulty is removed by the syntactic observation, that the perf. after interrogatives has often the modal colouring of a conj. or optative, e.g., after the interrog. pronoun, Gen 21:7, quis dixerit, and after the interrogative particle, as here and at 2Ki 20:9, iveritne, where it is to be supplied (vid., at Isa 38:8). Thus: et num persuaseris (deceperis) labiis tuis, and shouldest thou practise slander with thy lips, for thou bringest thy neighbour, without need, by thy uncalled for rashness, into disrepute? “It is a question, âl'nakar (cf. Pro 23:5), for which 'a (not hal), in the usual Arab. interrogative: how, thou wouldest? one then permits the inquirer to draw the negative answer: “No, I will not do it” (Fleischer).

Verse 29

The following proverb is connected as to its subject with the foregoing: one ought not to do evil to his neighbour without necessity; even evil which has been done to one must not be requited with evil:
Say not, “As he hath done to me, so I do to him:
I requite the man according to his conduct.”
On the ground of public justice, the talio is certainly the nearest form of punishment, Lev 24:19.; but even here the Sinaitic law does not remain in the retortion of the injury according to its external form (it is in a certain manner practicable only with regard to injury done to the person and to property), but places in its stead an atonement measured and limited after a higher point of view. On pure moral grounds, the jus talionis (“as thou to me, so I to thee”) has certainly no validity. Here he to whom injustice is done ought to commit his case to God, Pro 20:22, and to oppose to evil, not evil but good; he ought not to set himself up as a judge, nor to act as one standing on a war-footing with his neighbour (Jdg 15:11); but to take God as his example, who treats the sinner, if only he seeks it, not in the way of justice, but of grace (Exo 34:6.). The expression 29b reminds of Pro 24:12. Instead of לאדם, there is used here, where the speaker points to a definite person, the phrase לאישׁ. Jerome, the Venet., and Luther translate: to each one, as if the word were vocalized thus, לאישׁ (Ps. 62:13).

Verses 30-34

A Mashal ode of the slothful, in the form of a record of experiences, concludes this second supplement (vid., vol. i. p. 17): 30 The field of a slothful man I came past, And the vineyard of a man devoid of understanding. 31 And, lo! it was wholly filled up with thorns; Its face was covered with nettles; And its wall of stones was broken down. 32 But I looked and directed my attention to it; I saw it, and took instruction from it: 33 “A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest. 34 Then cometh thy poverty apace, And thy want as an armed man.”
The line 29b with לאישׁ is followed by one with אישׁ. The form of the narrative in which this warning against drowsy slothfulness is clothed, is like Psa 37:35. The distinguishing of different classes of men by אישׁ and אדם (cf. Pro 24:20) is common in proverbial poetry. עברתּי, at the close of the first parallel member, retains its Pathach unchanged. The description: and, lo! (הנּהו, with Pazer, after Thorath Emeth, p. 34, Anm. 2) it was... refers to the vineyard, for נדר אבניו (its stone wall, like Isa 2:20, “its idols of silver”) is, like Num 22:24; Isa 5:5, the fencing in of the vineyard. עלה כלּו, totus excreverat (in carduos), refers to this as subject, cf. in Ausonius: apex vitibus assurgit; the Heb. construction is as Isa 5:6; Isa 34:13; Gesen. §133, 1, Anm. 2. The sing. קמּשׁון of קמּשׁונים does not occur; perhaps it means properly the weed which one tears up to cast it aside, for (Arab.) kumâsh is matter dug out of the ground.^[48]
The ancients interpret it by urticae; and חרוּל, plur. חרלּים (as from חרל), R. חר, to burn, appears, indeed, to be the name of the nettle; the botanical name (Arab.) khullar (beans, pease, at least a leguminous plant) is from its sound not Arab., and thus lies remote.^[49]
The Pual כּסּוּ sounds like Psa 80:11 (cf. כּלּוּ, Psa 72:20); the position of the words is as this passage of the Psalm; the Syr., Targ., Jerome, and the Venet. render the construction actively, as if the word were כּסּוּ.
In Pro 24:32, Hitzig proposes to read ואחזה: and I stopped (stood still); but אחז is trans., not only at Ecc 7:9, but also at Ecc 2:15 : to hold anything fast; not: to hold oneself still. And for what purpose the change? A contemplating and looking at a thing, with which the turning and standing near is here connected, manifestly includes a standing still; ראיתי, after ואחזה, is, as commonly after הביט (e.g., Job 35:5, cf. Isa 42:18), the expression of a lingering looking at an object after the attention has been directed to it. In modern impressions, ואחזה אנכי are incorrectly accentuated; the old editions have rightly ואחזה with Rebîa; for not אנכי 'וא, but אנכי אשׁית are connected. In Pro 8:17, this prominence of the personal pronoun serves for the expression of reciprocity; elsewhere, as e.g., Gen 21:24; 2Ki 6:3, and particularly, frequently in Hosea, this circumstantiality does not make the subject prominent, but the action; here the suitable extension denotes that he rightly makes his comments at leisure (Hitzig). שׁית לב is, as at Pro 22:17, the turning of attention and reflection; elsewhere לקח מוּסר, to receive a moral, Pro 8:10, Jer 7:28, is here equivalent to, to abstract, deduce one from a fact, to take to oneself a lesson from it. In Pro 24:33 and Pro 24:34 there is a repetition of Pro 6:9-10. Thus, as Pro 24:33 expresses, the sluggard speaks to whom the neglected piece of ground belongs, and Pro 24:34 places before him the result. Instead of כמהלּך of the original passage [[[Bible_(King_James)/Proverbs|Pro 6:9-10]]], here מתהלך, of the coming of poverty like an avenging Nemesis; and instead of וּמחסרך, here וּמחסריך (the Cod. Jaman. has it without the י), which might be the plene written pausal form of the sing. (vid., at Pro 6:3, cf. Pro 6:11), but is more surely regarded as the plur.: thy deficits, or wants; for to thee at one time this, and at another time that, and finally all things will be wanting. Regarding the variants ראשׁך and רישׁך (with א in the original passage, here in the borrowed passage with י), vid., at Pro 10:4. כּאישׁ מגן is translated in the lxx by ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς δρομεύς (vid., at Pro 6:11); the Syr. and Targ. make from it a גּברא טבלרא, tabellarius, a letter-carrier, coming with the speed of a courier.

Chap. 25

Verse 1

Pro 25:1 1 These also are proverbs of Solomon, Which the men of Hezekiah the king of Judah have collected.
Hezekiah, in his concern for the preservation of the national literature, is the Jewish Pisistratos, and the “men of Hezekiah” are like the collectors of the poems of Homer, who were employed by Pisistratos for that purpose. גּם־אלּה is the subject, and in Cod. 1294, and in the editions of Bomberg 1515, Hartmann 1595, Nissel, Jablonsky, Michaelis, has Dechî. This title is like that of the second supplement, Pro 24:23. The form of the name חזקיּה, abbreviated from יחזקיּהוּ (חזקיּהוּ), is not favourable to the derivation of the title from the collectors themselves. The lxx translates: Αὗται αἱ παιδεῖαι Σαλωμῶντος αἱ ἀδιάκριτοι (cf. Jam 3:17), ἃς ἐξεγράψαντο οἱ φίλοι Ἐζεκίου, for which Aquila has ἃς μετῆραν ἄνδρες ἐζεκίου, Jerome, transtulerunt. העתיק signifies, like (Arab.) nsaḥ, נסח, to snatch away, to take away, to transfer from another place; in later Hebrew_Bible_to transcribe from one book into another, to translate from one language into another: to take from another place and place together; the Whence? remains undetermined: according to the anachronistic rendering of the Midrash מגניזתם, i.e., from the Apocrypha; according to Hitzig, from the mouths of the people; more correctly Euchel and others: from their scattered condition, partly oral, partly written. Vid., regarding העתיק, Zunz, in Deutsch-Morgenl. Zeitsch. xxv. 147f., and regarding the whole title, vol. i. pp. 5, 6; regarding the forms of proverbs in this second collection, vol. i. p. 17; regarding their relation to the first, and their end and aim, vol. i. pp. 25, 26. The first Collection of Proverbs is a Book for Youth, and this second a Book for the People.

Verse 2

It is characteristic of the purpose of the book that it begins with proverbs of the king:
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing;
And the glory of the king to search out a matter.
That which is the glory of God and the glory of the king in itself, and that by which they acquire glory, stand here contrasted. The glory of God consists in this, to conceal a matter, i.e., to place before men mystery upon mystery, in which they become conscious of the limitation and insufficiency of their knowledge, so that they are constrained to acknowledge, Deu 29:28, that “secret things belong unto the Lord our God.” There are many things that are hidden and are known only to God, and we must be contented with that which He sees it good to make known to us.^[50]
The honour of kings, on the contrary, who as pilots have to steer the ship of the state (Pro 11:14), and as supreme judges to administer justice (1Ki 3:9), consists in this, to search out a matter, i.e., to place in the light things that are problematical and subjects of controversy, in conformity with their high position, with surpassing intelligence, and, in conformity with their responsibility, with conscientious zeal. The thought that it is the glory of God to veil Himself in secrecy (Isa 55:1-13 :15; cf. 1Ki 8:12), and of the king, on the contrary, not to surround himself with an impenetrable nimbus, and to withdraw into inaccessible remoteness - this thought does not, immediately at least, lie in the proverb, which refers that which is concealed, and its contrary, not to the person, but to a matter. Also that God, by the concealment of certain things, seeks to excite to activity human research, is not said in this proverb; for 2b does not speak of the honour of wise men, but of kings; the searching out, 2b, thus does not refer to that which is veiled by God. But since the honour of God at the same time as the welfare of men, and the honour of the king as well as the welfare of his people, is to be thought of, the proverb states that God and the king promote human welfare in very different ways - God, by concealing that which sets limits to the knowledge of man, that he may not be uplifted; and the king, by research, which brings out the true state of the matter, and thereby guards the political and social condition against threatening danger, secret injuries, and the ban of offences unatoned for. This proverb, regarding the difference between that which constitutes the honour of God and of the king, is followed by one which refers to that in which the honour of both is alike.

Verse 3

Pro 25:3 3 The heavens in height, and the earth in depth, And the heart of kings are unsearchable.
This is a proverb in the priamel-form, vid., p. 13. The praeambulum consists of three subjects to which the predicate אין חקר [= no searching out] is common. “As it is impossible to search through the heavens and through the earth, so it is also impossible to search the hearts of common men (like the earth), and the hearts of kings (like the heavens)” (Fleischer). The meaning, however, is simple. Three unsearchable things are placed together: the heavens, with reference to their height, stretching into the impenetrable distance; the earth, in respect to its depth, reaching down into the immeasurable abyss; and the heart of kings - it is this third thing which the proverb particularly aims at - which in themselves, and especially with that which goes on in their depths, are impenetrable and unsearchable. The proverb is a warning against the delusion of being flattered by the favour of the king, which may, before one thinks of it, be withdrawn or changed even into the contrary; and a counsel to one to take heed to his words and acts, and to see to it that he is influenced by higher motives than by the fallacious calculation of the impression on the view and disposition of the king. The ל in both cases is the expression of the reverence, as e.g., at 2Ch 9:22. וארץ, not = והארץ, but like Isa 26:19; Isa 65:17, for וארץ, which generally occurs only in the st. constr.

Verses 4-5

There now follows an emblematic (vid., vol. i. p. 10) tetrastich: 4 Take away the dross from silver, So there is ready a vessel for the goldsmith; 5 Take away the wicked from the king, And his throne is established by righteousness.
The form הגו (cf. the inf. Poal הגו, Isa 59:13) is regarded by Schultens as showing a ground-form הגו; but there is also found e.g., עשׂו, whose ground-form is עשׂי; the verb הגה, R. הג (whence Arab. hajr, discedere), cf. יגה (whence הגה, semovit, 2Sa 20:13 = Syr. âwagy, cf. Arab. âwjay, to withhold, to abstain from), signifies to separate, withdraw; here, of the separation of the סיגים, the refuse, i.e., the dross (vid., regarding the plena scriptio, Baer's krit. Ausg. des Jesaia, under Pro 1:22); the goldsmith is designated by the word צרף, from צרף morf, to turn, change, as he who changes the as yet drossy metal by means of smelting, or by purification in water, into that which is pure. In 5a הגה is, as at Isa 27:8, transferred to a process of moral purification; what kind of persons are to be removed from the neighbourhood of the king is shown by Isa 1:22-23. Here also (as at Isa. l.c.) the emblem or figure of Pro 25:4 is followed in Pro 25:5 by its moral antitype aimed at. The punctuation of both verses is wonderfully fine and excellent. In Pro 25:4, ויצא is not pointed ויצא, but as the consecutive modus ויּצא; this first part of the proverb refers to a well-known process of art: the dross is separated from the silver (inf. absol., as Pro 12:7; Pro 15:22), and so a vessel (utensil) proceeds from the goldsmith, for he manufactures pure silver; the ל is here similarly used as the designation of the subject in the passive, Pro 13:13; Pro 14:20. In Pro 25:5, on the contrary, ויּכּון (ויּכּן) is not the punctuation used, but the word is pointed indicatively ויכּון; this second part of the proverb expresses a moral demand (inf. absol. in the sense of the imperative, Gesen. §131, 4b like Pro 17:12, or an optative or concessive conjunction): let the godless be removed, לפני מלך, i.e., not from the neighbourhood of the king, for which the words are מלּפני מלך; also not those standing before the king, i.e., in his closest neighbourhood (Ewald, Bertheau); but since, in the absolute, הגה, not an act of another in the interest of the king, but of the king himself, is thought of: let the godless be removed from before the king, i.e., because he administers justice (Hitzig), or more generally: because after that Psalm (101), which is the “mirror of princes,” he does not suffer him to come into his presence. Accordingly, the punctuation is בּצּדק, not בּצדק (Pro 16:12); because such righteousness is meant as separates the רשׁע from it and itself from him, as Isa 16:5 (vid., Hitzig), where the punctuation of בּחסד denotes that favour towards Moab seeking protection.

Verses 6-7

There now follows a second proverb with מלך, as the one just explained was a second with מלכים: a warning against arrogance before kings and nobles. 6 Display not thyself before the king, And approach not to the place of the great. 7 For better than one say to thee, “Come up hither,” Than that they humble thee before a prince, Whom thine eyes had seen.
The גּדלים are those, like Pro 18:16, who by virtue of their descent and their office occupy a lofty place of honour in the court and in the state. נדיב (vid., under Pro 8:16) is the noble in disposition and the nobleman by birth, a general designation which comprehends the king and the princes. The Hithpa. התהדּר is like the reflex forms Pro 12:9; Pro 13:7, for it signifies to conduct oneself as הדוּר or נהדּר (vid., Pro 20:29), to play the part of one highly distinguished. עמד has, 6b, its nearest signification: it denotes, not like נצּב, standing still, but approaching to, e.g., Jer 7:2. The reason given in Pro 25:7 harmonizes with the rule of wisdom, Luk 14:10.: better is the saying to thee, i.e., that one say to thee (Ewald, §304b), עלה הנּה (so the Olewejored is to be placed), προσανάβηθι ἀνώτερον (thus in Luke), than that one humble thee לפני נדיב, not: because of a prince (Hitzig), for לפני nowhere means either pro (Pro 17:18) or propter, but before a prince, so that thou must yield to him (cf. Pro 14:19), before him whom thine eyes had seen, so that thou art not excused if thou takest up the place appropriate to him. Most interpreters are at a loss to explain this relative. Luther: “which thine eyes must see,” and Schultens: ut videant oculi tui. Michaelis, syntactically admissible: quem videre gestiverunt oculi tui, viz., to come near to him, according to Bertheau, with the request that he receives some high office. Otherwise Fleischer: before the king by whom thou and thine are seen, so much the more felt is the humiliation when it comes upon one after he has pressed so far forward that he can be perceived by the king. But נדיב is not specially the king, but any distinguished personage whose place he who has pressed forward has taken up, and from which he must now withdraw when the right possessor of it comes and lays claim to his place. אשׁר is never used in poetry without emphasis. Elsewhere it is equivalent to נתנש, quippe quem, here equivalent to רפנש, quem quidem. Thine eyes have seen him in the company, and thou canst say to thyself, this place belongs to him, according to his rank, and not to thee - the humiliation which thou endurest is thus well deserved, because, with eyes to see, thou wert so blind. The lxx, Syr., Symmachus (who reads 8a, לרב, εις πλῆθος), and Jerome, refer the words “whom thine eyes had seen” to the proverb following; but אשר does not appropriately belong to the beginning of a proverb, and on the supposition that the word לרב is generally adopted, except by Symmachus, they are also heterogeneous to the following proverb:

Verses 8-10

Pro 25:8-10 8 Go not forth hastily to strife, That it may not be said, “What wilt thou do in the end thereof, When now thy neighbour bringeth disgrace upon thee?” 9 Art thou striving with thy neighbour? strive with him, But disclose not the secret of another; 10 That he who heareth it may not despise thee, And thine evil name depart no more.
Whether ריב in לריב is infin., as at Jdg 21:22, or subst., as at 2Ch 19:8, is not decided: ad litigandum and ad litem harmonize. As little may it be said whether in אל־תּצא [go not forth], a going out to the gate (court of justice), or to the place where he is to be met who is to be called to account, is to be thought of; in no respect is the sense metaphorical: let not thyself transgress the bounds of moderation, ne te laisse pas emporter; יצא לרב is correlate to בּוא לרוב, Jdg 21:22. The use of פּן in 8b is unprecedented. Euchel and Löwenstein regard it as an imper.: reflect upon it (test it); but פּנה does not signify this, and the interjectional הס does not show the possibility of an imper. Kal פּן, and certainly not פּן (פּן). The conj. פּן is the connecting form of an original subst. (= panj), which signifies a turning away. It is mostly connected with the future, according to which Nolde, Oetinger, Ewald, and Bertheau explain מה indefinite, something, viz., unbecoming. In itself, it may, perhaps, be possible that פן מה was used in the sense of ne quid (Venet. μήποτέ τι); but “to do something,” for “to commit something bad,” is improbable; also in that case we would expect the words to be thus: פן תעשׂה מה. Thus מה will be an interrogative, as at 1Sa 20:10 (vid., Keil), and the expression is brachyogical: that thou comest not into the situation not to know what thou oughtest to do (Rashi: פן תבא לידי לא תדע הם לעשׂות), or much rather anakoluth.; for instead of saying פּן־לא תדע מה־לּעשׂות, the poet, shunning this unusual פן לא, adopts at once the interrogative form: that it may not be said at the end thereof (viz., of the strife); what wilt thou do? (Umbreit, Stier, Elster, Hitzig, and Zöckler). This extreme perplexity would occur if thy neighbour (with whom thou disputest so eagerly and unjustly) put thee to shame, so that thou standest confounded (כלם, properly to hurt, French blesser). If now the summons 9a follows this warning against going out for the purpose of strife: fight out thy conflict with thy neighbour, then ריבך, set forth with emphasis, denotes not such a strife as one is surprised into, but that into which one is drawn, and the tuam in causam tuam is accented in so far as 9b localizes the strife to the personal relation of the two, and warns against the drawing in of an אחר, i.e., in this case, of a third person: and expose not the secret of another אל־תּגל (after Michlol 130a, and Ben-Bileam, who places the word under the 'פ'פתחין בס, is vocalized with Pathach on ג, as is Cod. 1294, and elsewhere in correct texts). One ought not to bring forward in a dispute, as material of proof and means of acquittal, secrets entrusted to him by another, or secrets which one knows regarding the position and conduct of another; for such faithlessness and gossiping affix a stigma on him who avails himself of them, in the public estimation, Pro 25:10; that he who hears it may not blame thee (חסּד = Aram. חסּד, vid., under Pro 14:34), and the evil report concerning thee continue without recall. Fleischer: ne infamia tua non recedat i.e., nunquam desinat per ora hominum propagari, with the remark, “in דבּה, which properly means in stealthy creeping on of the rumour, and in שׁוּב lies a (Arab.) tarshyḥ,” i.e., the two ideas stand in an interchangeable relation with a play upon the words: the evil rumour, once put in circulation, will not again retrace its steps; but, on the contrary, as Virgil says:Mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo.
In fact, every other can sooner rehabilitate himself in the public estimation that he who is regarded as a prattler, who can keep no secret, or as one so devoid of character that he makes public what he ought to keep silent, if he can make any use of it in his own interest. In regard to such an one, the words are continually applicable, hic niger est, hunc tu, Romane, caveto, Pro 20:19. The lxx has, instead of ודבתך 10b, read ומריבתך, and translated it with the addition of a long appendix: “They quarrel, and hostilities will not cease, but will be to thee like death. Kindness and friendship deliver, let these preserve thee, that thou mayest not become one meriting reproaches (Jerome: ne exprobrabilis fias), but guard thy ways, εὐσυναλλάκτως.”

Verse 11

The first emblematical distich of this collection now follows: 11 Golden apples in silver salvers. A word spoken according to its circumstances.
The Syr. and Jerome vocalize דּבר דּבר, and the Targ. דּבר דּבר; both are admissible, but the figure and that which is represented are not placed in so appropriate a relation as by דּבר דּבר; the wonderfully penetrating expression of the text, which is rendered by the traditional nikkud, agrees here with the often occurring דּבר (= מדבּר), also its passive דּבוּר. The defective writing is like, e.g., בּטח, Psa 112:7, and gives no authority to prefer דּבּר = מדבּר (Böttcher). That דּברי, corresponding to the plur. תּפּוּחי, is not used, arises from this, that דבר is here manifestly not a word without connection, but a sentence of motive, contents, and aim united. For על־אפניו, the meaning of בּעתּו presents itself from Pro 15:23, according to which, among the old interpreters, Symmachus, Jerome, and Luther render “at its time.” Abulwalîd compared the Arab. âiffan (âibban, also 'iffan, whence 'aly 'iffanihi, justo tempore), which, as Orelli has shown in his Synon. der Zeitbegriffe, p. 21f., comes from the roots af ab, to drive (from within) going out, time as consisting of individual moments, the one of which drives on the other, and thus denotes time as a course of succession. One may not hesitate as to the prep. על, for אפנים would, like עתּות, denote the circumstances, the relations of the time, and על would, as e.g., in על־פּי and על־דּברתי, have the meaning of κατά. But the form אפניו, which like חפניו, Lev 16:12, sounds dualistic, appears to oppose this. Hitzig supposes that אפנים may designate the time as a circle, with reference to the two arches projecting in opposite directions, but uniting themselves together; but the circle which time describes runs out from one point, and, moreover, the Arab. names for time âfaf, âifaf, and the like, which interchange with âiffan, show that this does not proceed from the idea of circular motion. Ewald and others take for אפניו the meaning of wheels (the Venet., after Kimchi, ἐπὶ τῶν τροχῶν αὐτῆς), whereby the form is to be interpreted as dual of אפן = אופן, “a word driven on its wheels,” - so Ewald explains: as the potter quickly and neatly forms a vessel on his wheels, thus a fit and quickly framed word. But דבר signifies to drive cattle and to speak = to cause words to follow one another (cf. Arab. syâḳ, pressing on = flow of words), but not to drive = to fashion in that artisan sense. Otherwise Böttcher, “a word fitly spoken, a pair of wheels perfect in their motion,” to which he compares the common people “in their jesting,” and adduces all kinds of heterogeneous things partly already rejected by Orelli (e.g., the Homeric ἐπιτροχάδην, which is certainly no commendation). But “jesting” is not appropriate here; for what man conceives of human speech as a carriage, one only sometimes compares that of a babbler to a sledge, or says of him that he shoves the cart into the mud.^[51]
Is it then thus decided that אפניו is a dual? It may be also like אשׂריו, the plur. especially in the adverbial expression before us, which readily carried the abbreviation with it (vid., Gesen. Lehrgebr. §134, Anm. 17). On this supposition, Orelli interprets אפן from אפן, to turn, in the sense of turning about, circumstances, and reminds of this, that in the post-bibl. Heb. this word is used as indefinitely as τρόπος, e.g., באופן מה, quodammodo (vid., Reland's Analecta Rabbinica, 1723, p. 126). This late Talm. usage of the word can, indeed, signify nothing as to the bibl. word; but that אפנים, abbreviated אפנים, can mean circumstances, is warranted by the synon. אודות. Aquila and Theodotion appear to have thus understood it, for their ἐπὶ ἁρμόζουσιν αὐτῷ, which they substitute for the colourless οὕτως of the lxx, signifies: under the circumstances, in accordance therewith. So Orelli thus rightly defines: “אפנים denote the âḥwâl, circumstances and conditions, as they form themselves in each turning of time, and those which are ascribed to דבר by the suffix are those to which it is proper, and to which it fits in. Consequently a word is commended which is spoken whenever the precise time arrives to which it is adapted, a word which is thus spoken at its time as well as at its place (van Dyk, fay mahllah), and the grace of which is thereby heightened.” Aben Ezra's explanation, על פנים הראויים, in the approved way, follows the opinion of Abulwalîd and Parchon, that אפניו is equivalent to פניו (cf. aly wajhihi, sua ratione), which is only so far true, that both words are derived from R. פן, to turn. In the figure, it is questionable whether by תּפּוּחי זהב, apples of gold, or gold-coloured apples, are meant (Luther: as pomegranates and citrons); thus oranges are meant, as at Zec 4:12. הזּהב denotes golden oil. Since כסף, besides, signifies a metallic substance, one appears to be under the necessity of thinking of apples of gold; cf. the brazen pomegranates. But (1) apples of gold of natural size and massiveness are obviously too great to make it probable that such artistic productions are meant; (2) the material of the emblem is usually not of less value than that of which it is the emblem (Fleischer); (3) the Scriptures are fond of comparing words with flowers and fruits, Pro 10:31; Pro 12:14; Pro 13:2; Pro 18:20, and to the essence of the word which is rooted in the spirit, and buds and grows up to maturity through the mouth and the lips, the comparison with natural fruits corresponds better in any case than with artificial. Thus, then, we interpret “golden apples” as the poetic name for oranges, aurea mala, the Indian name of which with reference to or (gold) was changed into the French name orange, as our pomeranze is equivalent to pomum aurantium. משׂכּיּות is the plur. of משׂכּית, already explained, Pro 18:11; the word is connected neither with שׂכך, to twist, wreathe (Ewald, with most Jewish interpreters)^[52] nor with שׂכה, to pierce, infigere (Redslob, vid., under Psa 73:7); it signifies medal or ornament, from שׂכה, to behold (cf. שׂכיּה, θέα = θέαμα, Isa 2:6), here a vessel which is a delight to the eyes. In general the Venet. rightly, ἐν μορφώμασιν ἀργύρου; Symmachus and Theodotion, more in accordance with the fundamental idea, ἐν περιβλέπτοις ἀργύρου; the Syr. and Targ. specially: in vessels of embossed work (נגוּדי, from נגד, to draw, to extend); yet more specially the lxx, ἐν ὁρμίσκῳ σαρδίου, on a chain of cornelian stone, for which, perhaps, ἐν φορμίσκῳ (Jäger) ἀργυρίου, in a little silver basket, is the original phrase. Aquila, after Bereschith rabba c. 93, translates by μῆλα χρύσου ἐν δίσκοις ἀργυφίου. Jerome: in lectis argenteis, appears to have fallen into the error of taking משב for משכב, lectus. Hitzig here emends a self-made ἅπαξ λεγ. Luther's “golden apples in silver baskets” is to be preferred.^[53]
A piece of sculpture which represents fruit by golden little disks or points within groups of leaves is not meant - for the proverb does not speak of such pretty little apples - but golden oranges are meant. A word in accordance with the circumstances which occasion it, is like golden oranges which are handed round in silver salvers or on silver waiters. Such a word is, as adopting another figure we might say, like a well-executed picture, and the situation into which it appropriately fits is like its elegant frame. The comparison with fruit is, however, more significant; it designates the right word as a delightful gift, in a way which heightens its impression and its influences.

Verse 12

Another proverb continues the commendation of the effective word; for it represents, in emblem, the interchangeable relation of speaker and hearer:
A golden earring and an ornament of fine gold -
A wise preacher to an ear that heareth;i.e., as the former two ornaments form a beautiful ensemble, so the latter two, the wise preacher of morality and an attentive ear, form a harmonious whole: על, down upon, is explained by Deu 32:2. נזם, at Pro 11:12, standing along with באף, meant a ring for the nose; but here, as elsewhere, it means an earring (lxx, Jerome, Venet.), translated by the Syr. and Targ. by קדשׁא, because it serves as a talisman. A ring for the nose^[54] cannot also be here thought of, because this ornament is an emblem of the attentive ear: willingly accepted chastisement or instruction is an ear-ornament to him who hears (Stier). But the gift of the wise preacher, which consists in rightly dividing the word of truth, 2Ti 2:15, is as an ornament for the neck or the breast חלי (= Arab. khaly, fem. חליה = ḥilyt), of fine gold (כּתם, jewel, then particularly precious gold, from כּתם, Arab. katam, recondere).^[55]
The Venet. well: κόσμος ἀπυροχρύσου (fine gold); on the contrary (perhaps in want of another name for gold), כתם is translated, by the lxx and Syr., by sardine; by the Targ., by emerald; and by Jerome, by margaritum.^[56]
It looks well when two stand together, the one of whom has golden earrings, and the other wears a yet more precious golden necklace - such a beautiful mutual relationship is formed by a wise speaker and a hearer who listens to his admonitions.

Verse 13

The following comparative tristich refers to faithful service rendered by words:
Like the coolness of snow on a harvest day
Is a faithful messenger to them that send him:
He refresheth the soul of his master.
The coolness (צנּה from צנן, צנן, to be cool) of snow is not that of a fall of snow, which in the time of harvest would be a calamity, but of drink cooled with snow, which was brought from Lebanon or elsewhere, from the clefts of the rocks; the peasants of Damascus store up the winter's snow in a cleft of the mountains, and convey it in the warm months to Damascus and the coast towns. Such a refreshment is a faithful messenger (vid., regarding ציר, Pro 13:17, here following קציר as a kind of echo) to them that send him (vid., regarding this plur. at Pro 10:26, cf. Pro 22:21); he refreshes, namely (ו explicativum, as e.g., Eze 18:19, etenim filius, like the ו et quidem, Mal 1:11, different from the ו of conditional clause Pro 23:3), the soul of his master; for the answer which he brings to his master refreshes him, as does a drink of snow-cooled water on a hot harvest day.

Verse 14

This proverb relates to the word which promises much, but remains unaccomplished:
Clouds and wind, and yet no rain -
A man who boasteth with a false gift.
Incorrectly the lxx and Targ. refer the predicate contained in the concluding word of the first line to all the three subjects; and equally incorrectly Hitzig, with Heidenheim, interprets מתּת שׁקר, of a gift that has been received of which one boasts, although it is in reality of no value, because by a lying promise a gift is not at all obtained. But as לחם כזבים, Pro 23:3, is bread which, as it were, deceives him who eats it, so מתת שׁקר is a gift which amounts to a lie, i.e., a deceitful pretence. Rightly Jerome: vir gloriosus et promissa non complens. In the Arab. ṣaliḍ, which Fleischer compares, the figure 14a and its counterpart 14b are amalgamated, for this word signifies both a boaster and a cloud, which is, as it were, boastful, which thunders much, but rains only sparsely or not at all. Similar is the Arab. khullab, clouds which send forth lightning, and which thunder, but yet give no rain; we say to one, magno promissor hiatu: thou art (Arab.) kabaraḳn khullabin, i.e., as Lane translates it: “Thou art only like lightning with which is no rain.” Schultens refers to this proverbial Arabic, fulmen nubis infecundae. Liberality is called (Arab.) nadnay, as a watering, cf. Pro 11:25. The proverb belongs to this circle of figures. It is a saying of the German peasants, “Wenn es sich wolket, so will es regnen” [when it is cloudy, then there will be rain]; but according to another saying, “nicht alle Wolken regnen” [it is not every cloud that yields rain]. “There are clouds and wind without rain.”

Verse 15

Three proverbs follow, which have this in common, that they exhort to moderation: 15 By forbearance is a judge won over, And a gentle tongue breaketh the bone. קצין (vid., Pro 6:7) does not denote any kind of distinguished person, but a judge or a person occupying a high official position. And פּתּה does not here mean, to talk over or delude; but, like Jer 20:7, to persuade, to win over, to make favourable to one; for ארך אפּים (vid., Pro 14:29) is dispassionate calmness, not breaking out into wrath, which finally makes it manifest that he who has become the object of accusation, suspicion, or of disgrace, is one who nevertheless has right on his side; for indecent, boisterous passion injures even a just cause; while, on the contrary, a quiet, composed, thoughtful behaviour, which is not embarrassed by injustice, either experienced or threatened, in the end secures a decision in our favour. “Patience overcomes” is an old saying. The soft, gentle tongue (cf. רך, Pro 15:1) is the opposite of a passionate, sharp, coarse one, which only the more increases the resistance which it seeks to overcome. “Patience,” says a German proverb, “breaks iron;” another says, “Patience is stronger than a diamond.” So here: a gentle tongue breaketh the bone (גּרם = עצם, as at Pro 17:22), it softens and breaks to pieces that which is hardest. Sudden anger makes the evil still worse; long-suffering, on the contrary, operates convincingly; cutting, immoderate language, embitters and drives away; gentle words, on the contrary, persuade, if not immediately, yet by this, that they remain as it were unchangeable.

Verse 16

Another way of showing self-control:
Hast thou found honey? eat thy enough,
Lest thou be surfeited with it, and vomit it up.
Honey is pleasant, salutary, and thus to be eaten sparingly, Pro 24:13, but ne quid nimis. Too much is unwholesome, 27a: αὐτοῦ καὶ μέλιτος τὸ πλέον ἐστὶ χολή, i.e., even honey enjoyed immoderately is as bitter as gall; or, as Freidank says: des honges süeze erdruizet sô mans ze viel geniuzet [the sweetness of honey offends when one partakes too much of it]. Eat if thou hast found any in the forest or the mountains, דּיּךּ, thy enough (lxx τὸ ἱκανόν; the Venet. τὸ ἀρκοῦν σοι), i.e., as much as appeases thine appetite, that thou mayest not become surfeited and vomit it out (והקאתו with Tsere, and א quiesc., as at 2Sa 14:10; vid., Michlol 116a, and Parchon under קוא). Fleischer, Ewald, Hitzig, and others, place Pro 25:16 and Pro 25:17 together, so as to form an emblematic tetrastich; but he who is surfeited is certainly, in Pro 25:16, he who willingly enjoys, and in 17, he to whom it is given to enjoy without his will; and is not, then, Pro 25:16 a sentence complete in itself in meaning? That it is not to be understood in a purely dietetic sense (although thus interpreted it is a rule not to be despised), is self-evident. As one can suffer injury from the noblest of food if he overload his stomach therewith, so in the sphere of science, instruction, edification, there is an injurious overloading of the mind; we ought to measure what we receive by our spiritual want, the right distribution of enjoyment and labour, and the degree of our ability to change it in succum et sanguinem, - else it at last awakens in us dislike, and becomes an evil to us.

Verse 17

This proverb is of a kindred character to the foregoing. “If thy comrade eats honey,” says an Arabic proverb quoted by Hitzig, “do not lick it all up.” But the emblem of honey is not continued in this verse:
Make rare thy foot in thy neighbour's house,
Lest he be satiated with thee, and hate thee.
To make one's foot rare or dear from a neighbour's house is equivalent to: to enter it seldom, and not too frequently; הוקר includes in itself the idea of keeping at a distance (Targ. כּלה רגלך; Symmachus, ὑπόστειλον; and another: φίμωσον πόδα σου), and מן has the sense of the Arab. 'an, and is not the comparative, as at Isa 13:12 : regard thy visit dearer than the house of a neighbour (Heidenheim). The proverb also is significant as to the relation of friend to friend, whose reciprocal love may be turned into hatred by too much intercourse and too great fondness. But רעך is including a friend, any one with whom we stand in any kind of intercourse. “Let him who seeks to be of esteem,” says a German proverb, “come seldom;” and that may be said with reference to him whom his heart draws to another, and also to him who would be of use to another by drawing him out of the false way and guiding on the right path - a showing of esteem, a confirming of love by visiting, should not degenerate into forwardness which appears as burdensome servility, as indiscreet self-enjoyment; nor into a restless impetuosity, which seeks at once to gain by force that which one should allow gradually to ripen.
This group of proverbs has the word רע in each of them, connecting them together. The first of the group represents a false tongue:

Verse 18

Pro 25:18 18 A hammer, and a sword, and a sharp arrow - A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour.
An emblematic, or, as we might also say, an iconological proverb; for 18a is a quodlibet of instruments of murder, and 18b is the subscription under it: that which these weapons of murder accomplish, is done to his neighbour by a man who bears false witness against him - he ruins his estate, takes away his honour, but yet more: he murders him, at one time more grossly, at another time with more refinement; at one time slowly, at another time more quickly. מפיץ, from פּוּץ, is equivalent to מפּץ, and מפּץ from נפץ; the Syr. and Targ. have instead פדועא (פדיעא) from פּדע = פּצע; the word פּריעא, on which Hitzig builds a conjecture, is an error of transcription (vid., Lagarde and Levy). The expression, 18b, is from the decalogue, Exo 20:16; Deu 5:17. It is for the most part translated the same here as there: he who speaks against his neighbour as a false witness. But rightly the lxx, Jerome, the Venet., and Luther: false testimony. As אל sA .y signifies both that which is mighty = power, and Him who is mighty = God, so עד signifies both him who bears testimony and the testimony that is borne, properly that which repeats itself and thereby strengthens itself; accordingly we say ענה עד, to give testimony in reply - viz. to the judge who asks - or generally to offer testimony (even unasked); as well as ענה לעד, Deu 31:21, i.e., as evidence (Jerome, pro testimonio). The prep. ב with this ענה has always the meaning of contra, also at 1Sa 12:3; Gen 30:33 is, however, open to question.

Verse 19

Pro 25:19 19 A worthless tooth and an unsteady foot - Trust in a faithless man in the day of need.
The form רעה (with Mercha on the antepenult), Isa 29:19, takes the place of an inf. absol.; רעה here (about the tone syllable of which Dechî does not decide, thus without doubt Milra) is certainly not a subst.: tooth of breaking (Gesen.); for how strange such a designation of a worthless tooth! שׁן is indeed mas. in 1Sa 14:5, but it can also be used as fem., as רגל, which is for the most part fem., also occurs as mas., Göttche. §650. Böttcher, in the new Aehrenlese, and in the Lehrbuch, takes רעה as fem. of an adj. רע, after the form חל; but חל is not an adj., and does not form a fem., although it means not merely profanity, but that which is profane; this is true also of the Aram. חוּל; for חוּלתּא, Est 2:9, Targ., is a female name mistaken by Buxtorf. Are we then to read רעה, with Hitzig, after the lxx? - an unimportant change. We interpret the traditional רעה, with Fleischer, as derived from רועעה, from רועע, breaking to pieces (crumbling), in an intransitive sense. The form מוּעדת is also difficult. Böttcher regards it as also, e.g., Aben Ezra after the example of Gecatilia as part. Kal. = מועדת, “only on account of the pausal tone and the combination of the two letters מע with û instead of ô.” But this vocal change, with its reasons, is merely imaginary. מוּעדת is the part. Pual, with the preformative מ struck out, Ewald 169d. The objection that the part. Pual should be ממעד, after the form מבער, does not prove anything to the contrary; for מועדת cannot be the fem. so as not to coincide with the fem. of the part. Kal, cf. besides to the long û the form without the Dagesh יוּקשׁים, Ecc 9:12 = מיקּשׁים (Arnheim, Gramm. p. 139). רגל מוּעדת is a leg that has become tottering, trembling. He who in a time of need makes a faithless man his ground of confidence, is like one who seeks to bite with a broken tooth, and which he finally crushes, and one who supports himself on a shaking leg, and thus stumbles and falls. The gen. connection מבטח בוגד signifies either the ground of confidence consisting in a faithless man, or the confidence placed in one who is faithless. But, after the Masora, we are to read here, as at Psa 65:6, מבטח, which Michlol 184a also confirms, and as it is also found in the Venice 1525, Basel 1619, and in Norzi. This מבטה is constr. according to Kimchi, notwithstanding the Kametz; as also משׁקל, Ezr 8:30 (after Abulwalîd, Kimchi, and Norzi). In this passage before us, מבטח בוגד may signify a deceitful ground of confidence (cf. Hab 2:5), but the two other passages present a genit. connection of the words. We must thus suppose that the ā of מבטח and משׁקל, in these three passages, is regarded as fixed, like the â of the form (Arab.) mif'âl.

Verse 20

The above proverb, which connects itself with Pro 25:18, not only by the sound רע, but also by שׁן, which is assonant with שׁנון, is followed by another with the catchword רע: 20 He that layeth aside his coat on a day of frost, vinegar on nitre, And he who welcomes with songs a dejected heart.
Is not this intelligible, sensible, ingenious? All these three things are wrong. The first is as wrong as the second, and the third, which the proverb has in view, is morally wrong, for one ought to weep with those that weep, Rom 12:15; he, on the contrary, who laughs among those who weep, is, on the most favourable judgment, a fool. That which is wrong in 20a, according to Böttcher in the Aehrenlese, 1849, consists in this, that one in severe cold puts on a fine garment. As if there were not garments which are at the same time beautiful, and keep warm? In the new Aehrenlese he prefers the reading משׁנּה: if one changes his coat. But that surely he might well enough do, if the one were warmer than the other! Is it then impossible that מעדה, in the connection, means transire faciens = removens? The Kal עדה, tarnsiit, occurs at Job 28:8. So also, in the poetic style. העדה might be used in the sense of the Aram. אעדּי. Rightly Aquila, Symmachus, περιαιρῶν; the Venet. better, ἀφαιρούμενος (Mid.). בּגד is an overcoat or mantle, so called from covering, as לבוּשׁ (R. לב, to fasten, fix), the garment lying next the body, vid., at Psa 22:19. Thus, as it is foolish to lay off upper clothing on a frosty day, so it is foolish also to pour vinegar on nitre; carbonic acid nitre, whether it be mineral (which may be here thought of) or vegetable, is dissolved in water, and serves diverse purposes (vid., under Isa 1:25); but if one pours vinegar on it, it is destroyed. לב־רע^[57] is, at Pro 26:23 and elsewhere, a heart morally bad, here a heart badly disposed, one inclined to that which is evil; for שׁר שׁיר is the contrast of קונן קינה, and always the consequence of a disposition joyfully excited; the inconsistency lies in this, that one thinks to cheer a sorrowful heart by merry singing, if the singing has an object, and is not much more the reckless expression of an animated pleasure in view of the sad condition of another. שׁיר על .rehtona signifies, as at Job 33:27, to sing to any one, to address him in singing; cf. דּבּר על, Jer 6:10, and particularly על־לב, Hos 2:16; Isa 40:2. The ב of בּשּׁרים is neither the partitive, Pro 9:5, nor the transitive, Pro 20:30, but the instrumental; for, as e.g., at Exo 7:20, the obj. of the action is thought of as its means (Gesen. §138, Anm. 3*); one sings “with songs,” for definite songs underlie his singing. The lxx, which the Syr., Targ., and Jerome more or less follow, has formed from this proverb one quite different: “As vinegar is hurtful to a wound, so an injury to the body makes the heart sorrowful; as the moth in clothes, and the worm in wood, so the sorrow of a man injures his heart.” The wisdom of this pair of proverbs is not worth much, and after all inquiry little or nothing comes of it. The Targ. at least preserves the figure 20b: as he who pours vinegar (Syr. chalo) on nitre; the Peshito, however, and here and there also the Targum, has jathro (arrow-string) instead of methro (nitre). Hitzig adopts this, and changes the tristich into the distich:
He that meeteth archers with arrow on the string,
Is like him who singeth songs with a sad heart.
The Hebrew of this proverb of Hitzig's (מרים קרה על־יתר) is unhebraic, the meaning dark as an oracle, and its moral contents nil.

Verses 21-22

Pro 25:21-22 21 If thine enemy hunger, feed him with bread; And if he thirst, give him water to drink. 22 For thereby thou heapest burning coals on his head, And Jahve will recompense it to thee.
The translation of this proverb by the lxx is without fault; Paul cites therefrom Rom 12:20. The participial construction of 22a, the lxx, rightly estimating it, thus renders: for, doing this, thou shalt heap coals on his head. The expression, “thou shalt heap” (σωρεύσεις), is also appropriate; for חתה certainly means first only to fetch or bring fire (vid., Pro 6:27); but here, by virtue of the constructio praegnans with על, to fetch, and hence to heap up - to pile upon. Burning pain, as commonly observed, is the figure of burning shame, on account of undeserved kindness shown by an enemy (Fleischer). But how burning coals heaped on the head can denote burning shame, is not to be perceived, for the latter is a burning on the cheeks; wherefore Hitzig and Rosenmüller explain: thou wilt thus bring on him the greatest pain, and appease thy vengeance, while at the same time Jahve will reward thy generosity. Now we say, indeed, that he who rewards evil with good takes the noblest revenge; but if this doing of good proceed from a revengeful aim, and is intended sensibly to humble an adversary, then it loses all its moral worth, and is changed into selfish, malicious wickedness. Must the proverb then be understood in this ignoble sense? The Scriptures elsewhere say that guilt and punishment are laid on the head of any one when he is made to experience and to bear them. Chrysostom and others therefore explain after Psa 140:10 and similar passages, but thereby the proverb is morally falsified, and Pro 25:22 accords with Pro 25:21, which counsels not to the avenging of oneself, but to the requital of evil with good. The burning of coals laid on the head must be a painful but wholesome consequence; it is a figure of self-accusing repentance (Augustine, Zöckler), for the producing of which the showing of good to an enemy is a noble motive. That God rewards such magnanimity may not be the special motive; but this view might contribute to it, for otherwise such promises of God as Isa 58:8-12 were without moral right. The proverb also requires one to show himself gentle and liberal toward a needy enemy, and present a twofold reason for this: first, that thereby his injustice is brought home to his conscience; and, secondly, that thus God is well-pleased in such practical love toward an enemy, and will reward it; - by such conduct, apart from the performance of a law grounded in our moral nature, one advances the happiness of his neighbour and his own.

Verse 23

The next group of proverbs extends from Pro 25:23 to Pro 25:28. 23 Wind from the north produceth rain; And a secret tongue a troubled countenance.
The north is called צפון, from צפן, to conceal, from the firmament darkening itself for a longer time, and more easily, like the old Persian apâkhtara, as (so it appears) the starless, and, like aquilo, the north wind, as bringing forward the black clouds. But properly the “fathers of rain” are, in Syria, the west and the south-west; and so little can צפון here mean the pure north wind, that Jerome, who knew from his own experience the changes of weather in Palestine, helps himself, after Symmachus (διαλύει βροχήν), with a quid pro quo out of the difficulty: ventus aquilo dissipat pluvias; the Jewish interpreters (Aben Ezra, Joseph Kimchi, and Meîri) also thus explain, for they connect together תחולל, in the meaning תמנע, with the unintelligible חלילה (far be it!). But צפון may also, perhaps like ζόφος (Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitsch. xxi. 600f.), standing not without connection therewith, denote the northwest; and probably the proverb emphasized the northern direction of the compass, because, according to the intention of the similitude, he seeks to designate such rain as is associated with raw, icy-cold weather, as the north wind (Pro 27:16, lxx, Sir. 43:20) brings along with it. The names of the winds are gen. fem., e.g., Isa 43:6. תּחולל (Aquila, ὠδίνει; cf. Pro 8:24, ὠδινήθην) has in Codd., e.g., the Jaman., the tone on the penult., and with Tsere Metheg (Thorath Emeth, p. 21) serving as העמדה. So also the Arab. nataj is used of the wind, as helping the birth of the rain-clouds. Manifestly פנים נזעמים, countenances manifesting extreme displeasure (vid., the Kal זעם, Pro 24:24), are compared to rain. With justice Hitzig renders פנים, as e.g., Joh 2:6, in the plur. sense; because, for the influence which the tongue slandering in secret (Psa 101:5) has on the slandered, the “sorrowful countenance” would not be so characteristic as for the influence which it exercises on the mutual relationships of men: the secret babbler, the confidential communication throwing suspicion, now on this one and now on that one, behind their backs, excites men against one another, so that one shows to another a countenance in which deep displeasure and suspicion express themselves.

Verse 24

Pro 25:24 24 Better to sit on the top of a roof, Than a quarrelsome woman and a house in common.
A repetition of Pro 21:9.

Verse 25

Pro 25:25 25 Fresh water to a thirsty soul; And good news from a far country.Vid., regarding the form of this proverb, vol. i. p. 9; we have a similar proverb regarding the influence of good news at Pro 15:30. Fresh cold water is called at Jer 18:14 מים קרים; vid., regarding קר, 18:27. “עיף, cogn. יעף, and עוּף, properly to become darkened, therefore figuratively like (Arab.) gushiya 'alyh, to become faint, to become feeble unto death, of the darkness which spreads itself over the eyes” (Fleischer).
This proverb, with the figure of “fresh water,” is now followed by one with the figure of a “fountain”:

Verse 26

Pro 25:26 26 A troubled fountain and a ruined spring - A righteous man yielding to a godless man.
For the most part, in מט one thinks of a yielding in consequence of being forced. Thus e.g., Fleischer: as a troubled ruined spring is a misfortune for the people who drink out of it, or draw from it, so is it a misfortune for the surrounding of the righteous, when he is driven from his dwelling or his possession by an unrighteous man. And it is true: the righteous can be compared to a well (מעין, well-spring, from עין, a well, as an eye of the earth, and מקור, fountain, from קוּר, R. קר, כר, to round out, to dig out), with reference to the blessing which flows from it to its surroundings (cf. Pro 10:11 and Joh 7:38). But the words “yielding to” (contrast “stood before,” 2Ki 10:4, or Jos 7:12), in the phrase “yielding to the godless,” may be understood of a spontaneous as well as of a constrained, forced, wavering and yielding, as the expression in the Psalm בּל־אמּוט [non movebor, Psa 10:6] affirms the certainty of being neither inwardly nor outwardly ever moved or shaken. The righteous shall stand fast and strong in God without fearing the godless (Isa 51:12.), unmoveable and firm as a brazen wall (Jer 1:17.). If, however, he is wearied with resistance, and from the fear of man, or the desire to please man, or from a false love of peace he yields before it, and so gives way - then he becomes like to a troubled fountain (רפשׂ, cogn. רמס, Eze 34:18; Isa 41:25; Jerome: fans turbatus pede), a ruined spring; his character, hitherto pure, is now corrupted by his own guilt, and now far from being a blessing to others, his wavering is a cause of sorrow to the righteous, and an offence to the weak - he is useful no longer, but only injurious. Rightly Lagarde: “The verse, one of the most profound of the whole book, does not speak of the misfortunate, but of the fall of the righteous, whose sin compromises the holy cause which he serves, 2Sa 12:14.” Thus also e.g., Löwenstein, with reference to the proverb Sanhedrin 92b: also in the time of danger let not a man disown his honour. Bachja, in his Ethics, referring to this figure, 26a, thinks of the possibility of restoration: the righteous wavers only for the moment, but at last he comes right (מתמוטט ועולה). But this interpretation of the figure destroys the point of the proverb.

Verse 27

This verse, as it stands, is scarcely to be understood. The Venet. translates 27b literally: ἔρευνά τε δόξας αὐτῶν δόξα; but what is the reference of this כּבדם? Euchel and others refer it to men, for they translate: “to set a limit to the glory of man is true glory;” but the “glory of man” is denoted by the phrase כּבד אדם, not by כּבדם; and, besides, חקר does not mean measure and limit. Oetinger explains: “To eat too much honey is not good; whereas the searching after their glory, viz., of pleasant and praiseworthy things, which are likened to honey, is glory, cannot be too much done, and is never without utility and honour;” but how can כּבדם be of the same meaning as כּבד הדברים אשׁר or הנמשׁלים כּדּבשׁ - such an abbreviation of the expression is impossible. Schultens, according to Rashi: vestigatio gravitatis eorum est gravitas, i.e., the searching out of their difficulty is a trouble; better Vitringa (since כבוד nowhere occurs in this sense of gravitas molesta ac pondere oppressura): investigatio praestantiae eorum est gloriosa; but Vitringa, in order to gain a connection to 27a, needs to introduce etiamsi, and in both explanations the reference of the כּבדם is imaginary, and it by no means lies near, since the Scripture uses the word כבוד of God, and His kingdom and name, but never of His law or His revelation. Thus also is an argument against Bertheau, who translates: the searching out of their glory (viz., of the divine law and revelation) is a burden, a strenuous occupation of the mind, since חקר does not in itself mean searching out, and is equivocally, even unintelligibly, expressed, since כבוד denotes, it is true, here and there, a great multitude, but never a burden (as כּבד). The thought which Jerome finds in 27b: qui scrutator est majestatis opprimetur a gloria, is judicious, and connects itself synonym. with 27a; but such a thought is unwarranted, for he disregards the suff. of כּבדם, and renders כבוד in the sense of difficulty (oppression). Or should it perhaps be vocalized כּבדם (Syr., Targ., Theodotion, δεδοξασμένα = נכבּדות)? Thus vocalized, Umbreit renders it in the sense of honores; Elster and Zöckler in the sense of difficultates (difficilia); but this plur., neither the biblical, nor, so far as I know, the post-bibl. usage of the word has ever adopted. However, the sense of the proverb which Elster and Zöckler gain is certainly that which is aimed at. We accordingly translate:
To surfeit oneself in eating honey is not good,
But as an inquirer to enter on what is difficult is honour.
We read כּבדם instead of כּבדם. This change commends itself far more than כּבד מכּבוד (וחקר), according to which Gesenius explains: nimium studium honoris est sine honore - impossible, for חקר does not signify nimium studium, in the sense of striving, but only that of inquiry: one strives after honour, but does not study it. Hitzig and Ewald, after the example of J. D. Michaelis, Arnoldi, and Ziegler, betake themselves therefore to the Arabic; Ewald explains, for he leaves the text unchanged: “To despise their honour (that is, of men) is honour (true, real honour);” Hitzig, for he changes the text like Gesenius: “To despise honour is more than honour,” with the ingenious remark: To obtain an order [insigne ordinis] is an honour, but not to wear it then for the first time is its bouquet. Nowhere any trace either in Hebrew or in Aramaic is to be found of the verb חקר, to despise (to be despised), and so it must here remain without example.^[58]
Nor have we any need of it. The change of כּבדם into כּבדם is enough. The proverb is an antithetic distich; 27a warns against inordinate longing after enjoyments, 27b praises earnest labour. Instead of דּבשׁ הרבּות, if honey in the mass were intended, the words would have been דּבשׁ הרבּה (Ecc 5:11; 1Ki 10:10), or at least הרבּות דּבשׁ (Amo 4:9); הרבות can only be a n. actionis, and אכל דּבשׁ its inverted object (cf. Jer 9:4), as Böttcher has discerned: to make much of the eating of honey, to do much therein is not good (cf. Pro 25:16). In 27b Luther also partly hits on the correct rendering: “and he who searches into difficult things, to him it is too difficult,” for which it ought to be said: to him it is an honour. כּבדם, viz., דברים, signifies difficult things, as ריקים, Pro 12:11, vain things. The Heb. כּבד, however, never means difficult to be understood or comprehended (although more modern lexicons say this),^[59] but always only burdensome and heavy, gravis, not difficilis. כבדם are also things of which the חקר, i.e., the fundamental searching into them (Pro 18:17; Pro 25:2.), costs an earnest effort, which perhaps, according to the first impression, appears to surpass the available strength (cf. Exo 18:18). To overdo oneself in eating honey is not good; on the contrary, the searching into difficult subjects is nothing less than an eating of honey, but an honour. There is here a paronomasia. Fleischer translates it: explorare gravia grave est; but we render grave est not in the sense of molestiam creat, but gravitatem parit (weight = respect, honour).

Verse 28

This verse, counselling restraint as to the spirit, is connected with the foregoing, which counsels to self-control as to enjoyment:
A city broken through, now without walls -
A man without self-control over his spirit.
A “city broken down” is one whose wall is “broken,” 2Ch 32:5, whether it has met with breaches (פּרצים), or is wholly broken; in the former case also the city is incapable of being defended, and it is all one as if it had no wall. Such a city is like a man “who hath no control over his own spirit” (for the accentuation of the Heb. words here, vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 10): cujus spiritui nulla cohibitio (Schultens), i.e., qui animum suum cohibere non potest (Fleischer: עצר, R. צר, to press together, to oppress, and thereby to hold back). As such a city can be plundered and laid waste without trouble, so a man who knows not to hold in check his desires and affections is in constant danger of blindly following the impulse of his unbridled sensuality, and of being hurried forward to outbreaks of passion, and thus of bringing unhappiness upon himself. There are sensual passions (e.g., drunkenness), intellectual (e.g., ambition), mingled (e.g., revenge); but in all of these a false ego rules, which, instead of being held down by the true and better ego, rises to unbounded supremacy.^[60]
Therefore the expression used is not לנפשׁו, but לרוּחו; desire has its seat in the soul, but in the spirit it grows into passion, which in the root of all its diversities is selfishness (Psychol. p. 199); self-control is accordingly the ruling of the spirit, i.e., the restraining (keeping down) of the false enslaved ego-life by the true and free, and powerful in God Himself.

Chap. 26

Verse 1

There now follows a group of eleven proverbs of the fool; only the first of the group has after it a proverb of different contents, but of similar form:
As snow in summer, and rain in harvest;
So honour befitteth not a fool.
If there is snow in high summer (קיץ, to be glowing hot), it is contrary to nature; and if there is rain in harvest, it is (according to the alternations of the weather in Palestine) contrary to what is usually the case, and is a hindrance to the ingathering of the fruits of the field. Even so a fool and respect, or a place of honour, are incongruous things; honour will only injure him (as according to Pro 19:10, luxury); he will make unjust use of it, and draw false conclusions from it; it will strengthen him in his folly, and only increase it. נאוה (= נאוי) is the adj. to the Pil. נאוה, Psa 93:5 (plur. נאווּ); נאוה, Pro 19:10, and נאוה, Pro 17:7, are also masc. and fem. of the adj., according to which, that which is said under Pro 19:10 is to be corrected. Symmachus and Theodotion have translated οὐκ ἔπρεψεν, and have therefore read נאוה. The root word is נאה (as שׁחה to שׁחוה) = נוה, to aim at something (vid., Hupfeld under Psa 23:2).

Verse 2

This verse is formed quite in the same way as the preceding:
As the sparrow in its fluttering, as the swallow in its flying,
So the curse that is groundless: it cometh not.
This passage is one of those fifteen (vid., under Psa 100:3) in which the לא of the text is changed by the Kerı̂ into לו; the Talm., Midrash, and Sohar refer this לּו partly to him who utters the curse himself, against whom also, if he is a judge, such inconsiderate cursing becomes an accusation by God; partly to him who is cursed, for they read from the proverb that the curse of a private person also (הדיוט, ἰδιώτης) is not wont to fall to the ground, and that therefore one ought to be on his guard against giving any occasion for it (vid., Norzi). But Aben Ezra supposes that לא and לו interchange, as much as to say that the undeserved curse falls on him (לו) who curses, and does not fall (לא) on him who is cursed. The figures in 2a harmonize only with לא, according to which the lxx, the Syr., Targ., Venet., and Luther (against Jerome) translate, for the principal matter, that the sparrow and the swallow, although flying out (Pro 27:8), return home again to their nest (Ralbag), would be left out of view in the comparison by לו. This emphasizes the fluttering and flying, and is intended to affirm that a groundless curse is a פּרח בּאוּיר, aimless, i.e., a thing hovering in the air, that it fails and does not take effect. Most interpreters explain the two Lameds as declaring the destination: ut passer (sc. natus est) ad vagandum, as the sparrow, through necessity of nature, roves about... (Fleischer). But from Pro 25:3 it is evident that the Lamed in both cases declares the reference or the point of comparison: as the sparrow in respect to its fluttering about, etc. The names of the two birds are, according to Aben Ezra, like dreams without a meaning; but the Romanic exposition explains rightly צפּור by passereau, and דּרור by hirondelle, for צפור (Arab. 'uṣfuwr), twitterer, designates at least preferably the sparrow, and דרור the swallow, from its flight shooting straight out, as it were radiating (vid., under Psa 84:4); the name of the sparrow, dûrı̂ (found in courtyards), which Wetstein, after Saadia, compares to דרור, is etymologically different.^[61]
Regarding חנּם, vid., under Pro 24:28. Rightly the accentuation separates the words rendered, “so the curse undeserved” (קללת, after Kimchi, Michlol 79b, קללת), from those which follow; לא תבא is the explication of כן: thus hovering in the air is a groundless curse - it does not come (בוא, like e.g., Jos 21:43). After this proverb, which is formed like Pro 26:1, the series now returns to the “fool.”

Verse 3

Pro 26:3 3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, And a rod for the back of fools.
J. D. Michaelis supposes that the order should be reversed: a bridle for the horse, a whip for the ass; but Arnoldi has here discovered the figure of speech merismus (cf. Pro 10:1); and Hitzig, in the manner of the division, the rhythmical reason of the combination (cf. שׁם חם ויפת for שׁם יפת וחם): whip and bridle belong to both, for one whips a horse (Neh 3:2) and also bridles him; one bridles an ass (Psa 32:9) and also whips him (Num 22:28.). As whip and bridle are both serviceable and necessary, so also serviceable and necessary is a rod, לגו כּסילים, Pro 10:13; Pro 19:29.

Verse 4

Pro 26:4 4 Answer not the fool according to his folly, Lest thou thyself also become like unto him.
After, or according to his folly, is here equivalent to recognising the foolish supposition and the foolish object of his question, and thereupon considering it, as if, e.g., he asked why the ignorant man was happier than the man who had much knowledge, or how one may acquire the art of making gold; for “a fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer.” He who recognises such questions as justifiable, and thus sanctions them, places himself on an equality with the fool, and easily himself becomes one. The proverb that follows affirms apparently the direct contrary:

Verse 5

Pro 26:5 5 Answer the fool according to his folly, Lest he regard himself as wise. ענה־כסיל (with Makkeph, and Gaja, and Chatef)^[62] here stands opposed to אל־תען כסיל. The Gospel of John, e.g., Joh 5:31, cf. Pro 8:31,^[63] is rich in such apparently contradictory sayings. The sic et non here lying before us is easily explained; after, or according to his folly, is this second time equivalent to, as is due to his folly: decidedly and firmly rejecting it, making short work with it (returning a sharp answer), and promptly replying in a way fitted, if possible, to make him ashamed. Thus one helps him, perhaps, to self-knowledge; while, in the contrary case, one gives assistance to his self-importance. The Talmud, Schabbath 30b, solves the contradiction by referring Pro 26:4 to worldly things, and Pro 26:5 to religious things; and it is true that, especially in the latter case, the answer is itself a duty toward the fool, and towards the truth. Otherwise the Midrash: one ought not to answer when one knows the fool as such, and to answer when he does not so know him; for in the first instance the wise man would dishonour himself by the answer, in the latter case he would give to him who asks the importance appertaining to a superior.

Verse 6

Pro 26:6 6 He cutteth off the feet, he drinketh injury, Who transacteth business by a fool.
He cutteth off, i.e., his own feet, as we say: he breaks his neck, il se casse le cou; Lat. frangere brachium, crus, coxam; frangere navem (Fleischer). He thinks to supplement his own two legs by those of the messenger, but in reality he cuts them off; for not only is the commission not carried out, but it is even badly carried out, so that instead of being refreshed (Pro 13:17; Pro 25:13) by the quick, faithful execution of it, he has to swallow nothing but damage; cf. Job 34:7, where, however, drinking scorn is meant of another (lxx), not his own; on the contrary, חמס here refers to injury suffered (as if it were חמדו, for the suff. of חמס is for the most part objective); cf. the similar figures Pro 10:26. So שׁלח בּיד, to accomplish anything by the mediation of another, cf. Exo 4:13; with דבר (דברים), 2Sa 15:36. The reading מקצּה (Jerome, Luther, claudus) is unnecessary; since, as we saw, מקצּה ,was ew includes it in the sibi. The Syr. reads, after the lxx (the original text of which was ἐκ τῶν ποδῶν ἑαυτοῦ), מקצה, for he errs, as also does the Targumist, in thinking that מקצה can be used for מקצץ; but Hitzig adopts this reading, and renders: “from the end of the legs he swallows injury who sends messages by a fool.” The end of the legs are the feet, and the feet are those of the foolish messenger. The proverb in this form does not want in boldness, but the wisdom which Hitzig finds in its is certainly not mother-wit.^[64]
Böttcher, on his part, also with מקצה, renders: “from the end of his feet he drinks in that which is bitter...” - that also is too artificial, and is unintelligible without the explanation of its discoverer. But that he who makes a fool his messenger becomes himself like unto one who cuts off his own legs, is a figure altogether excellent.

Verse 7

Pro 26:7 7 The hanging down of the legs of a lame man; And a proverb in a fool's mouth.
With reference to the obscure דּליוּ, the following views have been maintained: - (1) The form as punctuated appears directly as an imperative. Thus the lxx translate, the original text of which is here: ἀφελοῦ πορείαν κυλλῶν (conj. Lagarde's) καὶ παροιμίαν ἐκ στόματος ἀφρόνων, which the Syr. (with its imitator, the Targ.) has rendered positively: “If thou canst give the power of (sound) going to the lame, then wilt thou also receive (prudent) words from the mouth of a fool.” Since Kimchi, דּליוּ has been regarded by many as the softening of the Imp. Piel דּדּוּ, according to which the Venet. translates: ἐπάρατε κνήμας χωλοῦ; and Bertheau and Zöckler explain: always take away his legs from the lame, since they are in reality useless to him, just as a proverb in the mouth of the fool is useless - something that without loss might be never there.” But why did not the poet write הרימוּ, or הסירוּ, or קחוּ, or the like? דּלּי, to carry away, to dispense with, is Syriac (Targ. Jer. I, under Deu 32:50), but not Hebrew. And how meaningless is this expression! A lame man would withstand a surgeon (as he would a murderer) who would amputate his legs; for lame legs are certainly better than none, especially since there is a great distinction between a lame man (פּדּח, from פּסח, luxare; cf. (Arab.) fasaḥ, laxare, vid., Schultens) who halts or goes on crutches (2Sa 3:29), and one who is maimed (paralytic), who needs to be carried. It comes to this, that by this rendering of 7a one must, as a consequence, with the lxx, regard וּמשׁל [and a proverb] as object. accus. parallel to שׁקים [legs]; but “to draw a proverb from one's mouth” is, after Pro 20:5, something quite different from to tear a proverb away from him, besides which, one cannot see how it is to be caught. Rather one would prefer: attollite crura claudi (ut incedat, et nihil promovebitis); but the מן of מפּסּח does not accord with this, and 7b does not connect itself with it. But the explanation: “take away the legs from a lame man who has none, at least none to use, and a proverb in the mouth of fools, when there is none,” is shattered against the “leg-taking-away,” which can only be used perhaps of frogs' legs. (2) Symmachus translates: ἐξέλιπον κνῆμαι ἀπὸ χωλοῦ; and Chajûg explains דּליוּ as 3 pret. Kal, to which Kimchi adds the remark, that he appears to have found דּליוּ, which indeed is noted by Norzi and J. H. Michaelis as a variant. But the Masoretic reading is דּליוּ, and this, after Gesenius and Böttcher (who in this, without any reason, sees an Ephraimitic form of uttering the word), is a softened variation from דּדּוּ. Only it is a pity that this softening, while it is supported by alius = ἄλλος, folium = φύλλον, faillir = fallere, and the like, has yet not a single Hebrew or Semitic example in its favour. (3) Therefore Ewald finds, “all things considered,” that it is best to read דּליוּ, “the legs are too loose for the lame man to use them.” But, with Dietrich, we cannot concur in this, nor in the more appropriate translation: “the legs of the lame hang down loose,” to say nothing of the clearly impossible: “high are the legs of the lame (one higher than the other),” and that because this form גּליוּ for גּליוּ also occurs without pause, Psa 57:2; Psa 73:2; Psa 122:6; Isa 21:12; but although thus, as at Psa 36:9; Psa 68:32, at the beginning of a clause, yet always only in connection, never at the beginning of an address. (4) It has also been attempted to interpret דּליוּ as abstr., e.g., Euchel: “he learns from a cripple to dance, who seeks to learn proverbs from the mouth of a fool.” דּליוּ שׁקים must mean the lifting up of the legs = springing and dancing. Accordingly Luther translates: “As dancing to a cripple,
So does it become a fool to speak of wisdom.”
The thought is agreeable, and according to fact; but these words to not mean dancing, but much rather, as the Arabic shows (vid., Schultens at Pro 20:5, and on the passage before us), a limping, waddling walk, like that of ducks, after the manner of a well-bucket dangling to and fro. And דּליוּ, after the form מלכוּ, would be an unheard-of Aramaism. For forms such as שׂחוּ, swimming, and שׁלוּ, security, Psa 30:7, on which C. B. Michaelis and others rest, cannot be compared, since they are modified from sachw, ṣalw, while in דּליוּ the û ending must be, and besides the Aramaic דּליוּ must in st. constr. be דּליוּוּת. Since none of these explanations are grammatically satisfactory, and besides דּליוּ = דּללוּ = דּדּוּ gives a parallel member which is heterogeneous and not conformable to the nature of an emblematical proverb, we read דּלּוּי after the forms צפּוּי, שׁקּוּי (cf. חבּוּק, Pro 6:10; Pro 24:33), and this signifies loose, hanging down, from דּלה, to hang at length and loosely down, or transitively: to hang, particularly of the hanging down at length of the bucket-rope, and of the bucket itself, to draw water from the well. The מן is similar to that of Job 28:4, only that here the connecting of the hanging down, and of that from which it hangs down, is clear. Were we to express the purely nominally expressed emblematical proverb in the form of a comparative one, it would thus stand as Fleischer translates it: ut laxa et flaccida dependent (torpent) crura a claudo, sic sententia in ore stultorum (sc. torpet h. e. inutilis est). The fool can as little make use of an intelligent proverb, or moral maxim (dictum sententiosum), as a lame man can of his feet; the word, which in itself is full of thought, and excellent, becomes halting, lame, and loose in his mouth (Schultens: deformiter claudicat); it has, as spoken and applied by him, neither hand nor foot. Strangely, yet without missing the point, Jerome: quomodo pulcras frustra habet claudus tibias, sic indecens est in ore stultorum parabola. The lame man possibly has limbs that appear sound; but when he seeks to walk, they fail to do him service - so a bon-mot comes forth awkwardly when the fool seeks to make use of it. Hitzig's conjecture: as leaping of the legs on the part of a lame man..., Böttcher has already shown sufficient reasons for rejecting; leaping on the part of any one, for the leaping of any one, were a court style familiar to no poet.

Verse 8

This proverb presents to us a new difficulty.
As one binds a stone in a sling,
So is he who giveth honour to a fool.
This translation is warranted by tradition, and is in accordance with the actual facts. A sling is elsewhere called קלע; but that מרגּמה also in the passage before us signifies a sling (from רגם, to throw with stones = to stone or to throw stones = to sling, cf. Targ. Est 5:14 רגּם, of David's slinging stones against Goliath), is supported by the lxx, Syr., and Targ. on the one side, and the Jewish Glossists on the other (Rashi: fronde, Ital. frombola). Rightly the lxx renders כּצרור as a verb: ὡς ἀποδεσμεύει; on the contrary, the Syr. and Targ. regard it as a substantive: as a piece of stone; but צרור as a substantive does not mean a piece, as one would put into a sling to use as a weapon, but a grain, and thus a little piece, 2Sa 17:13; cf. Amo 9:9. Erroneously Ewald: “if one binds to the sling the stone which he yet seeks to throw, then all this throwing and aiming are in vain; so it is in vain to give to a fool honour which does not reach him.” If one seeks to sling a stone, he must lay the lapis missilis so in the sling that it remains firm there, and goes forth only by the strong force of the slinging; this fitting in (of the stone), so that it does not of itself fall out, is expressed by צרר בּ (cf. Pro 30:4; Job 26:8). The giving is compared to the binding, the stones to the honour, and the sling to the fool: the fool is related to the honour which one confers on him, as the stone to the sling in which one lays it - the giving of honour is a slinging of honour. Otherwise (after Kimchi) the Venet. ὡς συνδεσμὸς λίθου ἐν λιθάδι, i.e., as Fleischer translates: ut qui crumenam gemmarum plenam in acervum lapidum conjicit. Thus also Ralbag, Ahron b. Josef, and others, and lastly Zöckler. The figure is in the form of an address, and מרגּמה (from רגם, accumulare, congerere, vid., under Psa 67:1-7 :28) might certainly mean the heaping of stones. But אבן is not used in the sense of אבן יקרה (precious stone); also one does not see why one precious stone is not enough as the figure of honour, and a whole heap is named; but in the third place, כּן נותן requires for כצרור a verbal signification. Therefore Jerome translates: sicut qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mercurii; in this the echo of his Jewish teacher, for the Midrash thus explains literally: every one who gives honour to a fool is like one who throws a stone on a heap of stones consecrated to Mercury. Around the Hermes (ἑρμαὶ), i.e., pillars with the head of Mercury (statuae mercuriales or viales), were heaps of stones (ἕρμακες), to which the passer-by was wont to throw a stone; it was a mark of honour, and served at the same time to improve the way, whose patron was Mercurious (מרקולים). It is self-evident that this Graeco-Roman custom to which the Talm. makes frequent reference, cannot be supposed to have existed in the times of Solomon. Luther translates independently, and apparently rendering into German that in acervum Mercurii: that is as if one threw a precious stone on the “Rabenstein,” i.e., the heap of stones raised at the foot of the gallows. This heap of stones is more natural and suitable to the times of Solomon than the heap of stones dedicated to Mercury, if, like Gussetius, one understands מרגמה of a heap of stones, supra corpus lapidatum. But against this and similar interpretations it is enough to remark that כצרור cannot signify sicut qui mittit. Had such a meaning been intended, the word would have been כּהשׁליך or כּמשׁליך. Still different is the rendering of Joseph Kimchi, Aben Ezra, and finally Löwenstein: as when one wraps up a stone in a piece of purple stuff. But ארגּמן, purple, has nothing to do with the verb רגם; it is, as the Aramaic ארגּון shows, a compound word; the supposition of a denom. מרגּמה thus proceeds from a false etymological supposition. And Hitzig's combination of מרגמה with (Arab.) munjam, handle and beam of a balance (he translates: as a stone on the beam of a balance, i.e., lies on it), is nothing but refined ingenuity, since we have no need at all of such an Arab. word for a satisfactory clearing up of מרגמה. We abide by the rendering of the sling. Böttcher translates: a sling that scatters; perhaps מרגמה in reality denotes such a sling as throws many stones at once. Let that, however, be as it may: that he who confers a title of honour, a place of honour, and the like, on a fool, is like one who lays a stone in a sling, is a true and intelligibly formed thought: the fool makes the honour no honour; he is not capable of maintaining it; that which is conferred on him is uselessly wasted.

Verse 9

Pro 26:9 9 A thorn goeth into the hand of a drunkard, And a proverb in a fool's mouth;i.e., if a proverb falls into a fool's mouth, it is as if a thorn entered into the hand of a drunken man; the one is as dangerous as the other, for fools misuse such a proverb, which, rightly used, instructs and improves, only to the wounding and grieving of another, as a drunken man makes use of the pointed instrument which he has possession of for coarse raillery, and as a welcome weapon of his strife. The lxx, Syr. (Targ.?), and Jerome interpret עלה in the sense of shooting up, i.e., of growing; Böttcher also, after Pro 24:31 and other passages, insists that the thorn which has shot up may be one that has not grown to perfection, and therefore not dangerous. But thorns grow not in the hand of any one; and one also does not perceive why the poet should speak of it as growing in the hand of a drunken man, which the use of the hand with it would only make worse. We have here עלה בידי, i.e., it has come into my hand, commonly used in the Mishna, which is used where anything, according to intention, falls into one's hands, as well as where it comes accidentally and unsought for, e.g., Nazir 23a, מי שׁנתכוון לעלות בידו בשׂר חזיר ועלה בידו בשׂר טלה, he who designs to obtain swine's flesh and (accidentally) obtains lamb's flesh. Thus rightly Heidenheim, Löwenstein, and the Venet.: ἄκανθα ἀνέβη εἰς χεῖρα μεθύοντος. חוח signifies a thorn bush, 2Ki 14:9,^[65] as well as a thorn, Sol 2:2, but where not the thorns of the rose, and indeed no rose at all, is meant. Luther thinks of the rose with the thorn when he explains: “When a drunkard carries and brandishes in his hand a thorn bush, he scratches more with it than allows the roses to be smelled - so a fool with the Scriptures, or a right saying, often does more harm than good.” This paraphrase of Luther's interprets עלה ביד more correctly than his translation does; on the other hand, the latter more correctly is satisfied with a thorn twig (as a thorn twig which pierces into the hand of a drunken man); the roses are, however, assumed contrary to the text. This holds good also against Wessely's explanation: “the Mashal is like a rose not without thorns, but in the mouth of a fool is like a thorn without a rose, as when a drunken man seeks to pluck roses and gains by his effort nothing but being pierced by thorns.” The idea of roses is to be rejected, because at the time when this proverb was formed there were no roses in Palestine. The proverb certainly means that a right Mashal, i.e., an ingenious excellent maxim, is something more and better than a חוח (the prick as of the Jewish thorn, Zizyphus vulgaris, or the Christus-thorn, the Ziz spina Christi); but in the mouth of a fool such a maxim becomes only a useless and a hurtful thing; for the fool so makes use of it, that he only embarrasses others and recklessly does injury to them. The lxx translates משׁל by δουλεία, and the Aram. by שׁטיוּתא; how the latter reached this “folly” is not apparent; but the lxx vocalized משׁל, according to which Hitzig, at the same time changing שׁכּור into שׂכוּר, translates: “thorns shoot up by the hand of the hireling, and tyranny by the mouth of fools.” Although a hired labourer, yet, on this account, he is not devoid of conscience; thus 9a so corrected has something in its favour: one ought, as far as possible, to do all with his own hand; but the thought in 9b is far-fetched, and if Hitzig explains that want of judgment in the state councils creates despotism, so, on the other hand, Pro 24:7 says that the fool cannot give counsel in the gate, and therefore he holds his mouth.

Verse 10

All that we have hitherto read is surpassed in obscurity by this proverb, which is here connected because of the resemblance of ושכר to שכור. We translate it thus, vocalizing differently only one word:
Much bringeth forth from itself all;
But the reward and the hirer of the fool pass away.
The lxx translates πολλὰ χειμάζεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἀφρόνων (all the flesh of fools suffers much), συντριβήσεται γὰρ ἧ ἔκστασις αὐτῶν, which is in Hebrew: רב מחולל כל בּשׂר כסיל ישּׁבר עברתם
An unfortunate attempt so to rectify the words that some meaning might be extracted from them. The first line of this translation has been adopted by the Syr. and Targ., omitting only the כל, in which the self-condemnation of this deciphering lies (for כל בשׂר means elsewhere, humanity, not the whole body of each individual); but they translate the second line as if the words were: ישׁכּר עבר יםi.e., and the drunken man sails over the sea (עברים is separated into עבר ים, as בבקרים, Amo 6:12, is to be separated into בּבּקר ים); but what does that mean? Does it mean that to a drunkard (but שׁכּור, the drunken man, and not סבא, the drunkard, is used) nothing remains but to wander over the sea? or that the drunken man lets his imagination wander away over the sea, while he neglects the obligation that lies upon him? Symmachus and Theodotion, with the Midrash (Rashi) and Saadia (Kimchi), take שׂכר in 10b = סגר (like Isa 19:10, שׂכר = embankment, cf. סכּרין, Kelim, Pro 23:5); the former translates by καὶ ὁ φράσσων ἄφρονα ἐμφράσσει τὰς ὀργὰς αὐτοῦ, the latter by καὶ φιμῶν ἄφρονα φιμοῖ χόλους, yielding to the imagination that עברים, like עברות, may be the plur. of עברה, anger. Jerome punctuates רב as, Pro 25:8, רב, and interprets, as Symmachus and Theodotion, שׂכר both times = סגר, translating: Judicium determinat causas, et qui imponit stulto silentium iras mitigat; but רב does not mean judicium, nor מחולל determinat, nor כל causas. As Gussetius, so also Ralbag (in the first of his three explanations), Meîri, Elia Wilna interpret the proverb as a declaration regarding quarrelsome persons: he causeth woe to all, and hireth fools, hireth transgressors, for his companions; but in that case we must read רב for רב; מחולל, bringing woe, would be either the Po. of חלל, to bore through, or Pilel of חיל (חוּל), to put into distress (as with pangs); but עברים, transgressors = sinners, is contrary to the O.T. usus loq., Pro 22:3 (Pro 27:12) is falsely cited in its favour; besides, for רב there should have been at least אישׁ רב and why שׂכרו is repeated remains inexplicable. Others take מחולל־כל as the name of God, the creator of all men and things; and truly this is the nearest impression of these two words, for חולל is the usual designation for divine production, e.g., Psa 90:2. Accordingly Kimchi explains: The Lord is the creator of all, and He gives to fools and to transgressors their maintenance; but עברים, transgressors, is Mishnic, not bibl.; and שׂכר means to hire, but not to supply with food. The proverb is thus incapable of presenting a thought like Mat 5:45 (He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good). Others translate: “The Lord is creator of all, and takes fools, takes idlers, into His service.” Thus rendered, the proverb is offensive; wherefore Rashi, Moses Kimchi, Arama, and others regard the Mashal as in the mouth of fools, and thus they take Pro 26:9 and Pro 26:10 together as a tetrastich. Certainly this second collection of proverbs contains also tetrastiches; but Pro 26:9 and Pro 26:10 cannot be regarded as together forming a tetrastich, because רב (which is valid against Kimchi also) cannot mean God the Lord: רב, Lord, is unheard of in bibl. Heb., and at least the word הרב must be used for God. The Venet. on this account does not follow Kimchi, but translates, Ἄρχων πλάττει πάντα, καὶ μισθοῦται μωρὸν καὶ μισθοῦται ὡς παραβάτης (ought to have been παραβάτας); but who could this cunning man be? Perhaps the Venet. is to be understood, after Gecatilia (in Rashi): a great (rich) man performs all manner of things; but if he hires a fool, it is as if he hired the first best who pass along the way. But that חולל is used in the general sense of to execute, to perform, is without example, and improbable. Also the explanation: a ruler brings grief, i.e., severe oppression, upon all (Abulwalîd, Immanuel, Aben Ezra, who, in his smaller grammar, explains רב = רב after Isa 49:9; C. B. Michaelis: dolore afficit omnes), does not recommend itself; for חולל, whether it be from חלל, Isa 51:9 (to bore through), or from חיל, Psa 29:9 (to bring on the pangs of birth), is too strong a word for hurting; also the clause, thus generally understood, is fortunately untrue. Translated as by Euchel: “the prominent persons destroy all; they keep fools in pay, and favour vagabonds,” - it sounds as if it had been picked up in an assembly of democrats. On the other hand, the proverb, as translated by Luther:
A good master maketh a thing right;
But he who hireth a bungler, by him it is spoiled, is worthy of the Book of Proverbs. The second line is here freely rendered, but it is also appropriate, if we abide closer by the words of the text, in this connection. Fleischer: Magister (artifex peritus) effingit omnia (i.e., bene perficit quaecunque ei committuntur); qui autem stultum conducit, conducit transeuntes (i.e., idem facit ac si homines ignotos et forte transeuntes ad opus gravius et difficilius conduceret). Thus also Gesenius, Böttcher, and others, who all, as Gecatilia above, explain עברים, τοὺς τυχόντας, the first best. But we are reluctantly constrained to object to this thought, because רב nowhere in bibl. Hebrew signifies a master; and the ו of the second ושׂכר dno cannot bear that rendering, ac si. And if we leave it out, we nevertheless encounter a difficulty in חולל, which cannot be used of human production. Many Christian interpreters (Cocceius, Schultens, Schelling, Ewald, Bertheau, Stier, Zöckler) give to רב a meaning which is found in no Jewish interpreter, viz., sagittarius, from רבב (רבב), Gen 49:23 (and perhaps Psa 18:15), after the forms צר, שׂר, the plur. of which, רבּים, is found at Job 16:13; Jer 50:29, but in a connection which removes all doubt from the meaning of the word. Here also רב may be more closely defined by מחולל; but how then does the proverb stand? “an archer who wounds everything, and he who hires a fool, and hires passers-by” (Ewald: street-runners), i.e., they are alike. But if the archer piercing everything is a comic Hercules furens, then, in order to discover the resemblance between the three, there is need of a portion of ingenuity, such as is only particularly assigned to the favoured. But it is also against the form and the usage of the word to interpret עברים simply of rogues and vagabonds. Several interpreters have supposed that רב and כל must stand in a certain interchangeable relation to each other. Thus, e.g., Ahron b. Josef: “Much makes amazement to all, but especially one who hires a fool....” But this “especially” (Before all) is an expression smuggled in. Agreeing with Umbreit and Hitzig, we translate line first; but in translating line second, we follow our own method:
Much bringeth all out of it;i.e., where there is much, then one has it in his power, if he begins right, to undertake everything. רב has by כּל the definition of a neuter, so as to designate not only many men, Exo 19:21, but also much ability in a pecuniary and facultative sense (cf. the subst. רב, Isa 63:7; Psa 145:7); and of the much which bringeth forth all out of itself, effects all by itself, חולל with equal right might be used, as Pro 25:23, of the north wind. The antithesis 10b takes this form:
But the reward (read וּשׂכר) and the master (who hires him for wages) of the fool pass away,i.e., perish; עברים, as if עבר, is used of chaff, Isa 29:5; of stubble, Jer 13:24; of shadow, Psa 144:4. That which the fool gains passes away, for he squanders it; and he who took him into his service for wages is ruined along with him, for his work is only pernicious, not useful. Although he who possesses much, and has great ability, may be able to effect everything of himself, yet that is not the case when he makes use of the assistance therein of foolish men, who not only do not accomplish anything, but, on the contrary, destroy everything, and are only ruinous to him who, with good intention, associates them with himself in his work. That the word must be more accurately ושׂכר, instead of ושׂכרוו, one may not object, since ושׂכר is perfectly unambiguous, and is manifestly the object.

Verse 11

The series of proverbs regarding fools is continued:
Like a dog which returneth to his vomit,
Is a fool who cometh again with his folly. שׁב is like שׁונה, particip.; only if the punctuation were כּכּלב, ought “which returneth to his vomit” to be taken as a relative clause (vid., under Psa 38:14). Regarding על as designating the terminus quo with verbs of motions, vid., Köhler under Mal. 3:24. On קא = קיא, cf. Pro 23:8. Luther rightly; as a dog devours again his vomit. The lxx translate: ὥσπερ κύων ὅταν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἔμετον; the reference in 2Pe 2:22 : κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα, is thus not from the lxx; the Venet. is not connected with this N.T. citation, but with the lxx, if its accordance with it is not merely accidental. To devour again its vomit is common with the dog.^[66]
Even so, it is the manner of fools to return again in word and in deed to their past folly (vid., regarding שׁנה with ב of the object. Pro 17:9); as an Aram. popular saying has it: the fool always falls back upon his foolish conduct.^[67]
He must needs do so, for folly has become to him a second nature; but this “must” ceases when once a divine light shines forth upon him. The lxx has after Pro 26:11 a distich which is literally the same as Sir. 4:21.

Verse 12

Pro 26:12 12 Seest thou a man who is wise in his own eyes? The fool hath more hope than he.
Regarding the perf. hypotheticum ראית, vid., at Pro 22:29. Line second is repeated, Pro 29:20, unchanged. ממּנּוּ, prae eo, is equivalent to the Mishnic יותר ממּנּוּ, plus quam ei. As the conversion of a sinner, who does not regard himself as righteous, is more to be expected than that of a self-righteous man (Mat 9:12.), so the putting right of a fool, who is conscious that he is not wise (cf. Pro 24:7), is more likely to be effected than that of one deeming himself wise; for the greatest hindrance to any turning toward that which is better lies in the delusion that he does not need it.^[68]
Thus far the group of proverbs regarding fools.

Verse 13

There follows now a group of proverbs regarding the slothful: 13 The slothful saith there is a lion without, A lion in the midst of the streets; cf. the original of this proverb, Pro 22:13. שׁוּעל, to say nothing of שׁחל, is not the jackal; שׁחל is the bibl. name for the lion. בּין is the more general expression for בּקרב, Isa 5:25; by the streets he thinks of the rows of houses that form them.

Verse 14

Pro 26:14 14 The door turneth on its hinges, And the sluggard on his bed.
The comparison is clear. The door turns itself on its hinges, on which it hangs, in and out, without passing beyond the narrow space of its motion; so is the fool on his bed, where he turns himself from the one side to the other. He is called עצל, because he is fast glued to the place where he is (Arab. 'azila), and cannot be free (contrast of the active, cf. Arab. ḥafyf, moving nimbly, agilis). But the door offers itself as a comparison, because the diligent goes out by it to begin his work without (Pro 24:27; Psa 104:23), while the sluggard rolls himself about on his bed. The hook, the hinge, on which the door is moved, called ציר, from צוּר, to turn,^[69] has thus the name of הסּוב.

Verse 15

Pro 26:15 15 The slothful has thrust his hand into the dish, It is hard for him to bring it back to his mouth again.
A variation of Pro 19:24; the fut. ישׁיבנּה there, is here explained by נלאה להשׁיבהּ.

Verse 16

Pro 26:16 16 The sluggard is wise in his own eyes, More than seven men who give an excellent answer.
Between slothfulness and conceit there exists no inward necessary mutual relation. The proverb means that the sluggard as such regards himself as wiser than seven, who all together answer well at any examination: much labour - he thinks with himself - only injures the health, blunts men for life and its joys, leads only to over-exertion; for the most prudent is, as a general rule, crack-brained. Böttcher's “maulfaule” [slow to speak] belongs to the German style of thinking; עטל לשׁנא in Syr. is not he who is slow to speak, but he who has a faltering tongue.^[70]
Seven is the number of manifoldness in completed unfolding (Pro 9:1). Meîri thinks, after Ezr 7:14, on the council of seven of the Asiatic ruler. But seven is a round number of plurality, Pro 26:25, Pro 24:16; Pro 6:31. Regarding טעם, vid., at Pro 11:22.

Verse 17

A series of proverbs which recommend the love of peace, for they present caricatures of the opposite: 17 He seizeth by the ears of a dog passing by, Who is excited by a strife which concerns him not.
According to the accentuation in the text, the proverb is to be translated with Fleischer: Qualis est qui prehendit aures canis, talis est qui forte transiens ira abripitur propter rixam alienam (eique temere se immiscent). Since he is cautioned against unwarranted interference, the expression מתערב בּדין might have been used (Pro 14:10), according to which the Syr. translates; but על־ריב substantiates the originality of מתעבּר (vid., Pro 14:16; Pro 20:2). On the other hand, the placing together, without any connection of the two participles, is perplexing; why not עבר וּמתעבּר? For it is certainly not meant, that falling into a passion he passes by; but that passing by, he falls into a passion; for he stands to this object. The Targumist, feeling this also, renders עבר in the sense of being angry, but contrary to the usus loq. Wherefore the conjecture of Euchel and Abramsohn commends itself, that עבר belongs to כלב - the figure thereby becomes more distinct. To seize one's own dog by the ear is not dangerous, but it is not advisable to do this with a strange dog. Therefore עבר belongs as a necessary attribute to the dog. The dog accidentally passing by corresponds to the strife to which one stands in no relation (ריב לא־ול, vid., regarding the Makkeph, Baer's Genesis, p. 85, not. 9). Whoever is excited to passion about a strife that does not belong to him, is like one who lays hold by the ears (the lxx arbitrarily: by the tail) of a dog that is passing by - to the one or to the other it happens right when he brings evil upon himself thereby.

Verses 18-19

These verses form a tetrastich: 18 As a man who casteth brands, And arrows, and death; 19 So is the man who deceiveth his neighbour, And saith: I only make sport.
The old translations of מתלהלה are very diverse. Aquila has rendered it by κακοηθιζόμενος; Symmachus: πειρώμενοι; the Syr.: the vainglorious; the Targ.: מתּחת (from נחת), a successor (spiritually); Jerome: noxius (injurious; for which Luther: secret). There is thus no traditional translation. Kimchi explains the word by השׁתגע (Venet. ἐξεστώς); Aben Ezra by השׁתטה (from שׂטה), to behave thoughtlessly, foolishly; but both erroneously, confounding with it ותּלהּ, Gen 47:13, which is formed from להה and not from לההּ, and is related to לאה, according to which מתלהלה would designate him who exerts himself (Rashi, המתיגע), or who is worn out (Saadia: who does not know what to do, and in weariness passes his time). The root לההּ (להּ), whence the reflex form התלהלהּ, like התמהמהּ, from מההּ, מהּ) leads to another primary idea. The root להּ presents in (Arab.) âliha (vid., Fleischer in the Comm. zur Genesis, p. 57), waliha, and taliha, formed from the 8th form of this verb (aittalah), the fundamental meaning of internal and external unrest; these verbs are used of the effect of fear (shrinking back from fear), and, generally, the want of self-command; the Syr. otlahlah, to be terrified, obstupescere, confirms this primary conception, connecting itself with the R. להּ. Accordingly, he who shoots every possible death-bringing arrow, is thought of as one who is beside himself, one who is of confused mind, in which sense the passive forms of (Arab.) âlah and talah are actually used. Schultens' reference to (Arab.) lâh micare, according to which כמתלהלה must mean sicut ludicram micationem exercens (Böttcher: one who exerts himself; Malbim: one who scoffs, from התל), is to be rejected, because מתלהלה must be the direct opposite of משׂחק; and Ewald's comparison of (Arab.) wâh and akhkh, to be entangled, distorted, lâh, to be veiled, confounds together heterogeneous words. Regarding זקּים (from זנק), burning arrows, vid., under Isa 50:11. Death stands third, not as comprehensive (that which is deadly of every kind), but as a climax (yea, even death itself). The כּן of the principal sentence, correlate to כּ of the contiguous clause, has the Makkeph in our editions; but the laws of the metrical Makkeph require כּן אישׁ (with Munach), as it occurs e.g., in Cod. 1294. A man who gives vent to his malice against his neighbour, and then says: seest thou not that... (הלא, like Arab. âlâ), i.e., I am only jesting, I have only a joke with thee: he exhibits himself as being mad, who in blind rage scatters about him deadly arrows.

Verse 20

There now follow proverbs regarding the nirgân, the slanderer (vid., regarding the formation and import of this word at Pro 26:28): 20 Where the wood faileth, the fire goeth out; And where no tale-bearer, discord cometh to silence.
Wood, as material for building or for burning, is called, with the plur. of its product, עצים. Since אפס is the absolute end of a thing, and thus expresses its no longer existing, so it was more appropriate to wood (Fleischer: consumtis lignis) than to the tale-bearer, of whom the proverb says the same thing as Pro 22:10 says of the mocker.

Verse 21

Pro 26:21 21 Black coal to burning coal, and wood to fire; And a contentious man to stir up strife.
The Venet. translates פּחם by καρβών, and גּחלת by ἄνθραξ; the former (from פּחם, Arab. faḥuma, to be deep black) is coal in itself; the latter (from גּחל, jaham, to set on fire, and intrans. to burn), coal in a glowing state (e.g., Pro 25:22; Eze 1:13). Black coal is suited to glowing coal, to nourish it; and wood to the fire, to sustain it; and a contentious man is suited for and serves this purpose, to kindle up strife. חרר signifies to be hot, and the Pilpel חרחר, to heat, i.e., to make hot or hotter. The three - coal, wood, and the contentious man - are alike, in that they are a means to an end.

Verse 22

Pro 26:22 22 The words of the tale-bearer are like dainty morsels; And they glide down into the innermost parts.
A repetition of Pro 18:8.

Verse 23

The proverbs next following treat of a cognate theme, hypocrisy (the art of dissembling), which, under a shining [gleissen] exterior,^[71] conceals hatred and destruction: 23 Dross of silver spread over an earthen vessel - Lips glowing with love and a base heart.
Dross of silver is the so-called glätte (French, litharge), a combination of lead and oxygen, which, in the old process of producing silver, was separated (Luther: silberschaum, i.e., the silver litharge; Lat. spuma argenti, having the appearance of foam). It is still used to glaze over potter's ware, which here (Greek, κέραμος) is briefly called חרשׂ for כּלי חרשׂ; for the vessel is better in appearance than the mere potsherd. The glossing of the earthenware is called צפּה על־חרשׂ, which is applicable to any kind of covering (צפּה, R. צף, to spread or lay out broad) of a less costly material with that which is more precious. 23a contains the figure, and 23b its subscription: שׂפתים דּלקים ולב רע. Thus, with the taking away of the Makkeph after Codd., to be punctuated: burning lips, and therewith a base heart; burning, that is, with the fire of love (Meîri, אשׁ החשׁק), while yet the assurances of friendship, sealed by ardent kisses, serve only to mask a far different heart. The lxx translate דלקים [burning] by λεῖα, and thus have read חלקים [smooth], which Hitzig without reason prefers; burning lips (Jerome, incorrectly: tumentia; Luther, after Deu 32:33, חמת: Gifftiger mund = a poisonous mouth) are just flattering, and at the same time hypocritical^[72] lips. Regarding שׂפתים as masc., vid., p. 85; לב רע means, at Pro 25:20, animus maestus; here, inimicus. The figure is excellent: one may regard a vessel with the silver gloss as silver, and it is still earthen; and that also which gives forth the silver glance is not silver, but only the refuse of silver. Both are suitable to the comparison: the lips only glitter, the heart is false (Heidenheim).

Verses 24-25

Pro 26:24 and Pro 26:25 form a tetrastich. 24 With his lips the hater dissembleth, And in his heart he museth deceit. 25 If he maketh his voice agreeable, believe him not, For seven abominations are in his heart.
All the old translators (also the Venet. and Luther) give to יגּכר the meaning, to become known; but the Niph. as well as the Hithpa. (vid., at Pro 20:11; Gen 47:17) unites with this meaning also the meaning to make oneself known: to make oneself unknown, unrecognisable = (Arab.) tanakkr, e.g., by means of clothing, or by a changed expression of countenance.^[73]
The contrast demands here this latter signification: labiis suis alium se simulat osor, intus in pectore autem reconditum habet dolum (Fleischer). This rendering of ישׁית מרמה is more correct than Hitzig's (“in his breast) he prepares treachery;” for שׁית מרמה is to be rendered after שׁית עצות, Psa 13:3 (vid., Hupfeld's and also our comm. on this passage), not after Jer 9:7; for one says שׁית מוקשׁים, to place snares, שׁית ארב, to lay an ambush, and the like, but not to place or to lay deceit. If such a dissembler makes his voice agreeable (Piel of חנן only here, for the form Psa 9:14 is, as it is punctuated, Kal), trust not thyself to him (האמין, with ב: to put firm trust in anything, vid., Genesis, p. 312)^[74] for seven abominations, i.e., a whole host of abominable thoughts and designs, are in his heart; he is, if one may express it, after Mat 12:45, possessed inwardly of seven devils. The lxx makes a history of 24a: an enemy who, under complaints, makes all possible allowances, but in his heart τεκταίνεται δόλους. The history is only too true, but it has no place in the text.

Verse 26

Pro 26:26 26 Hatred may conceal itself behind deceit: Its wickedness shall be exposed in the assembly.
Proverbs which begin with the fut. are rarely to be found, it is true; yet, as we have seen, Pro 12:26, they are sometimes to be met with in the collection. This is one of the few that are of such a character; for that the lxx and others translate ὁ κρύπτων, which gives for רעתו a more appropriate reference, does not require us to agree with Hitzig in reading הכּסה (Pro 12:16, Pro 12:23) - the two clauses rendered fut. stand in the same syntactical relation, as e.g., Job 20:24. Still less can the rendering of במשׁאון by συνίστησι δόλον, by the lxx, induce us to read with Hitzig חרשׁ און, especially since it is doubtful whether the Heb. words which floated before those translators (the lxx) have been fallen upon. משּׁאון (beginning and ending with a formative syllable) is certainly a word of rare formation, to be compared only to מסדּרון, Jdg 3:23; but since the nearest-lying formation משּׁא signifies usury (from נשׁא, to credit) (according to which Symmachus, διὰ λήμματα, to desire gain), it is obvious that the language preferred this double formation for the meaning deceiving, illusion, or, exactly: fraud. It may also be possible to refer it, like משּׁוּאות (vid., under Psa 23:1-6 :18), to שׁוא = שׁאה, to be confused, waste, as this is done by Parchon, Kimchi (Venet. ἐν ἐρημίᾳ), Ralbag, and others; משׁאון, in this sense of deepest concealment, certainly says not a little as the contrast of קהל [an assembly], but ישׁימום [a desert] stood ready for the poet to be used in this sense; he might also have expressed himself as Job 30:3; Job 38:27. The selection of this rare word is better explained if it denotes the superlative of deceit - a course of conduct maliciously directed toward the deception of a neighbour. That is also the impression which the word has made on Jerome (fraudulenter), the Targ. (בּמוּרסתא, in grinding), Luther (to do injury), and according to which it has already been explained, e.g., by C. B. Michaelis and Oetinger (“with dissembled, deceitful nature”). The punctuation of תכסה, Codd. and editions present in three different forms. Buxtorf in his Concordance (also Fürst), and the Basel Biblia Rabbinica, have the form תּכסּה; but this is a mistake. Either תּכּסה (Niph.) תּכּסּה (Hithpa., with the same assimilation of the preformative ת as in הכּבּס, Lev 13:55; נכּפּר, Deu 21:8) is to be read; Kimchi, in his Wörterbuch, gives תּכּסּה, which is certainly better supported. A surer contrast of במשׁאון and בקהל remains in our interpretation; only we translate not as Ewald: “hatred seeks to conceal itself by hypocrisy,” but: in deceitful work. Also we refer רעתו, not to במשׁאון, but to שׂנאה, for hatred is thought of in connection with its personal representative. We see from 26b that hatred is meant which not only broods over evil, but also carries it into execution. Such hatred may conceal itself in cunningly-contrived deception, yet the wickedness of the hater in the end comes out from behind the mask with the light of publicity.

Verse 27

Pro 26:27 27 He who diggeth a pit falleth therein; And he that rolleth up a stone, upon himself it rolleth back.
The thought that destruction prepared for others recoils upon its contriver, has found its expression everywhere among men in divers forms of proverbial sayings; in the form which it here receives, 27a has its oldest original in Psa 7:16, whence it is repeated here and in Ecc 10:8, and Sir. 27:26. Regarding כּרה, vid., at Pro 16:27. בּהּ here has the sense of in eam ipsam; expressed in French, the proverb is: celui qui creuse la fosse, y tombera; in Italian: chi cava la fossa, caderà in essa. The second line of this proverb accords with Psa 7:17 (vid., Hupfeld and Riehm on this passage). It is natural to think of the rolling as a rolling upwards; cf. Sir. 27:25, ὁ βάλλων λίθον εἰς ὕψος ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ βάλλει, i.e., throws it on his own head. וגלל אבן is to be syntactically judged of like Pro 18:13.

Verse 28

Pro 26:28 28 The lying tongue hateth those whom it bruiseth; And a flattering mouth causeth ruin.
The lxx, Jerome, the Targ., and Syr. render ישׂנא דכיו in the sense of non amat veritatem; they appear by דכיו to have thought of the Aram. דכיא, that which is pure; and thus they gain nothing else but an undeniable plain thought. Many Jewish interpreters gloss: מוכיחיו, also after the Aram.: דּכּיו = מדכּיו; but the Aram. דּכּי does not mean pure in the sense of being right, therefore Elia Wilna understands him who desires to justify himself, and this violent derivation from the Aram. thus does not lead to the end. Luther, translating: “a false tongue hates those who punish it,” explains, as also Gesenius, conterentes = castigantes ipsam; but דּך signifies, according to the usage of the language before us, “bruised” (vid., Psa 9:10), not: bruising; and the thought that the liar hates him who listens to him, leads ad absurdum; but that he does not love him who bruises (punishes) him, is self-evident. Kimchi sees in דּכּיו another form of דּכּא; and Meîri, Jona Gerundi in his ethical work (שׁערי תשׁובה = The gates of Repentance), and others, accordingly render דכיו in the sense of ענו (עניו): the lying tongue hates - as Löwenstein translates - the humble [pious]; also that for דכּיו, by the omission of ו, דכּי = זכּי may be read, is supposable; but this does not harmonize with the second half of the proverb, according to which לשׁון שׁקר must be the subject, and ישׂנא דכיו must express some kind of evil which proceeds from such a tongue. Ewald: “the lying tongue hates its master (אדניו),” but that is not in accordance with the Heb. style; the word in that case should have been בּעליו. Hitzig countenances this אדניו, with the remark that the tongue is here personified; but personified, the tongue certainly means him who has it (Psa 120:3). Böttcher's conjecture ישׁנּא דכיו, “confounds their talk,” is certainly a curiosity. Spoken of the sea, those words would mean, “it changes its surge.” But is it then at all necessary to uncover first the meaning of 28a? Rashi, Arama, and others refer דכּיו to דּכּים = נדכּאים (מדכּים). Thus also perhaps the Venet., which translates τοὺς ἐπιτριμμοὺς (not: ἐπιτετριμμένους) αὐτῆς. C. B. Michaelis: Lingua falsitatis odio habet contritos suos, h. e. eos quos falsitate ac mendacio laedit contritosque facit. Hitzig objects that it is more correct to say: conterit perosos sibi. And certainly this lay nearer, on which account Fleischer remarks: in 28a there is to be supposed a poetic transposition of the ideas (Hypallage): homo qui lingua ad calumnias abutitur conterit eos quos odit. The poet makes ישׂנא the main conception, because it does not come to him so readily to say that the lying tongue bruises those against whom it is directed, as that it is hatred, which is active in this. To say this was by no means superfluous. There are men who find pleasure in repeating and magnifying scandalously that which is depreciatory and disadvantageous to their neighbour unsubstantiated, without being at all conscious of any particular ill-will or personal enmity against him; but this proverb says that such untruthful tongue-thrashing proceeds always from a transgression of the commandment, “Thou shalt not hate thy brother,” Lev 19:17, and not merely from the want of love, but from a state of mind which is the direct opposite of love (vid., Pro 10:18). Ewald finds it incongruous that 28a speaks of that which others have to suffer from the lying tongue, whereas the whole connection of this proverb requires that the tongue should here be regarded as bringing ruin upon its owner himself. But of the destruction which the wicked tongue prepares for others many proverbs also speak, e.g., Pro 12:13, cf. Pro 17:4, לשׁון הוּת; and 28b does not mention that the smooth tongue (written וּפה־חלק with Makkeph) brings injury upon itself (an idea which must be otherwise expressed; cf. Pro 14:32), but that it brings injury and ruin on those who have pleasure in its flatteries (חלקות, Psa 12:3; Isa 30:10), and are befooled thereby: os blandiloquum (blanditiis dolum tegens) ad casum impellit, sc. alios (Fleischer).

Chap. 27

Verse 1

In the group Pro 27:1-6 of this chapter every two proverbs form a pair. The first pair is directed against unseemly boasting: 1 Boast not thyself of to-morrow, For thou knowest not what a day bringeth forth.
The ב of בּיום is like, e.g., that in Pro 25:14, the ב of the ground of boasting. One boasts of to-morrow when he boasts of that which he will then do and experience. This boasting is foolish and presumptuous (Luk 12:20), for the future is God's; not a moment of the future is in our own power, we know not what a day, this present day or to-morrow (Jam 4:13), will bring forth, i.e., (cf. Zep 2:2) will disclose, and cannot therefore order anything beforehand regarding it. Instead of לא־תדע (with Kametz and Mugrash), אל־תדע (thus e.g., the Cod. Jaman) is to be written; the Masora knows nothing of that pausal form. And instead of מה־יּלד יום, we write מה יּלד יום with Zinnorith. יּלד before יום has the tone thrown back on the penult., and consequently a shortened ult.; the Masora reckons this word among the twenty-five words with only one Tsere.

Verse 2

Pro 27:2 2 Let another praise thee, and not thine own mouth; A stranger, and not thine own lips.
The negative לא is with פיך, as in (Arab.) ghyra fyk, bound into one compact idea: that which is not thine own mouth (Fleischer), “not thine own lips,” on the other hand, is not to be interpreted as corresponding to it, like אל־מות, Pro 12:28; since after the prohibitive אל, יהללוּך [praise thee] easily supplies itself. זר is properly the stranger, as having come from a distance, and נכרי he who comes from an unknown country, and is himself unknown (vid., under Pro 26:24); the idea of both words, however, passes from advena and alienigena to alius. There is certainly in rare cases a praising of oneself, which is authorized because it is demanded (2Co 11:18), which, because it is offered strongly against one's will, will be measured by truth (Pro 10:13); but in general it is improper to applaud oneself, because it is a vain looking at oneself in a glass; it is indecent, because it places others in the shade; imprudent, because it is of no use to us, but only injures, for propria laus sordet, and as Stobäus says, οὐδὲν οὕτως ἄκουσμα φορτικὸν ὡς καθ ̓ αὑτοῦ ἔταινος. Compare the German proverb, “Eigenlob stinkt, Freundes Lob hinkt, fremdes Lob klingt” [= self-praise stinks, a friend's praise is lame, a stranger's praise sounds].

Verse 3

The second pair of proverbs designates two kinds of violent passion as unbearable: 3 The heaviness of a stone, the weight of sand - A fool's wrath is heavier than both.
We do not translate: Gravis est petra et onerosa arena, so that the substantives stand for strengthening the idea, instead of the corresponding adjective (Fleischer, as the lxx, Jerome, Syr., Targum); the two pairs of words stand, as 4a, in genit. relation (cf. on the contrary, Pro 31:30), and it is as if the poet said: represent to thyself the heaviness of a stone and the weight of sand, and thou shalt find that the wrath of a fool compared thereto is still heavier, viz., for him who has to bear it; thus heavier, not for the fool himself (Hitzig, Zöckler, Dächsel), but for others against whom his anger goes forth. A Jewish proverb (vid., Tendlau, No. 901) says, that one knows a man by his wine-glass (כוס), his purse (כיס), and his anger (כעס), viz., how he deports himself in the tumult; and another says that one reads what is in a man ביום כעסו, when he is in an ill-humour. Thus also כעס is to be here understood: the fool in a state of angry, wrathful excitement is so far not master of himself that the worst is to be feared; he sulks and shows hatred, and rages without being appeased; no one can calculate what he may attempt, his behaviour is unendurable. Sand, חול,^[75] as it appears, as to the number of its grains innumerable, so as to its mass (in weight) immeasurable, Job 6:3; Sir. 22:13. נטל the Venet. translates, with strict regard to the etymology, by ἅρμα.

Verse 4

Pro 27:4 4 The madness of anger, and the overflowing of wrath - And before jealousy who keeps his place!
Here also the two pairs of words 4a stand in connection; אכזריּוּת (for which the Cod. Jaman has incorrectly אכזריות) is the connecting form; vid., regarding אכזרי, Pro 5:9. Let one imagine the blind, relentless rage of extreme excitement and irritation, a boiling over of anger like a water-flood, which bears everything down along with it - these paroxysms of wrath do not usually continue long, and it is possible to appease them; but jealousy is a passion that not only rages, but reckons calmly; it incessantly ferments through the mind, and when it breaks forth, he perishes irretrievably who is its object. Fleischer generalizes this idea: “enmity proceeding from hatred, envy, or jealousy, it is difficult or altogether impossible to withstand, since it puts into operation all means, both secretly and openly, to injure the enemy.” But after Pro 6:34., cf. Sol 8:8, there is particularly meant the passion of scorned, mortified, deceived love, viz., in the relation of husband and wife.

Verse 5

The third pair of proverbs passes over from this special love between husband and wife to that subsisting between friends: 5 Better is open accusation Than secret love.
An integral distich; meeאהבה has Munach, and instead of the second Metheg Tarcha, after Thorath Emeth, p. 11. Zöckler, with Hitzig, incorrectly: better than love which, from false indulgence, keeps concealed from his neighbour his faults, when he ought to tell him of them. That would require the phrase אהבה מסתּרת, not מסתּרת. Dächsel, in order to accommodate the text to this meaning, remarks: concealed censure is concealed love; but it is much rather the neglected duty of love - love without mutual discipline is weak, faint-hearted, and, if it is not too blind to remark in a friend what is worthy of blame, is altogether too forbearing, and essentially without conscience; but it is not “hidden and concealed love.” The meaning of the proverb is different: it is better to be courageously and sternly corrected - on account of some fault committed - by any one, whether he be a foe or a friend, than to be the object of a love which may exist indeed in the heart, but which fails to make itself manifest in outward act. There are men who continually assure us of the reality and depth of their friendship; but when it is necessary for them to prove their love to be self-denying and generous, they are like a torrent which is dry when one expects to drink water from it (Job 6:15). Such “secret” love, or, since the word is not נסתּרת, but מסתּרת, love confined to the heart alone, is like a fire which, when it burns secretly, neither lightens nor warms; and before such a friend, any one who frankly and freely tells the truth has by far the preference, for although he may pain us, yet he does us good; while the former deceives us, for he leaves us in the lurch when it is necessary to love us, not merely in word and with the tongue, but in deed and in truth (1Jo 3:18). Rightly Fleischer: Praestat correptio aperta amicitiae tectae, i.e., nulla re probatae.

Verse 6

Pro 27:6 6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend, And overloaded [plentiful] the kisses of an enemy.
The contrast to נאמנים, true, i.e., honourable and good (with the transference of the character of the person to his act), would be fraudulenta (Jerome), or נהפכות, i.e., false (Ralbag); Ewald seeks this idea from עתר, to stumble, make a false step;^[76]
Hitzig, from עתר = (Arab.) dadhr, whence dâdhir, perfidus, to gain from; but (1) the comparison does not lie near, since usually the Arab. t corresponds to the Heb. שׁ, and the Arab. d to the Heb. ז; (2) the Heb. עתר has already three meanings, and it is not advisable to load it with yet another meaning assumed for this passage, and elsewhere not found. The three meanings are the following: (a) to smoke, Aram. עטר, whence עתר, vapour, Eze 8:11, according to which the Venet., with Kimchi's and Parchon's Lex., translates: the kisses of an enemy συνωμίχλωνται, i.e., are fog; (b) to sacrifice, to worship, Arab. atar; according to which Aquila: ἱκετικά (as, with Grabe, it is probably to be read for ἑκούσια of the lxx); and agreeably to the Niph., but too artificially, Arama: obtained by entreaties = constrained; (c) to heap up, whence Hiph. העתיר, Eze 35:13, cf. Jer 33:6, according to which Rashi, Meîri, Gesenius, Fleischer, Bertheau, and most explain, cogn. with עשׁר, whose Aram. form is עתר, for עשׁר is properly a heap of goods or treasures.^[77]
This third meaning gives to the kisses of an enemy a natural adjective: they are too abundant, so much the more plentiful to veil over the hatred, like the kisses by means of which Judas betrayed his Lord, not merely denoted by φιλεῖν, but by καταφιλεῖν, Mat 26:49. This, then, is the contrast, that the strokes inflicted by one who truly loves us, although they tear into our flesh (פּצע, from פּצע, to split, to tear open), yet are faithful (cf. Psa 141:5); on the contrary, the enemy covers over with kisses him to whom he wishes all evil. Thus also נעתרות forms an indirect contrast to נאמנים.

Verse 7

In Pro 27:7-10 there is also visible a weaving of the external with the internal. First, there are two proverbs, in each of which there is repeated a word terminating with נ. 7 A satisfied soul treadeth honeycomb under foot; And a hungry soul - everything bitter is (to it) sweet.
It is unnecessary to read תּבוּז (Hitzig); תּבוּס is stronger; “to tread with the feet” is the extreme degree of scornful despite. That satiety and hunger are applicable to the soul, vid., under Pro 10:3. In 7b, the adverb להּ, relative to the nomin. absol., like Pro 28:7, but not Pro 13:18. “Hunger is the best cook,” according to a German proverb; the Hebrew proverb is so formed that it is easily transferred to the sphere of the soul. Let the man whom God has richly satisfied with good things guard himself against ingratitude towards the Giver, and against an undervaluing of the gifts received; and if they are spiritual blessings, let him guard himself against self-satisfaction and self-contentment, which is, in truth, the worst poverty, Rev 3:17; for life without God is a constant hunger and thirst. There is in worldly things, even the most pleasing, a dissatisfaction felt, and a dissatisfaction awakening disgust; and in spiritual life, a satiety which supposes itself to be full of life, but which is nothing else than the decay of life, than the changing of life into death.

Verse 8

Pro 27:8 8 As a bird that wandereth from her nest, So is a man that wandereth from his home.
It is not a flying out that is meant, from which at any moment a return is possible, but an unwilling taking to flight (lxx 8b: ὅταν ἀποξενωθῇ; Venet.: πλανούμενον ... πλανούμενος); for עוף נודד, Isa 16:2, cf. Jer 4:25, birds that have been frightened; and נדד, Pro 21:15., designates the fugitive; cf. נע ונד, Gen 4:14, and above, Pro 26:2, where נוּד designates aimless roving about. Otherwise Fleischer: “warning against unnecessary roaming about, in journeyings and wanderings far from home: as a bird far from its nest is easily wounded, caught, or killed, so, on such excursions, one easily comes to injury and want. One may think of a journey in the East. The Arabs say, in one of their proverbs: âlsafar ḳaṭ'at man âlklyym (= journeying is a part of the pains of hell).” But נדד here is not to be understood in the sense of a libere vagari. Rightly C. B. Michaelis: qui vagatur extorris et exul a loco suo sc. natali vel habitationis ordinariae. This proverb mediately recommends the love of one's fatherland, i.e., “love to the land in which our father has his home; on which our paternal mansion stands; in which we have spent the years of our childhood, so significant a part of one's whole life; from which we have derived our bodily and intellectual nourishment; and in which home we recognise bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.”^[78]
But next it says, that to be in a strange land must be an unhappiness, because a man never feels better than at home, as the bird in its nest. We say: Heimat [home] - this beautiful word becomes the German language, which has also coined the expressive idea of Heimweh [longing for home]; the Heb. uses, to express the idea of home, the word מקומי; and of fatherland, the word ארצי or אדמתי. The Heb. שׁבוּת corresponds^[79]. The primary meaning of elilenti is consequently: of another country, foreign. In glosses and translations it is rendered by the Lat. words peregrinus, exul, advena, also captivus. In these meanings it occurs very frequently. In the old High German translation of Ammonius, Diatessaron, sive Harmoniae in quatuor Evangelica, the word proselytism, occurring in Mat 23:15, is rendered by elilantan. To the adj. the old High German subst. corresponds. This has the meaning exilium, transmigratio, captivitas. The connection in elilenti or elilentes, used adverbially, is rendered by the Lat. peregre. In the middle High German, however, the proper signification of both words greatly predominates. But as, in the old High German, the idea of miser is often at the same time comprehended in the proper signification: he who is miserable through banishment, imprisonment, or through sojourning in a strange land; thus, in several places of the middle High German, this derived idea begins to separate itself from the fundamental conception, so that ellende comes in general to be called miser. In the new High German this derived conception is almost alone maintained. Yet here also, in certain connections, there are found traces of the original idea, e.g., in's Elend schicken, for to banish. Very early also the word came to be used, in a spiritual sense, to denote our present abode, in contrast to paradise or the heavenly kingdom.... Thus, e.g., in one of Luther's hymns, when we pray to the Holy Ghost:
Das er vns behüte, an vnserm ende,
Wenn wir heim farn aus diesem elende.” [That He guard us to our end
When we go home from this world.] - Rud. von Raumer) to the German Elend, but = Ellend, elilenti, of another land, strange.

Verse 9

The two following proverbs have in common the catchword רע, and treat of the value of friendship: - 9 Oil and frankincense rejoice the heart; And the sweet discourse of a friend from a counselling of soul.
Regarding the perfuming with dry aromas, and sprinkling with liquid aromas, as a mark of honour towards guests, and as a means of promoting joyful social fellowship, vid., at Pro 7:16., Pro 21:17. The pred. ישׂמּח comprehends frankincense or oil as the two sides of one and the same thing; the lxx introduces, from Psa 104:15, also wine. It also reads ומתק רעה as one word, וּמתקרעת: καταῤῥήγνυται δὲ ὑπὸ συμπτωμάτων ψυχή, which Hitzig regards as original; for he translates, understanding מעצת after Psa 13:3, “but the soul is torn by cares.” But why מתקרעה, this Hithpa. without example, for נקרעה? and now connected with מן in the sense of ὑπό! And what does one gain by this Alexandrian wisdom [of the lxx] - a contrast to 9a which is altogether incongruous? Döderlein's rendering accords far better with 9a: “but the sweetness of a friend surpasses fragrant wood.” But although this rendering of the word [עצה] by “fragrant wood” is found in Gesen. Lex., from one edition to another, yet it must be rejected; for the word signifies wood as the contents of trees, the word for aromatic wood must be עצים; and if the poet had not intentionally aimed at dubiety, he ought to have written עצי בשׂם, since נפשׁ, which the exception of Isa 3:20, where it is beyond doubt, nowhere means fragrance. If we read עצת and נפשׁ together, then we may suppose that the latter designates the soul, as at Psa 13:3; and the former, counsel (from the verb יעץ). But to what does the suffix of רעהוּ refer? One may almost conjecture that the words originally were וּמתק נפשׁ מעצת רעהוּ, and the sweetness of the soul (i.e., a sweet relish for it, cf. Pro 27:7 and Pro 16:24) consists in the counsel of a friend, according to which Jerome translates: et bonis amici conciliis anima dulcoratur. By this transposition רעהו refers back to נפשׁ; for is nephesh denote a person or a living being, it can be construed ad sensum as masc., e.g., Num 31:28. But the words may remain in the order in which they are transmitted to us. It is possible that רעהוּ is (Böttcher refers to Job 12:4) of the same meaning as הרע (the friend of one = the friend), as כלּו denotes directly the whole; חציו, the half; עתּו, the right time. Recognising this, Cocceius, Umbreit, Stier, and Zöckler explain: sweetness, i.e., the sweet encouragement (מתק, in the sense of “sweetness (grace) of the lips,” Pro 16:21) of a friend, is better than one's own counsel, than prudence seeking to help oneself, and trusting merely to one's own resources; thus also Rashi: better than what one's own soul advises him. But (1) נפשׁ cannot mean one's own person (oneself) in contrast to another person; and (2) this does not supply a correct antithesis to 9a. Thus מן will not express the preference, but the origin. Accordingly Ewald, e.g., explains: the sweetness of a friend whom one has proceedeth from the counsel of soul, i.e., from such counsel as is drawn from a deep, full soul. But no proof can be brought from the usage of the language that עצת־נפשׁ can be so meant; these words, after the analogy of דעת נפשׁ, Pro 19:2, mean ability to give counsel as a quality of the soul (Pro 8:14; Pro 12:13), i.e., its ability to advise. Accordingly, with Bertheau, we explain ישׂמח־לב as the common predicate for 9a and 9b: ointment and perfume rejoice the heart, and (The Syr., Targ., well: even so) the sweet exhortation of a friend, from a soul capable of rendering counsel; also, this and this, more than that fragrance. This proverb is formed in the same way as Pro 26:9, Pro 26:14. In this explanation רעהו is well referred back to לב: and (more than) the sweet advice of his friend. But not so that רעהו is equivalent to רע הלּב, for one does not thus speak; but the construction is as when we say, in the German language: Nichts thut einem Herzen woler als wenn sein Freund es mitfühlend tröstet [nothing does more good to a heart than when a friend sympathizingly comforts it]; or: Zage nicht, tief betrübtes Herz! Dein Freund lebt und wird dir bald sich zeigen [Be not dismayed, deeply-troubled heart! thy friend lives, and will soon show himself to thee]. In such cases the word “Herz” [heart] does not designate a distinct part of the person, but, synecdochically, it denotes the whole person.

Verse 10

Another proverb, consisting of three lines, in commendation of friendship:
Thine own friend and the friend of thy father forsake not,
And into thy brother's house go not in the day of thy misfortune -
Better is a near neighbour than a far-off brother.
In our editions רעך is incorrectly appointed with Pasek after it, so that the accent is Asla Legarmeh; the Pasek is, after the example of older editions, with Norzi, to be cancelled, so that only the conjunctive Asla remains; “thine own and the friend of thy father” denotes the family friend, like some family heirloom, descending from father to son. Such an old tried friend one must certainly not give up. The Kerı̂ changes the second ורעה into ורע, but ורעה (which, after the Masora in st. constr., retains its segol, Ewald, §211e) is also admissible, for a form of comparison (Hitzig) this רעה is not, but the fuller form of the abbreviated רע, from רעה, to take care of, to tend, to pasture - an infinitive formation (= רעי) like the Arab. cogn. râ'in a participial. Such a proved friend one ought certainly not to give up, and in the time of heavy trial (vid., regarding איד, Pro 1:26) one should go to him and not to a brother's house - it is by this supposed that, as Pro 18:24 says, there is a degree of friendship (cf. Pro 17:17) which in regard to attachment stands above that of mere fraternal relationship, and it is true; blood-relationship, viewed in itself, stands as a relationship of affection on natural grounds below friendship, which is a relationship of life on moral grounds. But does blood-relationship exclude friendship of soul? cannot my brother be at the same time my heart-friend? and is not friendship all the firmer when it has at the same time its roots in the spirit and in natural grounds? The poet seems to have said this, for in 10c, probably a popular saying (cf. “Besser Nachbar an der Wand als Bruder über Land” [Better a neighbour by one's side than a brother abroad]), he gives to his advice a foundation, and at the same time a limitation which modifies its ruggedness. But Dächsel places (like Schultens) in קרוב and רחוק meanings which the words do not contain, for he interprets them of inward nearness and remoteness; and Zöckler reads between the lines, for he remarks, a “near neighbour” is one who is near to the oppressed to counsel and help them, and a “distant brother” is one who with an unamiable disposition remains far from the oppressed. The state of the matter is simple. If one has a tried friend in neighbourly nearness, so in the time of distress, when he needs consolation and help, he must go to this friend, and not first to the house of a brother dwelling at a distance, for the former certainly does for us what the latter probably may and probably may not do for us.

Verse 11

This proverb has, in common with the preceding tristich, the form of an address:
Become wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice,
That I may give an answer to my accusers.
Better than “be wise” (Luther), we translate “become wise” (lxx σοφὸς γίνου); for he who is addressed might indeed be wise, though not at present so, so that his father is made to listen to such deeply wounding words as these, “Cursed be he who begat, and who educated this man” (Malbim). The cohortative clause 11b (cf. Psa 119:42) has the force of a clause with a purpose (Gesen. §128:1): ut habeam quod iis qui me convicientur regerere possim; it does not occur anywhere in the Hezekiah collection except here.

Verse 12

Pro 27:12 ערום appears to lean on חכם.
The prudent man seeth the misfortune, hideth himself;
The simple pass on, suffer injury. = Pro 22:3, where וּפתיים for פּתאים, ונסתּר for נסתּר, and ונענשׁוּ for נענשׁוּ; the three asyndeta make the proverb clumsy, as if it counted out its seven words separately to the hearer. Ewald, §349a, calls it a “Steinschrift” an inscription on a stone. The perfects united in pairs with, and yet more without, Vav, express the coincidence^[80] as to time.

Verse 13

Pro 27:13 ערום alliterates with ערב.
Take from him the garment, for he hath become surety for another,
And for the sake of a strange matter put him under bonds. = Pro 20:16, vid., there. נכריּה we interpret neut. (lxx τὰ ἀλλότρια; Jerome, pro alienis), although certainly the case occurs that one becomes surety for a strange woman (Aquila, Theodotion, περὶ ξένης), by whose enticements and flatteries he is taken, and who afterwards leaves him in the lurch with the debts for which he had become security, to show her costly favour to another.

Verse 14

This proverb, passing over the three immediately intervening, connects itself with Pro 27:9 and Pro 27:10. It is directed against cringing, noisy complimenting:
He who blesseth his neighbour with a loud voice, rising early in the morning,
It is reckoned as a curse to him.
The first line is intentionally very heavy, in order to portray the empressement of the maker of compliments: he calls out to another his good wishes with a loud voice, so as to make the impression of deep veneration, of deeply felt thankfulness, but in reality to gain favour thereby, and to commend himself to greater acts of kindness; he sets himself to meet him, having risen up (השׁכּים, adverbial inf. abs.; cf. Jer 44:4 with Jer 25:4) early in the morning, to offer his captatio benevolentiae as speedily as possible; but this salutation of good wishes, the affected zeal in presenting which is a sign of a selfish, calculating, servile soul, is reckoned to him as קללה, viz., before God and every one who can judge correctly of human nature, also before him who is complimented in so ostentatious and troublesome a manner, the true design of which is thus seen. Others understand the proverb after the example of Berachoth 14a, that one ought to salute no one till he has said his morning's prayer, because honour is due before all to God (the Book of Wisdom, 10:28); and others after Erachin 16a, according to which one is meant who was invited as a guest of a generous lord, and was liberally entertained, and who now on the public streets blesses him, i.e., praises him for his nobility of mind - such blessing is a curse to him whom it concerns, because this trumpeting of his praise brings upon him a troublesome, importunate crowd. But plainly the particularity of 'בּקול וגו lays the chief emphasis on the servility manifested; and one calls to mind the case of the clients besieging the doors of their patrons, those clientes matutini, each of whom sought to be the first in the salutatio of his distinguished wealthy patron.

Verse 15

This proverb passes from the complimentarius to its opposite, a shrewish wife:
A continual dropping in a rainy day
And a contentious woman are alike.
Thus we have already translated (vol. i. p. 9), where, when treating of the manifold forms of parabolic proverbs, we began with this least poetic, but at the same time remarked that Pro 27:15 and Pro 27:16 are connected, forming a tetrastich, which is certainly the case according to the text here lying before us. In Pro 27:15, Pro 19:13 is expanded into a distich, and made a complete verse. Regarding דּלף טורד, vid., the explanation there given. The noun סגריר, which the Syr. translates by magyaa', but the Targumist retains, because it is in common use in the post-bibl. Heb. (Bereschith rabba, c. 1) and the Jewish Aramaic, signifies violent rain, after the Jewish interpreters, because then the people remain shut up in their houses; more correctly, perhaps, from the unbroken continuousness and thickness (cf. the Arab. insajara, to go behind each other in close column) with which the rain pours down. Regarding מדונים, Kerı̂ מדינים, vid., Pro 6:14; the genit. connection of 'אושׁת מ we have already at Pro 21:9. The form נשׁתּוה is doubtful. If accented, with Löwenstein and others, as Milra, then we would have a Nithkatal before us, as at Num 1:47, or a Hothkatal - a passive form of the Kal, the existence of which, however, is not fully established. Rather this word is to be regarded as נשׁתּוּה (Nithpa. as Deu 21:8; Eze 23:48) without the dagesh, and lengthened; the form of the word נשׁתּוה, as found in the Cod. Jaman., aims at this. But the form נשׁתּוה is better established, e.g., by Cod. 1294, as Milel. Kimchi, Michlol 131a (cf. Ewald, §132c), regards it as a form without the dagesh, made up the Niph. and Hithpa., leaving the penultima toning unexplained. Bertheau regards it as a voluntative: let us compare (as נשׁתּעה, Isa 41:23); but as he himself says, the reflexive form does not accord with this sense. Hitzig has adopted the right explanation (cf. Olshausen, §275, and Böttcher, §1072, who, however, registers it at random as an Ephraimitism). נשׁתּוה is a Niphal, with a transposition of consonants for נשׁותה, since נשׁותה passes over into נשׁתּוה. Such is now the genus in the arrangement; the Milra form would be as masc. syntactically inaccurate. “The finite following the subjects is regulated by the gender and number of that which is next before it, as at 2Sa 3:22; 2Sa 20:20; Psa 55:6; Job 19:15” (Hitzig).

Verse 16

This verse stands in close connection with the preceding, for it speaks of the contentious woman:
He that restraineth her restraineth the wind,
And oil meeteth his right hand.
The connection of the plur. subject צפניה = quicunque eam cohibet, with a sing. predicate, is not to be disputed (vid., Pro 3:18 and Pro 28:16, Chethı̂b); but can צפן gain from the meaning of preserving, laying up, also the meanings of keeping, of confining, and shutting up? - for these meanings we have כּלא and עצר (cf. צרר, Pro 30:4). In 16b it lies nearer to see in ימינו the object of the clause (oil meeteth his right hand) than the subject (his right hand meeteth oil), for the gender of ימין directs to יד (e.g., Eze 15:6; cf. 6a, where נאדּרי is as to gender indifferent): it is fem., while on the contrary שׁמן is generally masc. (cf. Sol 1:3). There is no reason for regarding ימינו as an adverbial accus. (he meets oil with his right hand), or, with Hitzig, as a second subject (he meets oil, his right hand); the latter, in the order of the words lying before us, is not at all possible. We suppose that יקרא, as at Gen 49:1, is equivalent to יקרה (Ewald, §116c), for the explanation oleum dexterae ejus praeconem agit (Cocceius, Schultens) does not explain, but only darkens: and oleum dexterâ suâ legit, i.e., colligit (Fleischer), is based on an untenable use of the word. As one may say of person to person, קרך, occurrit tibi, Num 25:18, so also יקרא (יקרה), of a thing that meets a man or one of his members; and if we compare לקראת and קרי, then for 16b the meaning is possible: oil meets his right hand; the quarrelsome woman is like oil that cannot be held in the hand, which struggles against that which holds it, for it always glides out of the hand. Thus also Luther: “and seeks to hold oil with his hand,” as if he read יקמץ. In fact, this word was more commonly used as the expression of untenableness than the colourless and singular word יקרא, which, besides, is so ambiguous, that none of the old translators has thought on any other קרא than that which signifies “to call,” “to name.” The Jewish interpreters also adhere to this nearest lying קרא, and, moreover, explain, as the Syr., Targ., Aquila, Symmachus, Jerome, and the Venet., שׁמן ימינו, according to the accentuation as genit. connected, e.g., Rashi: he calls for oil to his right hand, viz., as the means of purification from leprosy, Lev 8:14 [[[Bible_(King_James)/Leviticus|Lev 14:16]]]; and Aben Ezra: even when he calls for oil to his right hand, i.e., would move them to silence with the precious anointing oil. Perhaps Pro 27:16 was originally an independent proverb as follows: צפני הון צפן רוח ושמן ימינו יקרא
He who layeth up riches in store layeth up the wind,
And he nameth them the fat of his right hand;i.e., he sees in them that which makes his right hand fat and strong (שׁמן, as at Psa 109:24, opp. Zec 11:17; cf. בּמשׁמנּיו, Isa 10:16, and regarding Ἐσμούν, the Phoenician god of health, at Isa 59:10), and yet it is only the wind, i.e., something that is worthless and transient, which he stored up (צפן, as at Pro 13:22, and in מצפּניו, Obad. Oba 1:6). הון is used as it frequently occurs in the Book of Proverbs, e.g., Pro 11:4, and the whole proverb expresses by another figure the same as Pro 18:11. The fact that צפון (רוח), Pro 25:23, and as a contrast thereto in the compass ימין (the south), hovered before the poet, may not have been without its influence on the choice of the words and expression here.

Verse 17

This proverb expresses the influence arising from the intercourse of man with man:
Iron is sharpened by iron,
And a man may sharpen the appearance of another.
When the Masora reads יחד, Ewald remarks, it interprets the word as denoting “at the same time,” and the further meaning of the proverb must then accord therewith. Accordingly he translates: “iron together with iron! and one together with the face of another!” But then the prep. ב or עם is wanting after the second יחד - for יחד is, in spite of Ewald, §217h, never a prep. - and the “face,” 17b, would be a perplexing superfluity. Hitzig already replies, but without doing homage to the traditional text-punctuation, that such a violence to the use of language, and such a darkening of the thought, is not at all to be accepted. He suggests four ways of interpreting יחד: (1) the adverb יחד, united, properly (taken accusat.) union; (2) יחד, Psa 86:11, imper. of the Piel יחד, unite; (3) יחדּ, Job 3:6, jussive of the Kal חדה, gaudeat; and (4) as Kimchi, in Michlol 126a, jussive of the Kal חדה (= חדד) acuere, after the form תחז, Mic 4:11. ויּחץ, Gen 32:8, etc. in p. יחד, after the form אחז, Job 23:9. ויּחל, 2Ki 1:2 (= ויּחלא, 2Ch 16:12). If we take יחד with בּרזל, then it is à priori to be supposed that in יחד the idea of sharpening lies; in the Arab. iron is simply called hadyda = חדוּד, that which is sharpened, sharp; and a current Arab. proverb says: alḥadyd balḥadyd yuflah = ferrum ferro diffinditur (vid., Freytag under the word falah). But is the traditional text-punctuation thus understood to be rightly maintained? It may be easily changed in conformity with the meaning, but not so that with Böttcher we read יחד and יחד, the fut. Kal of חדד: “iron sharpeneth itself on iron, and a man sharpeneth himself over against his neighbour” - for פני after a verb to be understood actively, has to be regarded as the object - but since יחד is changed into יחד (fut. Hiph. of חדד), and יחד into יחד or יחד (fut. Hiph. of חדד, after the form אחל, incipiam, Deu 2:25, or אחל, profanabo, Eze 39:7; Num 30:3). The passive rendering of the idea 17a and the active of 17b thus more distinctly appear, and the unsuitable jussive forms are set aside: ferrum ferro exacuitur, et homo exacuit faciem amici sui (Jerome, Targ., the Venet.). But that is not necessary. As ויּעל may be the fut. of the Hiph. (he brought up) as well as of the Kal (he went up), so יחד may be regarded as fut. Kal, and יחד as fut. Hiph. Fleischer prefers to render יחד also as Hiph.: aciem exhibet, like יעשׁיר, divitias acquirit, and the like; but the jussive is not favourable to this supposition of an intransitive (inwardly transitive) Hiph. It may indeed be said that the two jussives appear to be used, according to poetic licence, with the force of indicatives (cf. under Pro 12:26), but the repetition opposes it. Thus we explain: iron is sharpened [gewetzt, Luther uses this appropriate word] by iron (ב of the means, not of the object, which was rather to be expected in 17b after Pro 20:30), and a man whets פני, the appearance, the deportment, the nature, and manner of the conduct of his neighbour. The proverb requires that the intercourse of man with man operate in the way of sharpening the manner and forming the habits and character; that one help another to culture and polish of manner, rub off his ruggedness, round his corners, as one has to make use of iron when he sharpens iron and seeks to make it bright. The jussive form is the oratorical form of the expression of that which is done, but also of that which is to be done.

Verse 18

The following three proverbs are connected with 17 in their similarity of form: - 18 Whosoever watcheth the fig-tree will enjoy its fruit; And he that hath regard to his master attaineth to honour.
The first member is, as in Pro 27:17, only the means of contemplating the second; as faithful care of the tree has fruit for a reward, so faithful regard for one's master, honour; נצר is used as at Isa 27:3, שׁמר as at Hos 4:10, etc. - the proverb is valid in the case of any kind of master up to the Lord of lords. The fig-tree presented itself, as Heidenheim remarks, as an appropriate figure; because in the course of several years' training it brings forth its fruit, which the language of the Mishna distinguishes as פגין, unripe, בוחל, half ripe, and צמל, fully ripe. To fruit in the first line corresponds honour in the second, which the faithful and attentive servant attains unto first on the part of his master, and then also from society in general.

Verse 19

Pro 27:19 19 As it is with water, face correspondeth to face, So also the heart of man to man.
Thus the traditional text is to be translated; for on the supposition that כּמּים must be used for כּבמּים, yet it might not be translated: as in waters face corresponds to face (Jerome: quomodo in aquis resplendent vultus respicientium), because כּ (instar) is always only a prep. and never conj. subordinating to itself a whole sentence (vid., under Psa 38:14). But whether כּמּים, “like water,” may be an abridgment of a sentence: “like as it is with water,” is a question, and the translation of the lxx (Syr., Targ., Arab.), ὥσπερ οὐχ ὅμοια πρόσωπα προσώποις, κ.τ.λ., appears, according to Böttcher's ingenious conjecture, to have supposed כאשר במים, from which the lxx derived כּאין דּמים, sicut non pares. The thought is beautiful: as in the water-mirror each one beholds his own face (Luther: der Scheme = the shadow), so out of the heart of another each sees his own heart, i.e., he finds in another the dispositions and feelings of his own heart (Fleischer) - the face finds in water its reflection, and the heart of a man finds in man its echo; men are ὁμοιοπαθεῖς, and it is a fortunate thing that their heart is capable of the same sympathetic feelings, so that one can pour into the heart of another that which fills and moves his own heart, and can there find agreement with it, and a re-echo. The expression with ל is extensive: one corresponds to another, one belongs to another, is adapted to the other, turns to the other, so that the thought may be rendered in manifold ways: the divinely-ordained mutual relationship is always the ground-thought. This is wholly obliterated by Hitzig's conjecture כּמוּם, “what a mole on the face is to the face, that is man's heart to man,” i.e., the heart is the dark spot in man, his partie honteuse. But the Scripture nowhere speaks of the human heart after this manner, at least the Book of Proverbs, in which לב frequently means directly the understanding. Far more intelligible and consistent is the conjecture of Mendel Stern, to which Abrahamsohn drew my attention: כּמּים הפּנים לפנים, like water (viz., flowing water), which directs its course always forward, thus (is turned) the heart of man to man. This conjecture removes the syntactic harshness of the first member without changing the letters, and illustrates by a beautiful and excellent figure the natural impulse moving man to man. It appears, however, to us, in view of the lxx, more probable that כּמּים is abbreviated from the original כאשׁר במים (cf. Pro 24:29).

Verse 20

The following proverb has, in common with the preceding, the catchword האדם, and the emphatic repetition of the same expression: 20 The under-world and hell are not satisfied, And the eyes of man are not satisfied.
A Kerı̂ ואבדון is here erroneously noted by Löwenstein, Stuart, and others. The Kerı̂ to ואבדּה is here ואבדּו, which secures the right utterance of the ending, and is altogether wanting^[81] in many MSS (e.g., Cod. Jaman). The stripping off of the ן from the ending ון is common in the names of persons and places (e.g., שׁלמה, lxx Σολομών and שׁלה); we write at pleasure either ow or oh (e.g., מגדּו), Olsh. §215g. אבדּה (אבדּו) of the nature of a proper name, is already found in its full form אבדּון at Pro 15:11, along with שׁאול; the two synonyms are, as was there shown, not wholly alike in the idea they present, as the underworld and realm of death, but are related to each other almost the same as Hades and Gehenna; אבדון is what is called^[82] in the Jonathan-Targum בּית אבדּנא, the place of destruction, i.e., of the second death (מותא תנינא). The proverb places Hades and Hell on the one side, and the eyes of man on the other, on the same line in respect of their insatiableness. To this Fleischer adds the remark: cf. the Arab. al'ayn l'a taml'aha all'a altrab, nothing fills the eyes of man but at last the dust of the grave - a strikingly beautiful expression! If the dust of the grave fills the open eyes, then they are full - fearful irony! The eye is the instrument of seeing, and consequently in so far as it always looks out after and farther, it is the instrument and the representation of human covetousness. The eye is filled, is satisfied, is equivalent to: human covetousness is appeased. But first “the desire of the eye,” 1Jo 2:16, is meant in the proper sense. The eyes of men are not satisfied in looking and contemplating that which is attractive and new, and no command is more difficult to be fulfilled than that in Isa 33:15, “...that shutteth his eyes from seeing evil.” There is therefore no more inexhaustible means, impiae sepculationis, than the desire of the eyes.

Verse 21

There follow here two proverbs which have in common with each other the figures of the crucible and the mortar: 21 The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold, And a man according to the measure of his praise;i.e., silver and gold one values according to the result of the smelting crucible and the smelting furnace; but a man, according to the measure of public opinion, which presupposes that which is said in Pro 12:8, “according to the measure of his wisdom is a man praised.” מהלל is not a ῥῆμα μέσον like our Leumund [renown], but it is a graduated idea which denotes fame down to evil Lob [fame], which is only Lob [praise] per antiphrasin. Ewald otherwise: “according to the measure of his glorying;” or Hitzig better: “according to the measure with which he praises himself,” with the remark: “מהלל is not the act, the glorifying of self, but the object of the glorying (cf. מבטח, מדון), i.e., that in which he places his glory.” Böttcher something further: “one recognises him by that which he is generally wont to praise in himself and others, persons and things.” Thus the proverb is to be understood; but in connection with Pro 12:8 it seems to us more probable that המלל is thought of as going forth from others, and not as from himself. In line first, Pro 17:3 is repeated; the second line there is conformable to the first, according to which it should be here said that the praise of a man is for him what the crucible and the furnace is for metal. The lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, and the Venet. read לפי מהללו, and thereby obtain more concinnity. Luther accordingly translates:
A man is tried by the mouth of his praise,
As silver in the crucible and gold in the furnace.
Others even think to interpret man as the subject examining, and so they vocalize the words. Thus e.g., Fleischer: Qualis est catinus argento et fornax auro, talis sit homo ori a quo laudatur, so that “mouth of his praise” is equivalent to the man who praises him with his mouth. But where, as here, the language relates to relative worth, the supposition for לפי, that it denotes, as at Pro 12:8, pro ratione, is tenable. And that the mouth of him who praises is a smelting crucible for him who is praised, or that the praised shall be a crucible for the mouth of him who praises, would be a wonderful comparison. The lxx has here also an additional distich which has no place in the Heb. text.

Verse 22

Pro 27:22 22 Though thou bruise a fool in a mortar among grit with a pestle, Yet would not his folly depart from him.
According to the best accredited accentuations, אם־תּכתּושׁ has Illuj. and בּמּכתּשׁ has Pazer, not Rebia, which would separate more than the Dechi, and disturb the sequence of the thoughts. The first line is long; the chief disjunctive in the sphere of the Athnach is Dechi of 'הר, this disjoins more than the Pazer of 'בּם, and this again more than the Legarmeh of את־האויל. The ה of הרפות does not belong to the stem of the word (Hitzig), but is the article; רפות (from רוּף, to shake, to break; according to Schultens, from רפת, to crumble, to cut in pieces, after the form קיטור, which is improbable) are bruised grains of corn (peeled grain, grit), here they receive this name in the act of being bruised; rightly Aquila and Theodotion, ἐν μέσῳ ἐμπτισσομένων (grains of corn in the act of being pounded or bruised), and the Venet. μέσον τῶν πτισανῶν.^[83]
In בּעלי (thus to be written after Michlol 43b, not בּעלי, as Heidenheim writes it without any authority) also the article is contained. מכתשׁ is the vessel, and the ב of בעלי is Beth instrumenti; עלי (of lifting up for the purpose of bruising) is the club, pestle (Luther: stempffel = pounder); in the Mishna, Beza i. 5, this word denotes a pounder for the cutting out of flesh. The proverb interprets itself: folly has become to the fool as a second nature, and he is not to be delivered from it by the sternest discipline, the severest means that may be tried; it is not indeed his substance (Hitzig), but an inalienable accident of his substance.

Verses 23-27

An exhortation to rural industry, and particularly to the careful tending of cattle for breeding, forms the conclusion of the foregoing series of proverbs, in which we cannot always discern an intentional grouping. It is one of the Mashal-odes spoken of vol. i. p. 12. It consists of 11 = 4 + 7 lines. 23 Give heed to the look of thy small cattle, Be considerate about the herds. 24 For prosperity continues not for ever; And does the diadem continue from generation to generation? 25 (But) the hay is gone, and the after-growth appears, And the grass of the mountains is gathered: 26 Lambs serve to clothe thee, And goats are the price of a field. 27 And there is plenty of goats' milk for thy nourishment, And for the nourishment of thy house, And subsistence for thy maidens.
The beginning directs to the fut., as is not common in these proverbs, vid., Pro 26:26. With ידע, to take knowledge, which is strengthened by the inf. intensivus, is interchanged שׁית לב, which means at Pro 24:32 to consider well, but here, to be careful regarding anything. צאן is the small or little cattle, thus sheep and goats. Whether לעדרים (here and at Isa 17:2) contains the article is questionable (Gesen. §35. 2 A), and, since the herds are called העדרים, is not probable; thus: direct thy attention to the herds, that is, to this, that thou hast herds. פּני is the external side in general; here, the appearance which the sheep present; thus their condition as seen externally. In Pro 27:24 I formerly regarded נזר as a synonym of גּז, to be understood of the produce of wool, or, with Hitzig, of the shearing of the meadow, and thus the produce of the meadow. But this interpretation of the word is untenable, and Pro 27:25 provides for Pro 27:24, thus understood, no natural continuation of thought. That חסן signifies a store, fulness of possessions, property, and abundance, has already been shown under Pro 15:6; but נזר is always the mark of royal, and generally of princely dignity, and here denotes, per meton. signi pro re signata, that dignity itself. With the negative expression in 24a the interrogative in 24b is interchanged as at Job 40:9, with the implied negative answer; ואם, of an oath (“and truly not,” as at Isa 62:8), presents the same thought, but with a passionate colouring here unnecessary. Rightly Fleischer: “ready money, moveable property, and on the other hand the highest positions of honour, are far more easily torn away from a man, and secure to him far less of quiet prosperity, than husbandry, viewed particularly with respect to the rearing of cattle.” In other words: the possession of treasures and of a lofty place of power and of honour has not in itself the security of everlasting duration; but rural economy, and particularly the rearing of cattle, gives security for food and clothing. The Chethı̂b לדור דור is found, e.g., at Exo 3:15; the Kerı̂ לדּור ודור substitutes the more usual form. If Pro 27:25 was an independent whole (Hitzig: grass vanishes and fresh green appears, etc.), then the meaning here and onward would be that in the sphere of husbandry it is otherwise than is said in Pro 27:24 : there that which is consumed renews itself, and there is an enlarging circulation. But this contrast to Pro 27:24 must be expressed and formed unambiguously. The connection is rather this, that Pro 27:23 commends the rearing of cattle, Pro 27:24 confirms it, and 25ff. discuss what real advantages, not dependent on the accidents of public and social life, it brings.
I rejoice to agree with Fleischer in the opinion that the perfects of Pro 27:25 form a complex hypothetical antecedent to Pro 27:26 : Quam evanuerit gramen (sc. vetus) et apparuerint herbæ recentes et collecta fuerint pabula montium, agni vestitui tuo (inservient) et pretium agri (sc. a te emendi) erunt hirci, i.e., then wilt thou nourish thy herds of sheep and goats with the grass on thy fields, and with the dried gathered hay; and these will yield for thee, partly immediately and partly by the money derived therefrom (viz., from the valuable goats not needed for the flocks), all that is needful for thy life. He also remarks, under גּלה, that it means to make a place void, empty (viz., to quit the place, évacuer la forteresse); hence to leave one's fatherland or home, to wander abroad; thus, rhetorically and poetically of things and possessions: to disappear. חציר (from חצר, to be green) is hay, and דּשׁא the after-growing second crop (after-grass); thus a meadow capable of being mowed a second time is though of. עשּׂבות הרים (with Dag. dirimens, as e.g., ענּבי Deu 32:32) are the herbage of the mountains. The time when one proceeds to sheep-shearing, Pro 27:25 cannot intend to designate; it sets before us an interesting rural harvest scene, where, after a plentiful ingathering of hay, one sees the meadows again overspread with new grass (Ewald); but with us the shearing of sheep takes place in the month of May, when the warm season of the year is just at hand. The poet means in general to say, that when the hay is mown and now the herbage is grown up, and also the fodder from the mountains (Psa 106:20) has been gathered home, when thus the barns are filled with plenty, the husbandman is guaranteed against the future on all sides by his stock of cattle. חלב (from חלב, Arab. halyb, with halab) is the usual metaplastic connecting form of חלב, milk. דּי (from דּי, like חי from חי), generally connected with the genitive of the person or thing, for which anything is sufficient (e.g., Pro 25:16, דּיּך, to which Fleischer compares Arab. hasbuha, tassuha kifayuha), has here the genitive of the thing of which, or in which, one has enough. The complex subject-conception is limited by Rebia, and the governing דּי has the subordinated disjunctive Legarmeh. עזּים is a word of two genders (epicoenum), Gesen. §107, 1d. In וחיּים the influence of the ל still continues; one does not need to supply it meanwhile, since all that maintains and nourishes life can be called חיים (vita = victus), e.g., Pro 3:22. The lxx translates בּיתך by σῶν θεραπόντων, and omits (as also the Syr., but not the Syro-Hexap.) the last line as now superfluous; but that the maids attending to the cattle - by whom we particularly think of milkers - are especially mentioned, intentionally presents the figure of a well-ordered household, full of varied life and activity (Job 40:29).

Chap. 28

Verse 1

Pro 28:1 1 The godless flee without any one pursuing them; But the righteous are bold like a lion.
We would misinterpret the sequence of the accents if we supposed that it denoted רשׁע as obj.; it by no means takes ואין־רדף as a parenthesis. רשׁע belongs thus to נסוּ as collective sing. (cf. e.g., Isa 16:4);^[84] in 1b, יבטח, as comprehensive or distributive (individualizing) singular, follows the plur. subject. One cannot, because the word is vocalized כּכפיר and not כּכּפיר, regard יבטח as an attributive clause thereto (Ewald, like Jerome, quasi leo confidens); but the article, denoting the idea of kind, does not certainly always follow כ. We say, indifferently, כּארי or כּארי, כּלּביא or כּלביא, and always כּאריה, not כּאריה. In itself, indeed, יבטח may be used absolutely: he is confident, undismayed, of the lion as well as of the leviathan, Job 40:23. But it is suitable thus without any addition for the righteous, and נסו and יבטח correspond to each other as predicates, in accordance with the parallelism; the accentuation is also here correct. The perf. נסו denotes that which is uncaused, and yet follows: the godless flee, pursued by the terrible images that arise in their own wicked consciences, even when no external danger threatens. The fut. יבטח denotes that which continually happens: the righteous remains, even where external danger really threatens, bold and courageous, after the manner of a young, vigorous lion, because feeling himself strong in God, and assured of his safety through Him.

Verse 2

There now follows a royal proverb, whose key-note is the same as that struck at Pro 25:2, which states how a country falls into the οὐκ ἀγαθόν of the rule of the many:
Through the wickedness of a land the rulers become many;
And through a man of wisdom, of knowledge, authority continues.
If the text presented בּפשׁע as Hitzig corrects, then one might think of a political revolt, according to the usage of the word, 1Ki 12:19, etc.; but the word is בּפּשׁע,^[85] and פּשׁע (from פּשׁע, dirumpere) is the breaking through of limits fixed by God, apostasy, irreligion, e.g., Mic 1:5. But that many rulers for a land arise from such a cause, shows a glance into the Book of Hosea, e.g., Hos 7:16 : “They return, but not to the Most High (sursum); they are become like a deceitful bow; their princes shall then fall by the sword;” and Hos 8:4 : “They set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.” The history of the kingdom of Israel shows that a land which apostatizes from revealed religion becomes at once the victim of party spirit, and a subject of contention to many would-be rulers, whether the fate of the king whom it has rejected be merited or not. But what is now the contrast which 2b brings forward? The translation by Bertheau and also by Zöckler is impossible: “but through intelligent, prudent men, he (the prince) continueth long.” For 2a does not mean a frequent changing of the throne, which in itself may not be a punishment for the sins of the people, but the appearance at the same time of many pretenders to the throne, as was the case in the kingdom of Israel during the interregnum after the death of Jeroboam II, or in Rome at the time of the thirty tyrants; יאריך must thus refer to one of these “many” who usurp for a time the throne. בּאדם may also mean, Pro 23:28, inter homines; but אדם, with the adjective following, e.g., Pro 11:7; Pro 12:23; Pro 17:18; Pro 21:16, always denotes one; and that translation also changes the כּן into a “so,” “then” introducing the concluding clause, which it altogether disregards as untranslatable. But equally impossible is Böttcher's: “among intelligent, prudent people, one continues (in the government),” for then the subject-conception on which it depends would be slurred over. Without doubt כּן is here a substantive, and just this subject-conception. That it may be a substantive has been already shown at Pro 11:19. There it denoted integrity (properly that which is right or genuine); and accordingly it means here, not the status quo (Fleischer: idem rerum status), but continuance, and that in a full sense: the jurisdiction (properly that which is upright and right), i.e., this, that right continues and is carried on in the land. Similarly Heidenheim, for he glosses כן by מכון הארץ; and Umbreit, who, however, unwarned by the accent, subordinates this כן [in the sense of “right”] to ידע as its object. Zöckler, with Bertheau, finds a difficulty in the asyndeton מבין ידע. But these words also, Neh 10:29, stand together as a formula; and that this formula is in the spirit and style of the Book of Proverbs, passages such as Pro 19:25; Pro 29:7^[86] show. A practical man, and one who is at the same time furnished with thorough knowledge, is thus spoken of, and prudence and knowledge of religious moral character and worth are meant. What a single man may do under certain circumstances is shown in Pro 21:22; Ecc 9:15. Here one has to think of a man of understanding and spirit at the helm of the State, perhaps as the nearest counsellor of the king. By means of such an one, right continues long (we do not need to supply להיות after “continues long”). If, on the one side, the State falls asunder by the evil conduct of the inhabitants of the land, on the other hand a single man who unites in himself sound understanding and higher knowledge, for a long time holds it together.

Verse 3

A proverb of a tyrant here connects itself with that of usurpers:
A poor man and an oppressor of the lowly -
A sweeping rain without bringing bread.
Thus it is to be translated according to the accents. Fleischer otherwise, but also in conformity with the accents: Quales sunt vir pauper et oppressor miserorum, tales sunt pluvia omnia secum abripiens et qui panem non habent, i.e., the relation between a poor man and an oppressor of the needy is the same as that between a rain carrying all away with it and a people robbed thereby of their sustenance; in other words: a prince or potentate who robs the poor of their possessions is like a pouring rain which floods the fruitful fields - the separate members of the sentence would then correspond with each other after the scheme of the chiasmus. But the comparison would be faulty, for גּבר רשׁ and אין לחם fall together, and then the explanation would be idem per idem. A “sweeping rain” is one which has only that which is bad, and not that which is good in rain, for it only destroys instead of promoting the growth of the corn; and as the Arab, according to a proverb compared by Hitzig, says of an unjust sultan, that he is a stream without water, so an oppressor of the helpless is appropriately compared to a rain which floods the land and brings no bread. But then the words, “a poor man and an oppressor of the lowly,” must designate one person, and in that case the Heb. words must be accentuated, גבר רשׁ ועשׁק דלים (cf. Pro 29:4). For, that the oppressor of the helpless deports himself toward the poor man like a sweeping rain which brings no bread, is a saying not intended to be here used, since this is altogether too obvious, that the poor man has nothing to hope for from such an extortioner. But the comparison would be appropriate if 3a referred to an oppressive master; for one who belongs to a master, or who is in any way subordinated to him, has before all to expect from him that which is good, as a requital for his services, and as a proof of his master's condescending sympathy. It is thus asked whether “a poor man and an oppressor of the lowly” may be two properties united in the person of one master. This is certainly possible, for he may be primarily a poor official or an upstart (Zöckler), such as were the Roman proconsuls and procurators, who enriched themselves by impoverishing their provinces (cf. lxx Pro 28:15); or a hereditary proprietor, who seeks to regain what he has lost by extorting it from his relatives and workmen. But רשׁ (poor) is not sufficient to give this definite feature to the figure of the master; and what does this feature in the figure of the master at all mean? What the comparison 3b says is appropriate to any oppressive ruler, and one does not think of an oppressor of the poor as himself poor; he may find himself in the midst of shattered possessions, but he is not poor; much rather the oppressor and the poor are, as e.g., at Pro 29:13, contrasted with each other. Therefore we hold, with Hitzig, that רשׁ of the text is to be read rosh, whether we have to change it into ראשׁ, or to suppose that the Jewish transcriber has here for once slipped into the Phoenician writing of the word;^[87] we do not interpret, with Hitzig, גּבר ראשׁ in the sense of ἄνθρωπος δυνάστης, Sir. 8:1, but explain: a man (or master = גּביר) is the head (cf. e.g., Jdg 11:8), and oppresses the helpless. This rendering is probable, because גּבר רשׁ, a poor man, is a combination of words without a parallel; the Book of Proverbs does not once use the expression אישׁ רשׁ, but always simply רשׁ (e.g., Pro 28:6; Pro 29:13); and גּבר is compatible with חכם and the like, but not with רשׁ. If we stumble at the isolated position of ראשׁ, we should consider that it is in a certain measure covered by דלים; for one has to think of the גבר, who is the ראשׁ, also as the ראשׁ of these דלים, as one placed in a high station who numbers poor people among his subordinates. The lxx translates ἀνδρεῖος ἐν ἀσεβείαις as if the words of the text were גּבּור רשׁע (cf. the interchange of גּבר and גּבּור in both texts of Psa 18:26), but what the lxx read must have been גּבּור להרשׁיע (Isa 5:22); and what can גּבּור here mean? The statement here made refers to the ruinous conduct of a גּבר, a man of standing, or גּביר, a high lord, a “wicked ruler,” Pro 28:15. On the contrary, what kind of rain the rule of an ideal governor is compared to, Psa 72:1-8 tells.

Verse 4

Pro 28:4 4 They who forsake the law praise the godless; But they who keep the law become angry with them, viz. the godless, for רשׁע is to be thought of collectively, as at Pro 28:1. They who praise the godless turn away from the revealed word of God (Psa 73:11-15); those, on the contrary, who are true to God's word (Pro 28:18) are aroused against them (vid., regarding גרה, Pro 15:18), they are deeply moved by their conduct, they cannot remain silent and let their wickedness go unpunished; התגּרה is zeal (excitement) always expressing itself, passing over into actions (syn. התעורר, Job 17:8).

Verse 5

A similar antithetic distich:
Wicked men understand not what is right;
But they who seek Jahve understand all.
Regarding the gen. expression אנשׁי־רע, vid., under Pro 2:14. He who makes wickedness his element, falls into the confusion of the moral conception; but he whose end is the one living God, gains from that, in every situation of life, even amid the greatest difficulties, the knowledge of that which is morally right. Similarly the Apostle John (1Jo 2:20): “ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (οἴδατε πάντα): i.e., ye need to seek that knowledge which ye require, and which ye long after, not without yourselves, but in the new divine foundation of your personal life; from thence all that ye need for the growth of your spiritual life, and for the turning away from you of hostile influences, will come into your consciences. It is a potential knowledge, all-comprehensive in its character, and obviously a human relative knowledge, that is here meant.

Verse 6

What is stated in this proverb is a conclusion from the preceding, with which it is also externally connected, for רשׁ (= ראשׁ), רשׁע, רע, and now רשׁ, follow each other:
Better a poor man who walketh in his innocence,
Than a double-going deceiver who is rich thereby.
A variation of Pro 19:1. Stainlessness, integritas vitae, as a consequence of unreserved devotion to God, gives to a man with poverty a higher worth and nobility than riches connected with falsehood which “halts between two opinions” (1Ki 18:21), and appears to go one way, while in reality it goes another. The two ways דּדכים (cf. Sir. 2:12, οὐαί ἁμαρτωλῷ ... ἐπιβαίνοντι ἐπὶ δύο τρίβους) are, as Pro 28:18, not ways going aside to the right or to the left of the right way, but the evil way which the deceiver truly walks in, and the good way which he pretends to walk in (Fleischer); the two ways of action placed over against one another, by one of which he masks the other.

Verse 7

Pro 28:7 7 He who keepeth instruction is a wise son; But he that is a companion of profligates bringeth his father into shame.
We have translated תורה at Pro 28:4 by “law;” here it includes the father's instruction regarding the right way of life. נוצר תּורה, according to the nearest lying syntax, has to be taken as pred. זוללים are such as squander their means and destroy their health, vid., under Pro 23:20. רעה signifies, as frequently from the idea of (cf. Pro 29:3) pasturing, or properly of tending, to take care of, and to have fellowship with. יכלים shall put to shame denotes both that he himself does disgrace to him, and that he brings disgrace to him on the part of others.

Verse 8

This verse continues a series of proverbs (commencing in Pro 28:7) beginning with a participle:
He who increaseth his wealth by interest and usury,
Gathereth it for one who is benevolent toward the lowly.
Wealth increased by covetous plundering of a neighbour does not remain with him who has scraped it together in so relentless a manner, and without considering his own advantage; but it goes finally into the possession of one who is merciful towards the poor, and thus it is bestowed in a manner that is pleasing to God (cf. Pro 13:22; Job 22:16.). The Kerı̂, which drops the second ב, appears to wish to mitigate the sharpness of the distinction of the second idea supposed in its repetition. But Lev 25:35-37, where an Israelite is forbidden to take usury and interest from his brother, the two are distinguished; and Fleischer rightly remarks that there נשׁך means usury or interest taken in money, and תרבית usury or interest taken in kind; i.e., of that which one has received in loan, such as grain, or oil, etc., he gives back more than he has received. In other words: נשׁך is the name of the interest for the capital that is lent, and מרבּית, or, as it is here called תרבית, the more, the addition thereto, the increase (Luther: ubersatz). This meaning of gain by means of lending on interest remains in נשׁך; but תרבית, according to the later usus loq., signifies gain by means of commerce, thus business-profit, vid., Baba Mezîa, v. 1. Instead of יקבּצנּוּ, more recent texts have the Kal^[88] יקבּצנּוּ. לחונן also is, as Pro 14:31; Pro 19:17, part. Kal, not inf. Poel: ad largiendum pauperibus (Merc., Ewald, Bertheau), for there the person of him who presents the gift is undefined; but just this, that it is another and better-disposed, for whom, without having it in view, the collector gathers his stores, is the very point of the thought.

Verse 9

Pro 28:9 9 He who turneth away his ear not to hear of the law, Even his prayer is an abomination.
Cf. Pro 15:8 and the argument 1Sa 15:22. Not only the evil which such an one does, but also the apparent good is an abomination, an abomination to God, and eo ipso also in itself: morally hollow and corrupt; for it is not truth and sincerity, for the whole soul, the whole will of the suppliant, is not present: he is not that for which he gives himself out in his prayer, and does not earnestly seek that which he presents and expresses a wish for in prayer.

Verse 10

A tristich beginning with a participle:
He who misleads the upright into an evil way,
He shall fall into his own pit;
But the innocent shall inherit that which is good.
In the first case, Pro 26:27 is fulfilled: the deceiver who leads astray falls himself into the destruction which he prepared for others, whether he misleads them into sin, and thus mediately prepares destruction for them, or that he does this immediately by enticing them into this or that danger; for בּדרך רע may be understood of the way of wicked conduct, as well as of the experience of evil, of being betrayed, robbed, or even murdered. That those who are misled are called ישׁרים, explains itself in the latter case: that they are such as he ought to show respect towards, and such as deserved better treatment, heightens the measure of his guilt. If we understand being morally led astray, yet may we not with Hitzig here find the “theory” which removes the punishment from the just and lays it on the wicked. The clause Pro 11:8 is not here applicable. The first pages of the Scripture teach that the deceiver does not by any means escape punishment; but certainly the deceiver of the upright does not gain his object, for his diabolical joy at the destruction of such an one is vain, because God again helps him with the right way, but casts the deceiver so much the deeper down. As the idea of דרך רע has a twofold direction, so the connections of the words may be genitival (via mali) as well as adjectival (via mala). בּשׁחוּתו is not incorrectly written for בּשׁוּחתו, for שׁחית occurs (only here) with שׁחוּת as its warrant both from שׁחה, to bend, to sink; cf. לזוּת under Pro 4:24. In line third, opposite to “he who misleads,” stand “the innocent” (pious), who, far from seeking to entice others into the evil way and bring them to ruin, are unreservedly and honestly devoted to God and to that which is good; these shall inherit good (cf. Pro 3:35); even the consciousness of having made no man unhappy makes them happy; but even in their external relations there falls to them the possession of all good, which is the divinely ordained reward of the good.

Verse 11

Pro 28:11 11 A rich man deems himself wise; But a poor man that hath understanding searcheth him out, or, as we have translated, Pro 18:17, goes to the bottom of him, whereby is probably thought of the case that he seeks to use him as a means to an ignoble end. The rich man appears in his own eyes to be a wise man, i.e., in his self-delusion he thinks that he is so; but if he has anything to do with a poor man who has intelligence, then he is seen through by him. Wisdom is a gift not depending on any earthly possession.

Verse 12

We take Pro 28:12-20 together. A proverb regarding riches closes this group, as also the foregoing is closed, and its commencement is related in form and in its contents to Pro 28:2 : 12 When righteous men triumph, the glory is great; And when the godless rise, the people are searched for.
The first line of this distich is parallel with Pro 29:2; cf. Pro 11:10, Pro 11:11 : when the righteous rejoice, viz., as conquerors (cf. e.g., Psa 60:8), who have the upper hand, then תּפארת, bright prosperity, is increased; or as Fleischer, by comparison of the Arab. yawm alazynt (day of ornament = festival day), explains: so is there much festival adornment, i.e., one puts on festival clothes, signum pro re signata: thus all appears festal and joyous, for prosperity and happiness then show themselves forth. רבּה is adj. and pred. of the substantival clause; Hitzig regards it as the attribute: “then is there great glory;” this supposition is possible (vid., Pro 7:26, and under Psa 89:51), but here it is purely arbitrary. 28a is parallel with 12b: “if the godless arise, attain to power and prominence, these men are spied out, i.e., as we say, after Zep 1:12, they are searched for as with lamps. יחפּשׂ אדם is to be understood after Obadiah, Oba 1:6, cf. Pro 2:4 : men are searched out, i.e., are plundered (in which sense Heidenheim regards חפשׂ as here a transposition from חשׂף), or, with reference to the secret police of despotism: they are subjected to espionage. But a better gloss is יסּתר אדם 28a: the people let themselves be sought for, they keep themselves concealed in the inside of their houses, they venture not out into the streets and public places (Fleischer), for mistrust and suspicion oppress them all; one regards his person and property nowhere safer than within the four walls of his house; the lively, noisy, variegated life which elsewhere rules without, is as if it were dead.

Verse 13

Pro 28:13 13 He that denieth his sin shall not prosper; But he that acknowledgeth and forsaketh it shall obtain mercy.
Thus is this proverb translated by Luther, and thus it lives in the mouth of the Christian people. He who falsely disowns, or with self-deception excuses, if he does not altogether justify his sins, which are discernible as פּשׁעים, has no success; he remains, after Psa 32:1-11, in his conscience and life burdened with a secret ban; but he who acknowledges (the lxx has ἐξηγούμενος instead of ἐξομολογούμενος, as it ought to be) and forsakes (for the remissio does not follow the confessio, if there is not the accompaniment of nova obedientia) will find mercy (ירחם, as Hos 14:4). In close connection therewith stands the thought that man has to work out his salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phi 2:12).

Verse 14

Pro 28:14 14 Well is it with the man who feareth always; But he that is stiff-necked shall fall into mischief.
The Piel פּחד occurs elsewhere only at Isa 51:13, where it is used of the fear and dread of men; here it denotes the anxious concern with which one has to guard against the danger of evil coming upon his soul. Aben Ezra makes God the object; but rather we are to regard sin as the object, for while the truly pious is one that “fears God,” he is at the same time one that “feareth evil.” The antithesis extends beyond the nearest lying contrast of fleshly security; this is at the same time more or less one who hardens or steels his heart (מקשׁה לבּו), viz., against the word of God, against the sons of God in his heart, and against the affectionate concern of others about his soul, and as such rushes on to his own destruction (יפּול בּרעה, as at Pro 17:20).

Verse 15

This general ethical proverb is now followed by one concerning the king: 15 A roaring lion and a ravening bear Is a foolish ruler over a poor people,i.e., a people without riches and possessions, without lasting sources of help - a people brought low by the events of war and by calamities. To such a people a tyrant is a twofold terror, like a ravenous monster. The lxx translate מושׁל רשׁע by ὃς τυραννεῖ πτωχὸς ὤν, as if רשׁ had been transferred to this place from Pro 28:3. But their translation of רשׁע, Pro 29:7, wavers between ἀσεβής and πτωχός, and of the bear they make a wolf זאב, dialectical דּיב. שׁוקק designates a bear as lingering about, running hither and thither, impelled by extreme hunger (Venet. ἐπιοῦσα), from שׁקק = שׁוּק, to drive, which is said of nimble running, as well as of urging impulses (cf. under Gen 3:16), viz., hunger.

Verse 16

Another proverb of the king:
O prince devoid of understanding and rich in oppression!
He that hateth unrighteous gain continueth long.
The old interpreters from the lxx interpret מעשׁקּות רבו as pred. (as also Fleischer: princeps qui intelligentiae habet parum idem oppressionis exercet multum); but why did not the author use the word הוּא or והוּא instead of this ambiguous inconvenient ו? Hitzig regards the first term as a nominative absolute, which does not assume a suffix in the second line. But examples such as 27a, Pro 27:7, are altogether of a different sort; there occurs a reference that is in reality latent, and only finds not expression; the clause following the nominative is related to it as its natural predicate, but here 15b is an independent clause standing outside of any syntactical relation to 15a. Heidenheim has acknowledged that here there lies before us a proverb not in the form of a mere declaration, but of a warning address, and thus also it is understood by Ewald, Bertheau, Elster, and Zöckler. The accentuation seems to proceed on the same supposition. It is the only passage in the Book of Proverbs where נגיד, of the supreme ruler of the people, and where the plur. תּבוּנות, occur; it is not therefore at all strange if the proverb also has something strange in its formation. Often enough, proverbs are in the form of an address to a son, and generally to their reader; why not also one at least to the king? It is a proverb as when I say: Oh thou reckless, merry fellow! he who laughs much will sometimes weep long. Thus here the address is directed to the prince who is devoid of all wisdom and intelligence, which are necessary for a prince; but on this account the more earnest in exhortation to say to him that only one who hates defrauding the people attains an old age; thus that a prince who plunders the people wantonly shortens his life as a man, and his position as a ruler (cf. שׁניהם, Pro 24:22). The Kerı̂ שׂנא has the tone thrown back on the penult., as the Chethı̂b שׂנאי would also have it, cf. למצאי, Pro 8:9. The relation of a plur. subj. to a sing. pred. is as at Pro 27:16. Regarding בּצע, vid., under Pro 1:19. A confirmation of this proverb directing itself to princes if found in Jer 22:13-19, the woe pronounced upon Jehoiakim. And a glance at the woe pronounced in Hab 2:12, shows how easily Pro 28:17 presents itself in connection.

Verse 17

Pro 28:17 17 A man burdened with the guilt of blood upon his soul Fleeth to the pit; let no one detain him.
Luther translates: “A man that doeth violence to the blood of any one,” as if he had read the word עשׁק. Löwenstein persuades himself that עשׁק may mean “having oppressed,” and for this refers to לבוּשׁ, having clothed, in the Mishna נשׁוּי, רבוּב, Lat. coenatus, juratus; but none of all these cases are of the same nature, for always the conduct designated is interpreted as a suffering of that which is done, e.g., the drawing on, as a being clothed; the riding, as a being ridden, etc. Of עשׁק, in the sense of the oppression of another, there is no such part. pass. as throws the action as a condition back upon the subject. This is valid also against Aben Ezra, who supposes that עשׁק means oppressing after the forms אנוּר, שׁדוּד, שׁכוּן, for of שׁכוּן, settled = dwelling, that which has just been said is true; that אנוּר is equivalent to אגר, cf. regarding it under Pro 30:1, and that שׁדוּד, Psa 137:8, is equivalent to שׁדד, is not true. Kimchi adds, under the name of his father (Joseph Kimchi), also שׁחוּט, Jer 9:7 = שׁוחט; but that “slaughtered” can be equivalent to slaughtering is impossible. Some MSS have the word עשׂק, which is not inadmissible, but not in the sense of “accused” (Löwenstein), but: persecuted, exposed to war; for עשׁק signifies to treat hostilely, and post-bibl. generally to aspire after or pursue anything, e.g., עסוק בּדברי תורה, R. עשׂ (whence Piel contrectare, cf. Isa 23:2, according to which עשׁק appears to be an intensifying of this עשׂה). However, there is no ground for regarding עשׁק^[89] as not original, nor in the sense of “hard pressed;” for it is not used of avenging persecution, but: inwardly pressed, for Isa 38:14 עשׁקה also signifies the anguish of a guilty conscience. Whoever is inwardly bowed down by the blood of a man whom he has murdered, betakes himself to a ceaseless flight to escape the avenger of blood, the punishment of his guilt, and his own inward torment; he flees and finds no rest, till at last the grave (בור according to the Eastern, i.e., the Babylonian, mode of writing בּר) receives him, and death accomplishes the only possible propitiation of the murderer. The exhortation, “let no one detain him,” does not mean that one should not lay hold on the fugitive; but, since תּמך בּ does not mean merely to hold fast, but to hold right, that one should not afford him any support, any refuge, any covering or security against the vengeance which pursues him; that one should not rescue him from the arm of justice, and thereby invade and disturb the public administration of justice, which rests on moral foundations; on the other side, the Book of Prov; Pro 24:11., has uttered its exhortation to save a human life whenever it is possible to do so. The proverb lying before us cannot thus mean anything else than that no one should give to the murderer, as such, any assistance; that no one should save him clandestinely, and thereby make himself a partaker of his sin. Grace cannot come into the place of justice till justice has been fully recognised. Human sympathy, human forbearance, under the false title of grace, do not stand in contrast to this justice. We must, however, render אל־יתמכו־בו not directly as an admonition against that which is immoral; it may also be a declaration of that which is impossible: only let no one support him, let no one seek to deliver him from the unrest which drives him from place to place. This is, however, in vain; he is unceasingly driven about to fulfil his lot. But the translation: nemine eum sustinente (Fleischer), is inadmissible; a mere declaration of a fact without any subjective colouring is never אל reven si g seq. fut.

Verse 18

Pro 28:18 18 He who walketh blamelessly is helped, And he who is perverse in a double way suddenly perisheth.
The lxx translate תמים by δικαίως (as the accusative of manner), Aquila and Theodotion by τέλειος; but it may also be translated τέλειον or τελειότητα, as the object accus. of Pro 2:7. Instead of עקּשׁ דּרכים, Pro 28:6, there is here נעקּשׁ דּרכים, obliquely directed in a double way, or reflex bending himself. At Pro 28:6 we have interpreted the dual דּרכים rightly, thus בּאחת cannot refer back to one of these two ways; besides, דּרך as fem. is an anomaly, if not a solecism. בּאחת signifies, like the Aram. כּחרא, either all at once (for which the Mish. כּאחת, Aram. כּחרא), or once (= בּפּעם אחת), and it signifies in the passage before us, not: once, aliquando, as Nolde, with Flacius, explains, but: all at once, i.e., as Geier explains: penitus, sic ut pluribus casibus porro non sit opus. Schultens compares:
“Procubuit moriens et humum semel ore momordit.”^[90]
Rightly Fleischer: repente totus concidet.

Verse 19

Pro 28:19 19 He who cultivateth his land is satisfied with bread, And he that graspeth after vanities is satisfied with poverty.
A variation of Pro 12:11. The pred. here corresponds to its contrast. On רישׁ (here and at Pro 31:7), instead of the more frequent ראשׁ, cf. Pro 10:4.

Verse 20

To this proverb of the cultivation of the land as the sure source of support, the next following stands related, its contents being cognate: 20 A strong, upright man is enriched with blessings; But he that hastens to become rich remains not unpunished. אישׁ אמוּנים, Pro 20:6, as well as אמוּנות 'א, denotes a man bonae fidei; but the former expression refers the description to a constancy and certainty in the relations of favour and of friendship, here to rectitude or integrity in walk and conduct; the plur. refers to the all-sidedness and the ceaselessness of the activity. בּרכות is related, as at Pro 10:6 : the idea comprehends blessings on the side of God and of man, thus benedictio rei and benedictio voti. On the contrary, he who, without being careful as to the means, is in haste to become rich, remains not only unblessed, but also is not guiltless, and thus not without punishment; also this לא ינּקה (e.g., Pro 6:29), frequently met in the Mishle, is, like ברכות, the union of two ideas, for generally the bibl. mode of conception and language comprehends in one, sin, guilt, and punishment.

Verse 21

With a proverb, in the first half of which is repeated the beginning of the second appendix, Pro 24:23, a new group commences: 21 Respect of persons is not good; And for a morsel of bread a man may become a transgressor.
Line first refers to the administration of justice, and line second - the special generalized - to social life generally. The “morsel of bread,” as example of a bribe by means of which the favour of the judge is purchased, is too low a conception. Hitzig well: “even a trifle, a morsel of bread (1Sa 2:36), may, as it awakens favour and dislike within us, thus in general call forth in the will an inclination tending to draw one aside from the line of strict rectitude.” Geier compares A Gellius' Noct. Att. i. 15, where Cato says of the Tribune Coelius: Frusto panis conduci potest vel ut taceat vel ut loquatur.

Verse 22

Pro 28:22 22 The man of an evil eye hasteneth after riches, And knoweth not that want shall come upon him.
Hitzig renders 'אישׁ וגו the man of an evil eye as apos. of the subject; but in that case the phrase would have been אישׁ רע עין נבהל להון (cf. e.g., Pro 29:1). רע עין (Pro 23:6) is the jealous, envious, grudging, and at the same time covetous man. It is certainly possible that an envious man consumes himself in ill-humour without quietness, as Hitzig objects; but as a rule there is connected with envy a passionate endeavour to raise oneself to an equal height of prosperity with the one who is the object of envy; and this zeal, proceeding from an impure motive, makes men blind to the fact that thereby they do not advance, but rather degrade themselves, for no blessing can rest on it; discontentedness loses, with that which God has assigned to us, deservedly also that which it has. The pret. נבחל, the expression of a fact; the part. נבהל, the expression of an habitual characteristic action; the word signifies praeceps (qui praeceps fertur), with the root-idea of one who is unbridled, who is not master of himself (vid., under Psa 2:5, and above at Pro 20:21). The phrase wavers between נבהל (Kimchi, under בהל; and Norzi, after Codd. and old editions) and נבהל (thus, e.g., Cod. Jaman); only at Psa 30:8 נבהל stands unquestioned. חסר [want] is recognised by Symmachus, Syr., and Jerome. To this, as the authentic reading, cf. its ingenious rendering of Bereschith Rabba, c. 58, to Gen 23:14. The lxx reads, from 22b, that a חסיד, ἐλεήμων, will finally seize the same riches, according to which Hitzig reads חסד, disgrace, shame (cf. Pro 25:10).

Verse 23

Pro 28:23 23 He that reproveth a man who is going backwards, Findeth more thanks than the flatterer.
It is impossible that aj can be the suffix of אחרי; the Talmud, Tamid 28a, refers it to God; but that it signifies: after my (Solomon's) example or precedence (Aben Ezra, Ahron b. Josef, Venet., J. H. Michaelis), is untenable - such a name given by the teacher here to himself is altogether aimless. Others translate, with Jerome: Qui corripit hominem gratiam postea inveniet apud eum magis, quam ille qui per linguae blandimenta decipit, for they partly purpose to read אחרי־כן, partly to give to 'אח the meaning of postea. אחרי, Ewald says, is a notable example of an adverb. Hitzig seeks to correct this adv. as at Neh 3:30., but where, with Keil, אחרו is to be read; at Jos 2:7, where אחרי is to be erased; and at Deu 2:30, where the traditional text is accountable. This אחרי may be formed like אזי and מתי; but if it had existed, it would not be a ἅπαξ λεγ. The accentuation also, in the passage before us, does not recognise it; but it takes אחרי and אדם together, and how otherwise than that it appears, as Ibn-Jachja in his Grammar, and Immanuel^[91] have recognised it, to be a noun terminating in aj. It is a formation, like לפני, 1Ki 6:10 (cf. Olshausen's Lehrb. p. 428f.), of the same termination as שׁדּי, חגּי, and in the later Aram.-Heb. זכּי, and the like. The variant אחרי, noticed by Heidenheim, confirms it; and the distinction between different classes of men (vid., vol. i. p. 39) which prevails in the Book of Proverbs favours it. A אדם אחרי is defined, after the manner of Jeremiah (Jer 7:24): a man who is directed backwards, and not לפנים, forwards. Not the renegade - for מוכיח, opp. מחליק לשׁון, does not lead to so strong a conception - but the retrograder is thus called in German: Rückläufige one who runs backwards or Rückwendige one who turns backwards, who turns away from the good, the right, and the true, and always departs the farther away from them (Immanuel: going backwards in his nature or his moral relations). This centrifugal direction, leading to estrangement from the fear of Jahve, or, what is the same thing, from the religion of revelation, would lead to entire ruin if unreserved and fearless denunciation did not interpose and seek to restrain it; and he who speaks^[92] so truly, openly, and earnestly home to the conscience of one who is on the downward course, gains for himself thereby, on the part of him whom he has directed aright, and on the part of all who are well disposed, better thanks (and also, on the part of God, a better reward, Jam 5:19.) than he who, speaking to him, smooths his tongue to say to him who is rich, or in a high position, only that which is agreeable. Laudat adulator, sed non est verus amator. The second half of the verse consists, as often (Psa 73:8; Job 33:1; cf. Thorath Emeth, p. 51), of only two words, with Mercha Silluk.

Verse 24

Pro 28:24 24 He who robbeth his father and mother, and saith: It is no wrong, Is a companion of the destroyer.
The second line is related to Pro 18:9. Instead of dominus perditionis there found, there is here אישׁ משׁחית, vir perdens (perditor); the word thus denotes a man who destroys, not from revenge, but from lust, and for the sake of the life of men, and that which is valuable for men; thus the spoiler, the incendiary, etc. Instead of אח there, here we have חבר in the same sense. He who robs his parents, i.e., takes to himself what belongs to them, and regards his doing so as no particular sin,^[93] because he will at last come to inherit it all (cf. Pro 20:21 with Pro 19:26), to to be likened to a man who allows himself in all offences against the life and property of his neighbour; for what the deed of such a son wants in external violence, it makes up in its wickedness, because it is a rude violation of the tenderest and holiest demands of duty.

Verse 25

Pro 28:25 25 The covetous stirreth up strife; But he that trusteth in Jahve is richly comforted.
Line first is a variation of Pro 15:18; רחב־נפשׁ is not to be interchanged with רחב־לב, Pro 21:4. He is of a wide heart who haughtily puffs himself up, of a wide soul (cf. with Schultens הרחיב נפשׁו, of the opening up of the throat, or of revenge, Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5) who is insatiably covetous; for לב is the spiritual, and נפשׁ the natural, heart of man, according to which the widening of the heart is the overstraining of self-consciousness, and the widening of the soul the overstraining of passion. Rightly the lxx, according to its original text: ἄπληστος ἀνὴρ κινεῖ (thus with Hitzig for κρινεῖ) νείκη. Line second is a variation of Pro 16:20; Pro 29:25. Over against the insatiable is he who trusts in God (וּב טח, with Gaja to the vocal, concluding the word, for it follows a word accented on the first syllable, and beginning with a guttural; cf. יא, Pro 29:2; יףּ, Pro 29:18), that He will bestow upon him what is necessary and good for him. One thus contented is easily satisfied (compare with the word Pro 11:25; Pro 13:4, and with the matter, Pro 10:3; Pro 13:24), is externally as well as internally appeased; while that other, never contented, has no peace, and creates dispeace around him.

Verse 26

The following proverb assumes the בטח of the foregoing:^[94] 26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool; But he that walketh in wisdom shall escape.
From the promise in the second line, Hitzig concludes that a courageous heart is meant, but when by itself לב never bears this meaning. He who trusteth in his own heart is not merely one who is guided solely “by his own inconsiderate, defiant impulse to act” (Zöckler). The proverb is directed against a false subjectivity. The heart is that fabricator of thoughts, of which, as of man by nature, nothing good can be said, Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21. But wisdom is a gift from above, and consists in the knowledge of that which is objectively true, that which is normatively godlike. הלך בּחכמה is he who so walks that he has in wisdom a secure authority, and has not then for the first time, when he requires to walk, need to consider, to reckon, to experiment. Thus walking in the way of wisdom, he escapes dangers to which one is exposed who walks in foolish confidence in his own heart and its changeful feelings, thoughts, imaginations, delusions. One who thoughtlessly boasts, who vainly dreams of victory before the time, is such a person; but confidence in one's own heart takes also a hundred other forms. Essentially similar to this proverb are the words of Jer 9:22., for the wisdom meant in 26b is there defined at Jer 9:23.

Verse 27

Pro 28:27 27 He that giveth to the poor suffereth no want; But he that covereth his eyes meeteth many curses.
In the first line the pronoun לּו, referring back to the subject noun, is to be supplied, as at Pro 27:7 להּ. He who gives to the poor has no want (מחסּור), for God's blessing reimburses him richly for what he bestows. He, on the other hand, who veils (מעלּים( sl, cf. the Hithpa., Isa 58:7) his eyes so as not to see the misery which calls forth compassion, or as if he did not see the misery which has a claim on his compassion; he is (becomes) rich in curses, i.e., is laden with the curses of those whose wants he cared not for; curses which, because they are deserved, change by virtue of a divine requital (vid., Sir. 4:5f.; Tob. 4:7) into all kinds of misfortunes (opp. רב־בּרכות, 20a). מארה is constructed after the form מגרה, מקרה from ארר.

Verse 28

The following proverb resembles the beginnings Pro 28:2, Pro 28:12. The proverbs Pro 28:28; Pro 29:1-3, form a beautiful square grasp, in which the first and third, and the second and fourth, correspond to one another. 28 When the godless rise up, men hide themselves; And when they perish, the righteous increase.
Line first is a variation of 12b. Since they who hide themselves are merely called men, people, the meaning of ירבּוּ is probably not this, that the righteous then from all sides come out into the foreground (Hitzig), but that they prosper, multiply, and increase as do plants, when the worms, caterpillars, and the like are destroyed (Fleischer); Löwenstein glosses ירבּוּ by יגדלו, they become great = powerful, but that would be Elihu's style, Job 33:12, which is not in common use; the names of masters and of those in authority, רב, רבּי, רבּן, רבּנוּת, are all derived from רבב, not from רבה. The increase is to be understood of the prosperous growth (to become great = to increase, as perhaps also Gen 21:10) of the congregation of the righteous, which gains in the overthrow of the godless an accession to its numbers; cf. Pro 29:2, and especially Pro 29:16.

Chap. 29

Verse 1

A general ethical proverb here follows:
A man often corrected who hardeneth his neck,
Shall suddenly go to ruin without remedy.
Line second = Pro 6:15. The connection אישׁ תּוכחות must make the nearest impression on a reader of the Book of Proverbs that they mean a censurer (reprehender), but which is set aside by what follows, for the genit. after אישׁ is, Pro 16:29; Pro 26:21; Pro 29:10; Pro 13:20, the designation of that which proceeds from the subject treated. And since תּוכחות, Psa 37:15; Job 23:4, denotes counter evidence, and generally rejoinders, thus in the first line a reasoner is designated who lets nothing be said to him, and nothing be shown to him, but contradicts all and every one. Thus e.g., Fleischer: vir qui correptus contradicit et cervicem obdurat. But this interpolated correptus gives involuntary testimony of this, that the nearest lying impression of the 'אישׁ תו suffers a change by מקשׁה ערף: if we read הקשׁה (לב) ערף with 'תו, the latter then designates the correptio, over against which is placed obstinate boldness (Syr., Targ., Jerome, Luther), and 'תו shows itself thus to be gen. objecti, and we have to compare the gen. connection of אישׁ, as at Pro 18:23; Pro 21:17, or rather at 1Ki 20:42 and Jer 15:10. But it is unnecessary, with Hitzig, to limit 'תו to divine infliction of punishment, and after Hos 5:9; Isa 37:3, to read תוכחות [punishment], which occurs, Psa 149:7, in the sense of punishment inflicted by man.^[95]
Besides, we must think first not of actual punishment, but of chastening, reproving words; and the man to whom are spoken the reproving words is one whose conduct merits more and more severe censure, and continually receives correction from those who are concerned for his welfare. Hitzig regards the first line as a conditional clause: “Is a man of punishment stiff-necked?”.... This is syntactically impossible. Only מקשׁה ערף could have such force: a man of punishment, if he.... But why then did not the author rather write the words והוא מקשׁה ערף? Why then could not מקשׁה ערף be a co-ordinated further description of the man? Cf. e.g., Ex. 17:21. The door of penitence, to which earnest, well-meant admonition calls a man, does not always remain open. He who with stiff-necked persistence in sin and in self-delusion sets himself in opposition to all endeavours to save his soul, shall one day suddenly, and without the prospect and possibility of restoration (cf. Jer 19:11), become a wreck. Audi doctrinam si vis vitare ruinam.

Verse 2

The general ethical proverb is here followed by one that is political: 2 When the righteous increase, the people rejoice; And when a godless man ruleth, the people mourn.
Regarding 'בּרבות צדּ (Aquila rightly, ἐν τῷ πληθῦναι δικαίους), vid., at Pro 28:28. If the righteous form the majority, or are in such numbers that they are the party that give the tone, that form the predominant power among the people (Fleischer, cum incrementa capiunt justi), then the condition of the people is a happy one, and their voice joyful (Pro 11:10); if, on the contrary, a godless man or (after Pro 28:1) godless men rule, the people are made to sigh (יאנח עם, with the Gaja, according to rule). “There is reason,” as Hitzig remarks, “why עם should be placed first with, and then without, the article.” In the first case it denotes the people as those among whom there is such an increase of the righteous; in the second case, the article is wanting, because it is not generally used in poetry; and, besides, its absence makes the second line consist of nine syllables, like the first.

Verse 3

This political proverb is now followed by one of general ethics: 3 A man who loveth wisdom delighteth his father; And he who keepeth company with harlots spendeth his substance.
Line first is a variation of Pro 10:1. אישׁ־אהב has, according to rule, the Metheg, cf. 9a. אישׁ is man, without distinction of age, from childhood (Gen 4:1) up to ripe old age (Isa 66:13); love and dutiful relation towards father and mother never cease. Line second reminds of Pro 28:7 (cf. Pro 13:20).

Verse 4

A series of six proverb follows, beginning with a proverb of the king: 4 A king by righteousness bringeth the land to a good condition; But a man of taxes bringeth it down.
The Hiph. חעמיד signifies to make it so that a person or matter comes to stand erect and stand fast (e.g., 1Ki 15:4); הרס, to tear down, is the contrary of building up and extending (Psa 28:5), cf. נהרס, opp. רוּם, of the state, Pro 11:11. By 'אישׁ תּר is meant the king, or a man of this kind; but it is questionable whether as a man of gifts, i.e., one who lets gifts be made to him (Grotius, Fleischer, Ewald, Bertheau, Zöckler), or as a man of taxes, i.e., who imposes them (Midrash, Aben Ezra, Ralbag, Rosenmüller, Hitzig). Both interpretations are possible, for 'תר means tax (lifting, raising = dedicating), free-will offerings, as well as gifts that are obligatory and required by the laws of nature. Since the word, in the only other place where it occurs, Eze 45:13-16, is used of the relation of the people to the prince, and denotes a legally-imposed tax, so it appears also here, in passing over from the religious sphere to the secular, to be meant of taxes, and that according to its fundamental conception of gifts, i.e., such taxes as are given on account of anything, such as the produce of the soil, manufactures, heritages. Thus also is to be understood Aquila's and Theodotion's ἀνὴρ ἀφαιρεμάτων, and the rendering also of the Venet. ἐράνων. A man on the throne, covetous of such gifts, brings the land to ruin by exacting contributions; on the contrary, a king helps the land to a good position, and an enduring prosperity, by the exercise of right, and that in appointing a well-proportioned and fit measure of taxation.

Verse 5

Pro 29:5 5 A man who flattereth his neighbour Spreadeth a net for his steps.
Fleischer, as Bertheau: vir qui alterum blanditiis circumvenit; but in the על there does not lie in itself a hostile tendency, an intention to do injury; it interchanges with אל, Psa 36:3, and what is expressed in line second happens also, without any intention on the part of the flatterer: the web of the flatterer before the eyes of a neighbour becomes, if he is caught thereby, a net for him in which he is entangled to his own destruction (Hitzig). החליק signifies also, without any external object, Pro 28:23; Pro 2:16, as internally transitive: to utter that which is smooth, i.e., flattering. פּעמיו is, as Psa 57:7 = רגליו, for which it is the usual Phoenician word.

Verse 6

Pro 29:6 6 In the transgression of the wicked man lies a snare; But the righteous rejoiceth jubelt and is glad.
Thus the first line is to be translated according to the sequence of the accents, Mahpach, Munach, Munach, Athnach, for the second Munach is the transformation of Dechi; אישׁ רע thus, like אנשׁי־רע, Pro 28:5, go together, although the connection is not, like this, genitival, but adjectival. But there is also this sequence of the accents, Munach, Dechi, Munach, Athnach, which separates רע and אישׁ. According to this, Ewald translates: “in the transgression of one lies an evil snare;” but in that case the word ought to have been מוקשׁ רע, as at Pro 12:13; for although the numeral רבים sometimes precedes its substantive, yet no other adjective ever does; passages such as Isa 28:21 and Isa 10:30 do not show the possibility of this position of the words. In this sequence of accents the explanation must be: in the wickedness of a man is the evil of a snare, i.e., evil is the snare laid therein (Böttcher); but a reason why the author did not write מוקשׁ רע would also not be seen there, and thus we must abide by the accentuation אישׁ רע. The righteous also may fall, yet he is again raised by means of repentance and pardon; but in the wickedness of a bad man lies a snare into which having once fallen, he cannot again release himself from it, Pro 24:16. In the second line, the form ירוּן, for ירן, is defended by the same metaplastic forms as ישׁוּד, Psa 91:6; ירוּץ, Isa 42:4; and also that the order of the words is not ישׂמח ורנּן (lxx ἐν χαρᾷ καὶ ἐν εὐθροσύνῃ; Luther: frewet sich und hat wonne [rejoices and has pleasure]), is supported by the same sequence of ideas, Zec 2:1-13 :14, cf. Jer 31:7 : the Jubeln is the momentary outburst of gladness; the Freude gladness, however, is a continuous feeling of happiness. To the question as to what the righteous rejoiceth over [jubelt] and is glad [greuet] because of, the answer is not: because of his happy release from danger (Zöckler), but: because of the prosperity which his virtue procures for him (Fleischer). But the contrast between the first and second lines is not clear and strong. One misses the expression of the object or ground of the joy. Cocceius introduces into the second line a si lapsus fuerit. Schultens translates, justus vel succumbens triumphabit, after the Arab. rân f. o., which, however, does not mean succumbere, but subigere (vid., under Psa 78:65). Hitzig compares Arab. raym f. i., discedere, relinquere, and translates: “but the righteous passeth through and rejoiceth.” Böttcher is inclined to read יראה ושׂמח, he sees it (what?) and rejoiceth. All these devices, however, stand in the background compared with Pinsker's proposal (Babylon.-Heb. Punktationssystem, p. 156): “On the footsteps of the wicked man lie snares,
But the righteous runneth and is glad,”i.e., he runneth joyfully (like the sun, Psa 19:6) on the divinely-appointed way (Psa 119:132), on which he knows himself threatened by no danger. The change of בפשׁע into בפשׂע has Pro 12:13 against it; but ירוץ may be regarded, after Pro 4:12, cf. Pro 18:10, as the original from which ירון is corrupted. <nowiki/W

Verse 7

Pro 29:7 7 The righteous knoweth the cause of the poor, But the godless understandeth no knowledge.
The righteous knoweth and recogniseth the righteous claims of people of low estate, i.e., what is due to them as men, and in particular cases; but the godless has no knowledge from which such recognition may go forth (cf. as to the expression, Pro 19:25). The proverb begins like Pro 12:10, which commends the just man's compassion to his cattle; this commends his sympathy with those who are often treated as cattle, and worse even than cattle. The lxx translates 7b twice: the second time reading רשׁ instead of רשׁע, it makes nonsense of it.

Verse 8

Pro 29:8 8 Men of derision set the city in an uproar, But wise men allay anger.
Isa. 28 shows what we are to understand by אנשׁי לצון: men to whom nothing is holy, and who despise all authority. The Hiphil יפיחוּ does not signify irretiunt, from פּחח (Venet. παγιδιοῦσι, after Kimchi, Aben Ezra, and others), but sufflant, from פוח (Rashi: ילהיבו): they stir up or excite the city, i.e., its inhabitants, so that they begin to burn as with flames, i.e., by the dissolution of the bonds of mutual respect and of piety, by the letting loose of passion, they disturb the peace and excite the classes of the community and individuals against each other; but the wise bring it about that the breathings of anger that has broken forth, or is in the act of breaking forth, are allayed. The anger is not that of God, as it is rendered by Jerome and Luther, and as יפיחו freely translated might mean. The Aram. err in regard to יפיחו in passages such as Pro 6:19.

Verse 9

Pro 29:9 9 If a wise man has to contend with a fool, He the fool rageth and laugheth, and hath no rest.
Among the old translators, Jerome and Luther take the “wise man” as subject even of the second line, and that in all its three members: vir sapiens si cum stulto contenderit, sive irascatur sive reideat, non inveniet requiem. Thus Schultens, C. B. Michaelis, Umbreit, Ewald, Elster, and also Fleischer: “The doubled Vav is correlative, as at Exo 21:16; Lev 5:3, and expresses the perfect sameness in respect of the effect, here of the want of effect. If the wise man, when he disputes with a fool, becomes angry, or jests, he will have no rest, i.e., he will never bring it to pass that the fool shall cease to reply; he yields the right to him, and thus makes it possible for him to end the strife.” But the angry passion, and the bursts of laughter alternating therewith, are not appropriate to the wise man affirming his right; and since, after Ecc 9:17, the words of the wise are heard בּנחח, the ואין נחת [and there is no rest] will cause us to think of the fool as the logical subject. So far correctly, but in other respects inappropriately, the lxx ἀνὴρ σοφὸς κρινεῖ ἔθνη (after the expression עם, i.e., עם, instead of את), ἀνὴρ δὲ φαῦλος (which אישׁ אויל does not mean) ὀργιζόμενος καταγελᾶται καὶ οὐ καταπτήσσει (as if the words were ולא יחת).^[96]
The syntactical relation would be simpler if נשׁפּט in 9a were vocalized as a hypothetical perfect. But we read for it the past נשׁפּט. Ewald designates 9a as a conditional clause, and Hitzig remarks that the Lat. viro sapiente disceptante cum stulto corresponds therewith. It marks, like 1Sa 2:13; Job 1:16, the situation from which there is a departure then with perf. consec.: if a wise man in the right is in contact with a fool, he starts up, and laughs, and keeps not quiet (supply לּו as at Pro 28:27), or (without לו): there is no keeping quiet, there is no rest. The figure is in accordance with experience. If a wise man has any controversy with a fool, which is to be decided by reasonable and moral arguments, then he becomes boisterous and laughs, and shows himself incapable of quietly listening to his opponent, and of appreciating his arguments.

Verse 10

We now group together Pro 29:10-14. Of these, Pro 29:10 and Pro 29:11 are alike in respect of the tense used; Pro 29:12-14 have in common the pronoun pointing back to the first member. 10 Men of blood hate the guiltless And the upright; they attempt the life of such
The nearest lying translation of the second line would certainly be: the upright seek his soul (that of the guiltless). In accordance with the contrasted ישׂנאו, the Aram. understand the seeking of earnest benevolent seeking, but disregarding the נפשׁ in לנפשׁו;^[97]
Symmachus (ἐπιζητήσουσι), Jerome (quaerunt), and Luther thus also understand the sentence; and Rashi remarks that the phrase is here לשׁון חבּה, for he rests; but mistrusting himself, refers to 1Sa 21:1-15 :23. Ahron b. Josef glosses: to enter into friendship with him. Thus, on account of the contrast, most moderns, interpreting the phrase sensu bono, also Fleischer: probi autem vitam ejus conservare student. The thought is, as Pro 12:6 shows, correct; but the usus loq. protests against this rendering, which can rest only on Psa 142:5, where, however, the poet does not say אין דּורשׁ נפשׁי, but, as here also the usus loq. requires, לנפשׁי. There are only three possible explanations which Aben Ezra enumerates: (1) they seek his, the bloody man's, soul, i.e., they attempt his life, to take vengeance against him, according to the meaning of the expressions as generally elsewhere, used, e.g., at Psa 63:10; (2) they revenge his, the guiltless man's, life (lxx ἐκζητήσουσιν), which has fallen a victim, after the meaning in which elsewhere only בּקּשׁ דּם and דּרשׁ נפשׁ, Gen 9:5, occur. This second meaning also is thus not in accordance with the usage of the words, and against both meanings it is to be said that it is not in the spirit of the Book of Proverbs to think of the ישׁרים [the upright, righteous] as executors of the sentences of the penal judicature. There thus remains^[98] the interpretation (3): the upright - they (the bloody men) seek the soul of such an one. The transition from the plur. to the sing. is individualizing, and thus the arrangement of the words is like Gen 47:21 : “And the people (as regards them), he removed them to the cities,” Gesen. §145. 2. This last explanation recommends itself by the consideration that תם and ישׁרים are cognate as to the ideas they represents-let one call to mind the common expression תּם וישׁר [perfect and upright, e.g., Job 1:1; Job 2:3], - that the same persons are meant thereby, and it is rendered necessary by this, that the thought, “bloody men hate the guiltless,” is incomplete; for the same thing may also be said of the godless in general. One expects to hear that just against the guiltless, i.e., men walking in their innocence, the bloody-mindedness of such men is specially directed, and 10b says the same thing; this second clause first brings the contrast to the point aimed at. Lutz is right in seeking to confute Hitzig, but he does so on striking grounds.

Verse 11

Pro 29:11 11 All his wrath the fool poureth out; But the wise man husheth it up in the background.
That רוּחו is not meant here of his spirit (Luther) in the sense of quaecunque in mente habet (thus e.g., Fleischer) the contrast shows, for ישׁבּחנּה does not signify cohibet, for which יחשׁכנּה (lxx ταμιεύεται) would be the proper word: רוּח thus is not here used of passionate emotion, such as at Pro 16:31; Isa 25:4; Isa 33:11. שׁבּח is not here equivalent to Arab. sabbah, αἰνεῖν (Imman., Venet., and Heidenheim), which does not supply an admissible sense, but is equivalent to Arab. sabbakh, to quiet (Ahron b. Josef: קטפיאון = καταπαύειν), the former going back to the root-idea of extending (amplificare), the latter to that of going to a distance, putting away: sabbakh, procul recessit, distitit, hence שׁבּח, Psa 89:10, and here properly to drive off into the background, synon. השׁיב (Fleischer). But בּאחור (only here with ב) is ambiguous. One might with Rashi explain: but the wise man finally, or afterwards (Symmachus, ἐπ ̓ ἐσχάτων; Venet. κατόπιν = κατόπισθε), appeaseth the anger which the fool lets loose; i.e., if the latter gives vent to his anger, the former appeases, subdues, mitigates it (cf. בּאחרנה, לאחור, Isa 42:23). But it lies still nearer to refer the antithesis to the anger of the wise man himself; he does not give to it unbridled course, but husheth it in the background, viz., in his heart. Thus Syr. and Targ. reading בּרעינא, the former, besides יחשּׁבנּה (reputat eam), so also Aben Ezra: in the heart as the background of the organ of speech. Others explain: in the background, afterward, retrorsum, e.g., Nolde, but to which compescit would be more appropriate than sedat. Hitzig's objection, that in other cases the expression would be בּקרבּו, is answered by this, that with באחור the idea of pressing back (of אחוּר) is connected. The order of the words also is in favour of the meaning in recessu (cordis). Irae dilatio mentis pacatio (according to an old proverb).

Verse 12

Pro 29:12 12 A ruler who listens to deceitful words, All his servants are godless.
They are so because they deceive him, and they become so; for instead of saying the truth which the ruler does not wish to hear, they seek to gain his favour by deceitful flatteries, misrepresentations, exaggerations, falsehoods. Audita rex quae praecipit lex. He does not do this, as the saying is, sicut rex ita grex (Sir. 10:2), in the sense of this proverb of Solomon.

Verse 13

Pro 29:13 13 The poor man and the usurer meet together - Jahve lighteneth the eyes of both.
A variation of Pro 22:2, according to which the proverb is to be understood in both of its parts. That אישׁ תּככים is the contrast of רשׁ, is rightly supposed in Temura 16b; but Rashi, who brings out here a man of moderate learning, and Saadia, a man of a moderate condition (thus also the Targ. גּברא מצעיא, after Buxtorf, homo mediocris fortunae), err by connecting the word with תּוך. The lxx δανειστοῦ καὶ χρεωφειλέτου (ἀλλήλοις συνελθόντων), which would be more correct inverted, for אישׁ תככים is a man who makes oppressive taxes, high previous payments of interest; the verbal stem תּכך, Arab. tak, is a secondary to R. wak, which has the meanings of pressing together, and pressing firm (whence also the middle is named; cf. Arab. samym âlaklab, the solid = the middle point of the heart). תּך, with the plur. תככים, scarcely in itself denotes interest, τόκος; the designation אישׁ תככים includes in it a sensible reproach (Syr. afflictor), and a rentier cannot be so called (Hitzig). Luther: Reiche [rich men], with the marginal note: “who can practise usury as they then generally all do?” Therefore Löwenstein understands the second line after 1Sa 2:7 : God enlighteneth their eyes by raising the lowly and humbling the proud. But this line, after Pro 22:2, only means that the poor as well as the rich owe the light of life (Psa 13:4) to God, the creator and ruler of all things - a fact which has also its moral side: both are conditioned by Him, stand under His control, and have to give to Him an account; or otherwise rendered: God maketh His sun to rise on the low and the high, the evil and the good (cf. Mat 5:45) - an all-embracing love full of typical moral motive.^[99]

Verse 14

Pro 29:14
14 A king who judgeth the poor with truth, His throne shall stand for ever. בּאמת, as at Isa 16:5 (synon. באמונה, במישׁרים, במישׁור), is equivalent to fidelity to duty, or a complete, full accomplishment of his duty as a ruler with reference to the dispensing of justice; in other words: after the norm of actual fact, and of the law, and of his duty proceeding from both together. מלך has in Codd., e.g., Jaman., and in the Venetian 1517, 21, rightly Rebia. In that which follows, שׁופט באמת are more closely related than באמת דלים, for of two conjunctives standing together the first always connects more than the second. מלך שׁופט באמת דלים is the truest representation of the logical grammatical relation. To 14b compare the proverb of the king, Pro 16:12; Pro 25:5.

Verse 15

A proverb with שׁבט, Pro 29:15, is placed next to one with שׁופט, but it begins a group of proverbs regarding discipline in the house and among the people: 15 The rod and reproof give wisdom; But an undisciplined son is a shame to his mother.
With שׁבט [a rod], which Pro 22:15 also commends as salutary, תּוכחת refers to discipline by means of words, which must accompany bodily discipline, and without them is also necessary; the construction of the first line follows in number and gender the scheme Pro 27:9, Zec 7:7; Ewald, §339c. In the second line the mother is named, whose tender love often degenerates into a fond indulgence; such a darling, such a mother's son, becomes a disgrace to his mother. Our “ausgelassen,” by which Hitzig translates משׁלּח, is used of joyfulness unbridled and without self-restraint, and is in the passage before us too feeble a word; שׁלּח is used of animals pasturing at liberty, wandering in freedom (Job 39:5; Isa 16:2); נער משׁלח is accordingly a child who is kept in by no restraint and no punishment, one left to himself, and thus undisciplined (Luther, Gesenius, Fleischer, and others).

Verse 16

Pro 29:16 16 When the godless increase, wickedness increaseth; But the righteous shall see their fall.
The lxx translation is not bad: πολλῶν ὄντων ἀσεβῶν πολλαὶ γίνονται ἁμαρτίαι (vid., regarding רבה, Pro 29:2, Pro 28:28); but in the main it is only a Binsenwahrheit, as they say in Swabia, i.e., a trivial saying. The proverb means, that if among a people the party of the godless increases in number, and at the same time in power, wickedness, i.e., a falling away into sins of thought and conduct, and therewith wickedness, prevails. When irreligion and the destruction of morals thus increase, the righteous are troubled; but the conduct of the godless carries the judgment in itself, and the righteous shall with joy perceive, in the righteous retribution of God, that the godless man will be cast down from his power and influence. This proverb is like a motto to Psa 12:1-8.

Verse 17

Pro 29:17 17 Correct thy son, and he will give thee delight, And afford pleasure to thy soul.
The lxx well translates ויניחך by καὶ ἀναπαύσει σε;^[100] הניח denotes rest properly, a breathing again, ἀνάψυξις; and then, with an obliteration of the idea of restraint so far, generally (like the Arab. araḥ, compared by Fleischer) to afford pleasure or delight. The post.-bibl. language uses for this the words נחת רוּח, and says of the pious that he makes נחת רוח to his Creator, Berachoth 17a; and of God, that He grants the same to them that fear Him, Berach. 29b; in the morning prayer of the heavenly spirits, that they hallow their Creator בנחת רוח (with inward delight). Write with Codd. (also Jaman.) and older editions ויניחך, not ויניחךּ; for, except in verbs 'ה'ל, the suffix of this Hiphil form is not dageshed, e.g., אמיתך, 1Ki 2:26; cf. also 1Ki 22:16 and Psa 50:8. מעדנּים the lxx understands, after 2Sa 1:24 (עם־עדנים, μετὰ κόσμου), also here, of ornament; but the word signifies dainty dishes - here, high spiritual enjoyment. As in Pro 29:15 and Pro 29:16 a transition was made from the house to the people, so there now follows the proverb of the discipline of children, a proverb of the education of the people:

Verse 18

Pro 29:18 18 Without a revelation a people becomes ungovernable; But he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
Regarding the importance of this proverb for estimating the relation of the Chokma to prophecy, vid., vol. i. p. 41. חזון is, according to the sense, equivalent to נבוּאה, the prophetic revelation in itself, and as the contents of that which is proclaimed. Without spiritual preaching, proceeding from spiritual experience, a people is unrestrained (יפּרע, vid., regarding the punctuation at Pro 28:25, and regarding the fundamental meaning, at Pro 1:25); it becomes פּרע, disorderly, Exo 32:25; wild und wüst, as Luther translates. But in the second line, according to the unity of the antithesis, the words are spoken of the people, not of individuals. It is therefore not to be explained, with Hitzig: but whoever, in such a time, nevertheless holds to the law, it is well with him! Without doubt this proverb was coined at a time when the preaching of the prophets was in vogue; and therefore this, “but whoever, notwithstanding,” is untenable; such a thought at that time could not at all arise; and besides this, תורה is in the Book of Proverbs a moveable conception, which is covered at least by the law in contradistinction to prophecy. Tôra denotes divine teaching, the word of God; whether that of the Sinaitic or that of the prophetic law (2Ch 15:3, cf. e.g., Isa 1:10). While, on the one hand, a people is in a dissolute condition when the voice of the preacher, speaking from divine revelation, and enlightening their actions and sufferings by God's word, is silent amongst them (Psa 74:9, cf. Amo 8:12); on the other hand, that same people are to be praised as happy when they show due reverence and fidelity to the word of God, both as written and as preached. That the word of God is preached among a people belongs to their condition of life; and they are only truly happy when they earnestly and willingly subordinate themselves to the word of God which they possess and have the opportunity of hearing. אשׁרהוּ (defective for אשׁריהוּ) is the older, and here the poetic kindred form to אשׁריו, Pro 14:21; Pro 16:20.

Verse 19

From the discipline of the people this series of proverbs again returns to the discipline of home: 19 With words a servant will not let himself be bettered; For he understandeth them, but conformeth not thereto.
The Niph. נוסר becomes a so-called tolerative, for it connects with the idea of happening that of reaching its object: to become truly bettered (taught in wisdom, corrected), and thus to let himself be bettered. With mere words this is not reached; the unreasonable servant needs, in order to be set right, a more radical means of deliverance. This assertion demands confirmation; therefore is the view of von Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 2. 404) improbable, that 19b has in view a better-disposed servant: supposing that he is intelligent, in which case he is admonished without cause, then the words are also lost: he will let them pass over him in silence without any reply. This attempted explanation is occasioned by this, that מענה can signify nothing else than a response in words. If this were correct, then without doubt its fundamental meaning would correspond with כּי; for one explains, with Löwenstein, “for he perceives it, and may not answer,” i.e., this, that a reply cut off frustrates the moral impression. Or also: for he understands it, but is silent - in praefractum se silentium configit (Schultens); and thus it is with the ancients (Rashi). But why should not ואין מענה itself be the expression of this want of any consequences? מענה cannot certainly mean humiliation^[101] (Meîri, after Exo 10:3, הכנעה), but why as an answer in words and not also a response by act (Stuart: a practical answer)? Thus the lxx ἐὰν γὰρ καὶ νοήσῃ, ἀλλ ̓ οὐχ ὑπακούσεται, according to which Luther: for although he at once understands it, he does not yet take it to himself. That מענה tahT . may mean obedience, the Aram. so understood, also at Pro 16:4. It denoted a reply in the most comprehensive meaning of the word, vid., at Pro 16:1. The thought, besides, is the same as if one were to explain: for he understands it, and is silent, i.e., lets thee speak; or: he understands it, but that which he perceives finds no practical echo.

Verse 20

Pro 29:20 20 Seest thou a man hasty in his words? The fool hath more hope than he.
Cf. Pro 26:12. Such an one has blocked up against himself the path to wisdom, which to the fool, i.e., to the ingenuous, stands open; the former is perfect, of the latter something may yet be made. In this passage the contrast is yet more precise, for the fool is thought of as the dull, which is the proper meaning of כּסיל, vid., under Pro 17:24. There is more hope for the fool than for him, although he may be no fool in himself, who overthrows himself by his words. “The προπετὴς ἐν λόγῳ αὐτοῦ (Sir. 9:18) has, in the existing case, already overleaped the thought; the כסיל has it still before him, and comes at length, perhaps with his slow conception, to it” (Hitzig); for the ass, according to the fable, comes at last farther than the greyhound. Hence, in words as well as in acts, the proverb holds good, “Eile mit Weile” [= festina lente]. Every word, as well as act, can only be matured by being thought out, and thought over. From this proverb, which finds its practical application to the affairs of a house, and particularly also to the relation to domestics, the group returns to the subject of instruction, which is its ground-tone.

Verse 21

Pro 29:21 21 If one pampers his servant from youth up, He will finally reach the place of a child.
The lxx had no answer to the question as to the meaning of מנון. On the other hand, for פּנּק, the meaning to fondle; delicatius enutrire, is perfectly warranted by the Aram. and Arab. The Talmud, Succa 52b, resorts to the alphabet בח״אט in order to reach a meaning for מנון. How the Targ. comes to translate the word by מנסּח (outrooted) is not clear; the rendering of Jerome: postea sentiet eum contumacem, is perhaps mediated by the ἔσται γογγυσμός of Symmachus, who combines נון with לון, Niph. γογγύζειν. The ὀθυνηθήσεται of the lxx, with the Syr., von Hofmann has sought to justify (Schriftbew. ii. 2. 404), for he derives מנון = מנהון from נהה. We must then punctuate מנּון; but perhaps the lxx derived the word from אנן = מאנון, whether they pronounced it מנון (cf. מסרת = מאסרת) or מנּון. To follow them is not wise, for the formation of the word is precarious; one does not see with the speaker of this proverb, to whom the language presented a fulness of synonyms for the idea of complaint, meant by using this peculiar word. Linguistically these meanings are impossible: of Jerome, dominus = ממנּה (Ahron b. Josef, Meîri, and others); or: the oppressed = מוּנה, from ינה (Johlson); or: one who is sick = מונה (Euchel). and Ewald's “undankbar” [unthankful], derived from the Arabic, is a mere fancy, since (Arab.) manuwan does not mean one who is unthankful, but, on the contrary, one who upbraids good deeds shown.^[102]
The ancients are in the right track, who explain מנון after the verb נוּן, Psa 72:17 = נין = בּן; the Venet., herein following Kimchi, also adopts the nominal form, for it translates (but without perceptible meaning) γόνωσις. Luther's translation is fortunate: “If a servant is tenderly treated from youth up,
He will accordingly become a Junker [squire].”
The ideas represented in modern Jewish translations: that of a son (e.g., Solomon: he will at last be the son) and that of a master (Zunz), are here united. But how the idea of a son (from the verb נון), at the same time that of a master, may arise, is not to be perceived in the same way as with Junker and the Spanish infante and hidalgo; rather with מנון, as the ironical naming of the son (little son), the idea of a weakling (de Wette) may be connected. The state of the matter appears as follows: - the Verb נוּן has the meanings of luxuriant growth, numerous propagation; the fish has from this the Aram. name of נוּן, like the Heb. דּג, from דּגה, which also means luxuriant, exuberant increase (vid., at Psa 72:17). From this is derived נין, which designates the offspring as a component part of a kindred, as well as מנון, which, according as the מ is interpreted infin. or local, means either this, that it sprouts up luxuriantly, the abundant growth, or also the place of luxuriant sprouting, wanton growing, abundant and quick multiplication: thus the place of hatching, spawning. The subject in יהיה might be the fondled one; but it lies nearer, however, to take him who fondles as the subject, as in 21a. אחריתו is either adv. accus. for באחריתו, or, as we preferred at Pro 23:32, it is the subj. introducing, after the manner of a substantival clause, the following sentence as its virtual predicate: “one has fondled his servant from his youth up, and his (that of the one who fondles) end is: he will become a place of increase.” The master of the house is thought of along with his house; and the servant as one who, having become a man, presents his master with ילידי בּית, who are spoilt scapegraces, as he himself has become by the pampering of his master. There was used in the language of the people, נין for בּן, in the sense on which we name a degenerate son a “Schönes Früchtchen” [pretty little fruit]; and מנון is a place (house) where many נינים are; and a man (master of a house) who has many of them is one whose family has increased over his head. One reaches the same meaning if מנון is rendered more immediately as the place or state of growing, increasing, luxuriating. The sense is in any case: he will not be able, in the end, any more to defend himself against the crowd which grows up to him from this his darling, but will be merely a passive part of it.

Verse 22

The following group begins with a proverb which rhymes by מדון, with מנון of the foregoing, and extends on to the end of this Hezekiah collection: 22 A man of anger stirreth up strife; And a passionate man aboundeth in transgression.
Line first is a variation of Pro 15:18 and Pro 28:25. אישׁ and בּעל as here, but in the reverse order at Pro 22:24.^[103] אף here means anger, not the nose, viz., the expanded nostrils (Schultens). In רב־פּשׁע the פשׁע is, after Pro 14:29; Pro 28:16; Pro 20:27, the governed genitive; Hitzig construes it in the sense of פשׁע רב, Psa 19:2, with יגרה, but one does not say גּרה פשׁע; and that which is true of רבּים, that, after the manner of a numeral, it can precede its substantive (vid., under Ps. 7:26; Psa 89:51), cannot be said of רב. Much (great) in wickedness denotes one who heaps up many wicked actions, and burdens himself with greater guilt (cf. פשׁע, Pro 29:16). The wrathful man stirreth up (vid., under Pro 15:18) strife, for he breaks through the mutual relations of men, which rest on mutual esteem and love, and by means of his passionate conduct he makes enemies of those against whom he thinks that he has reason for being angry; that on account of which he is angry can be settled without producing such hostility, but passion impels him on, and misrepresents the matter; it embitters hearts, and tears them asunder. The lxx has, instead of רב, ἐξώρυξεν, of dreaming, כרה (Pro 16:27).

Verse 23

Pro 29:23 passes from anger to haughtiness:
A man's pride will bring him low;
But the lowly attaineth to honour.
Thus we translate תּתמך כּבוד (Lat. honorem obtinet) in accord with Pro 11:16, and שׁפל־רוּח with Pro 16:19, where, however, שׁפל is not adj. as here, but inf. The haughty man obscures the honour which he has by this, that he boasts immeasurably of it, and aspires yet more after it; the lowly man, on the other hand, obtains honour without his seeking it, honour before God and before men, which would be of no worth were it not connected with the honour before God. The lxx: τοὺς δὲ ταπεινόφρονας ἐπείδει δόξῃ κύριους. This κύριους is indeed not contrary to the sense, but it is opposed to the style. Why the 24th verse should now follow is, as regards the contents and the expression, hard to say; but one observes that Pro 29:22-27 follow each other, beginning with the successive letters of the alphabet א (ב), ג, ח, ח, ר, ת (ת).

Verse 24

Pro 29:24 24 He that taketh part with a thief hateth himself; He heareth the oath and confesseth not.
Hitzig renders the first member as the pred. of the second: “he who does not bring to light such sins as require an atonement (Lev 5:1.), but shares the secret of them with the sinner, is not better than one who is a partner with a thief, who hateth himself.” The construction of the verse, he remarks, is not understood by any interpreter. It is not, however, so cross, - for, understood as Hitzig thinks it ought to be, the author should have expressed the subject by שׁמע אלה ולא יגיד, - but is simple as the order of the words and the verbal form require it. The oath is, after Lev 5:1, that of the judge who adjures the partner of the thief by God to tell the truth; but he conceals it, and burdens his soul with a crime worthy of death, for from a concealer he becomes in addition a perjured man.

Verse 25

Pro 29:25 25 Fear of man bringeth a snare with it; But he that trusteth in Jahve is advanced.
It sounds strange, Hitzig remarks, that here in the Book of an Oriental author one should be warned against the fear of man. It is enough, in reply to this, to point to Isa 51:12. One of the two translations in the lxx (cf. Jerome and Luther) has found this “strange” thought not so strange as not to render it, and that in the gnomic aorist: φοβηθέντες καὶ αἰσχυνθέντες ἀνθρώπους ὑπεσκελίσθησαν. And why should not חרדּת אדם be able to mean the fear of man (cowardice)? Perhaps not so that אדם is the gen. objecti, but so that חרדת אדם means to frighten men, as in 1Sa 14:15. חרדת אלהים, a trembling of God; cf. Psa 64:2; פחד איב, the fear occasioned by the enemy, although this connection, after Deu 2:25, can also mean fear of the enemy (gen. objecti). To יתּן, occasioned = brings as a consequence with it, cf. Pro 10:10; Pro 13:15; the synallage generis is as at Pro 12:25 : it is at least strange with fem. infinit. and infinitival nouns, Pro 16:16; Pro 25:14; Psa 73:28; but חרדּה (trembling) is such a nom. actionis, Ewald, §238a. Regarding ישׂגּב (for which the lxx.1 σωθήσεται, and lxx2 εὐφρανθήσεται = ישׂמח), vid., at Pro 18:10. He who is put into a terror by a danger with which men threaten him, so as to do from the fear of man what is wrong, and to conceal the truth, falls thereby into a snare laid by himself - it does not help him that by this means he has delivered himself from the danger, for he brands himself as a coward, and sins against God, and falls into an agony of conscience (reproach and anguish of heart) which is yet worse to bear than the evil wherewith he was threatened. It is only confidence in God that truly saves. The fear of man plunges him into yet greater suffering than that from which he would escape; confidence in God, on the other hand, lifts a man internally, and at last externally, above all his troubles.

Verse 26

A similar gen. connection to that between חרדת אדם exists between משׁפט־אישׁ:
Many seek the countenance of the ruler;
Yet from Jahve cometh the judgment of men.
Line first is a variation of Pro 19:6, cf. 1Ki 10:24. It lies near to interpret אישׁ as gen. obj.: the judgment regarding any one, i.e., the estimating of the man, the decision regarding him; and it is also possible, for משׁפּטי, Psa 17:2, may be understood of the judgment which I have, as well as of the judgment pronounced regarding me (cf. Lam 3:59). But the usage appears to think of the genit. after משׁפט always as subjective, e.g., Pro 16:33, of the decision which the lot brings, Job 36:6, the right to which the poor have a claim; so that thus in the passage before us משׁפט־אשׁ means the right of a man, as that which is proper or fitting to him, the judgment of a man, as that to which as appropriate he has a claim (lxx τὸ δίκαιον ἀνδρί). Whether the genit. be rendered in the one way or the other, the meaning remains the same: it is not the ruler who finally decides the fate and determines the worth of a man, as they appear to think who with eye-service court his favour and fawn upon him.

Verse 27

Pro 29:27 27 An abomination to a righteous man is a villanous man; And an abomination to the godless is he who walketh uprightly.
In all the other proverbs which begin with תועבת, e.g., Pro 11:20, יהוה follows as genit., here צדּיקים, whose judgment is like that of God. אישׁ עול is an abhorrence to them, not as a man, but just as of such a character; עול is the direct contrast to ישׁר. The righteous sees in the villanous man, who boldly does that which is opposed to morality and to honour, an adversary of his God; on the other hand, the godless sees in the man that walketh uprightly (ישׁר־דּרך, as at Psa 37:14) his adversary, and the condemnation of himself.
With this doubled ת the Book of Proverbs, prepared by the men of Hezekiah, comes to an end. It closes, in accordance with its intention announced at the beginning, with a proverb concerning the king, and a proverb of the great moral contrasts which are found in all circles of society up to the very throne itself.

Chap. 30

Verse 1

The title of this first appendix, according to the text lying before us, is: “The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the utterance.”
This title of the following collection of proverbs is limited by Olewejored; and המּשּׂא, separated from the author's name by Rebia, is interpreted as a second inscription, standing on one line with דּברי, as particularizing that first. The old synagogue tradition which, on the ground of the general title Pro 1:1, regarded the whole Book of Proverbs as the work of Solomon, interpreted the words, “Agur the son of Jakeh,” as an allegorical designation of Solomon, who appropriated the words of the Tôra to the king, Deu 17:17, and again rejected them, for he said: God is with me, and I shall not do it (viz., take many wives, without thereby suffering injury), Schemôth rabba, c. 6. The translation of Jerome: Verba congregantis filii Vomentis, is the echo of this Jewish interpretation. One would suppose that if “Agur” were Solomon's name, “Jakeh” must be that of David; but another interpretation in Midrash Mishle renders בן (“son”) as the designation of the bearer of a quality, and sees in “Agur” one who girded (אגר = חגר) his loins for wisdom; and in “son of Jakeh” one free from sin (חטא ועון נקי מכל). In the Middle Ages this mode of interpretation, which is historically and linguistically absurd, first began to prevail; for then the view was expressed by several (Aben Ezra, and Meîri the Spaniard) that Agur ben Jakeh was a wise man of the time of Solomon. That of Solomon's time, they thence conclude (blind to Pro 25:1) that Solomon collected together these proverbs of the otherwise unknown wise man. In truth, the age of the man must remain undecided; and at all events, the time of Hezekiah is the fixed period from which, where possible, it is to be sought. The name “Agur” means the gathered (Pro 6:8; Pro 10:5), or, after the predominant meaning of the Arab. âjar, the bribed, mercede conductum; also the collector (cf. יקוּשׁ, fowler); or the word might mean, perhaps, industrious in collecting (cf. 'alwaḳ, attached to, and other examples in Mühlau, p. 36). Regarding בּן = binj (usual in בּן־נּוּן), and its relation to the Arab. ibn, vid., Genesis, p. 555. The name Jakeh is more transparent. The noun יקהה, Pro 30:17; Gen 49:10, means the obedient, from the verb יקהּ; but, formed from this verbal stem, the form of the word would be יקהּ (not יקה). The form יקה is the participial adj. from יקה, like יפה from יפה; and the Arab. waḳay, corresponding to this יקה, viii. ittaḳay, to be on one's guard, particularly before God; the usual word fore piety regarded as εὐλάβεια. Mühlau (p. 37) rightly sees in the proper names Eltekeh [[[Bible_(King_James)/Joshua|Jos 19:44]]] and Eltekon [[[Bible_(King_James)/Joshua|Jos 15:59]]] the secondary verbal stem תּקה, which, like e.g., תּוה (תּאה), תּאב, עתד, has originated from the reflexive, which in these proper names, supposing that אל is subj., means to take under protection; not: to give heed = cavere. All these meanings are closely connected. In all these three forms - יקהּ, יקה, תּקה - the verb is a synonym of שׁמר; so that יקה denotes^[104] the pious, either as taking care, εὐλαβής, or as keeping, i.e., observing, viz., that which is commanded by God.
In consequence of the accentuation, המשּׂא is the second designation of this string of proverbs, and is parallel with דברי. But that is absolutely impossible. משּׂא (from נשׂא, to raise, viz., the voice, to begin to express) denotes the utterance, and according to the usage of the words before us, the divine utterance, the message of God revealed to the prophet and announced by him, for the most part, if not always (vid., at Isa 13:1), the message of God as the avenger. Accordingly Jewish interpreters (e.g., Meîri and Arama) remark that משׂא designates what follows, as דבר נבוּאיּי, i.e., an utterance of the prophetic spirit. But, on the other hand, what follows begins with the confession of human weakness and short-sightedness; and, moreover, we read proverbs not of a divine but altogether of a human and even of a decaying spiritual stamp, besides distinguished from the Solomonic proverbs by this, that the I of the poet, which remains in the background, here comes to the front. This משׂא of prophetic utterances does not at all harmonize with the following string of proverbs. It does not so harmonize on this account, because one theme does not run through these proverbs which the sing. משׂא requires. It comes to this, that משׂא never occurs by itself in the sense of a divine, a solemn utterance, without having some more clearly defining addition, though it should be only a demonstrative הזּה (Isa 14:28). But what author, whether poet or prophet, would give to his work the title of משׂא, which in itself means everything, and thus nothing! And now: the utterance - what can the article at all mean here? This question has remained unanswered by every interpreter. Ewald also sees himself constrained to clothe the naked word; he does it by reading together המשׂא נאם, and translating the “sublime saying which he spoke.” But apart from the consideration that Jer 23:31 proves nothing for the use of this use of נאם, the form (הגבר) נאם is supported by 2Sa 23:1 (cf. Pro 30:5 with 2Sa 22:31); and besides, the omission of the אשׁר, and in addition of the relative pronoun (נאמו), would be an inaccuracy not at all to be expected on the brow of this gnomology (vid., Hitzig). If we leave the altogether unsuspected נאם undisturbed, המשׂא will be a nearer definition of the name of the author. The Midrash has a right suspicion, for it takes together Hamassa and Agur ben Jakeh, and explains: of Agur the son of Jakeh, who took upon himself the yoke of the most blessed. The Graecus Venetus comes nearer what is correct, for it translates: λόγοι Ἀγούρου υἱέως Ἰακέως τοῦ Μασάου. We connect Pro 31:1, where למוּאל מלך, “Lemuel (the) king,” is a linguistic impossibility, and thus, according to the accentuation lying before us, מלך משּׂא also are to be connected together; thus it appears that משׂא must be the name of a country and a people. It was Hitzig who first made this Columbus-egg to stand. But this is the case only so far as he recognised in למואל מלך משׂא a Lemuel, the king of Massa, and recognised this Massa also in Pro 30:1 (vid., his dissertation: Das Königreich Massa [the kingdom of Massa], in Zeller's Theolog. Jahrbb. 1844, and his Comm.), viz., the Israelitish Massa named in Gen 25:14 (= 1Ch 1:30) along with Dumah and Tema. But he proceeds in a hair-splitting way, and with ingenious hypothesis, without any valid foundation. That this Dumah is the Dumat el-jendel (cf. under Isa 21:11) lying in the north of Nejed, near the southern frontiers of Syria, the name and the founding of which is referred by the Arabians to Dûm the son of Ishmael, must be regarded as possible, and consequently Massa is certainly to be sought in Northern Arabia. But if, on the ground of 1Ch 4:42., he finds there a Simeonitic kingdom, and finds its origin in this, that the tribe of Simeon originally belonging to the ten tribes, and thus coming from the north settled in the south of Judah, and from thence in the days of Hezekiah, fleeing before the Assyrians, were driven farther and farther in a south-east direction towards Northern Arabia; on the contrary, it has been shown by Graf (The Tribe of Simeon, a contribution to the history of Israel, 1866) that Simeon never settled in the north of the Holy Land, and according to existing evidences extended their settlement from Negeb partly into the Idumean highlands, but not into the highlands of North Arabia. Hitzig thinks that there are found traces of the Massa of Agur and Lemuel in the Jewish town^[105] of טילמאס, of Benjamin of Tudela, lying three days' journey from Chebar, and in the proper name (Arab.) Malsā (smooth), which is given to a rock between Tema and Wady el-Kora (vid., Kosegarten's Chestom. p. 143); but how notched his ingenuity here is need scarcely be shown. By means of more cautious combinations Mühlau has placed the residence of Agur and Lemuel in the Hauran mountain range, near which there is a Dumah, likewise a Têmâ; and in the name of the town Mismîje, lying in the Lejâ, is probably found the Mishma which is named along with Massa, Gen 25:14; and from this that is related in 1Ch 5:9., 1Ch 5:18-22, of warlike expeditions on the part of the tribes lying on the east of the Jordan against the Hagarenes and their allies Jetur, Nephish, and Nodab,^[106] it is with certainty concluded that in the Hauran, and in the wilderness which stretches behind the Euphrates towards it, Israelitish tribes have had their abode, whose territory had been early seized by the trans-Jordanic tribes, and was held “until the captivity,” 1Ch 5:22, i.e., till the Assyrian deportation. This designation of time is almost as unfavourable to Mühlau's theory of a Massa in the Hauran, inhabited by Israelitish tribes from the other side, as the expression “to Mount Seir” (1Ch 4:42) is to Hitzig's North Arabian Massa inhabited by Simeonites. We must leave it undecided whether Dumah and Têmâ, which the Toledoth of Ismael name in the neighbourhood of Massa, are the east Hauran districts now existing; or as Blau (Deut. Morgl. Zeit. xxv. 539), with Hitzig, supposes, North Arabian districts (cf. Genesis. p. 377, 4th ed.).^[107] “Be it as it may, the contents and the language of this difficult piece almost necessarily point to a region bordering on the Syro-Arabian waste. Ziegler's view (Neue Uebers. der Denksprüche Salomo's, 1791, p. 29), that Lemuel was probably an emir of an Arabian tribe in the east of Jordan, and that a wise Hebrew translated those proverbs of the emir into Hebrew, is certainly untenable, but does not depart so far from the end as may appear at the first glance” (Mühlau).^[108]
If the text-punctuation lying before us rests on the false supposition that Massa, Pro 30:1; Pro 31:1, is a generic name, and not a proper name, then certainly the question arises whether משׂא should not be used instead of משּׂא, much more משׂא, which is suggested as possible in the article “Sprüche,” in Herzog's Encycl. xiv. 694. Were משׁא, Gen 10:30, the region Μεσήνη, on the northern border of the Persian Gulf, in which Apamea lay, then it might be said in favour of this, that as the histories of Muhammed and of Benjamin of Tudela prove the existence of an old Jewish occupation of North Arabia, but without anything being heard of a משּׂא, the Talmud bears testimony^[109] to a Jewish occupation of Mesene, and particularly of Apamea; and by the mother of Lemuel, the king of Mesha, one may think^[110] of Helena, celebrated in Jewish writings, queen of Adiabene, the mother of Monabaz and Izates. But the identity of the Mesha of the catalogue of nations with Μεσήνη is uncertain, and the Jewish population of that place dates at least from the time of the Sassanides to the period of the Babylonian exile. We therefore hold by the Ishmaelite Massa, whether North Arabian or Hauranian; but we by no means subscribe Mühlau's non possumus non negare, Agurum et Lemuëlem proseytos e paganis, non Israelitas fuisse. The religion of the tribes descended from Abraham, so far as it had not degenerated, was not to be regarded as idolatrous. It was the religion which exists to the present day among the great Ishmaelite tribes of the Syrian desert as the true tradition of their fathers under the name of Dîn Ibrâhîm (Abraham's religion); which, as from Wetzstein, we have noted in the Commentary on Job (p. 387 and elsewhere), continues along with Mosaism among the nomadic tribes of the wilderness; which shortly before the appearance of Christianity in the country beyond the Jordan, produced doctrines coming into contact with the teachings of the gospel; which at that very time, according to historic evidences (e.g., Mêjâsinî's chronicles of the Ka'be), was dominant even in the towns of Higâz; and in the second century after Christ, was for the first time during the repeated migration of the South Arabians again oppressed by Greek idolatry, and was confined to the wilderness; which gave the mightiest impulse to the rise of Islam, and furnished its best component part; and which towards the end of the last century, in the country of Neged, pressed to a reform of Islam, and had as a result the Wahabite doctrine. If we except Pro 30:5., the proverbs of Agur and Lemuel contain nothing which may not be conceived from a non-Israelitish standpoint on which the author of the Book of Job placed himself. Even Job 30:5. is not there (cf. Job 6:10; Job 23:12) without parallels. When one compares Deu 4:2; Deu 13:1, and 2Sa 22:31 = Psa 18:31 (from which Pro 30:5 of the proverbs of Agur is derived, with the change of יהוה into אלוהּ), Agur certainly appears as one intimately acquainted with the revealed religion of Israel, and with their literature. But must we take the two Massites therefore, with Hitzig, Mühlau, and Zöckler, as born Israelites? Since the Bible history knows no Israelitish king outside of the Holy Land, we regard it as more probable that King Lemuel and his countryman Agur were Ishmaelites who had raised themselves above the religion of Abraham, and recognised the religion of Israel as its completion.
If we now return to the words of Pro 30:1, Hitzig makes Agur Lemuel's brother, for he vocalizes אגוּר בּן־יקההּ משּׂא, i.e., Agur the son of her whom Massa obeys. Ripa and Björck of Sweden, and Stuart of America, adopt this view. But supposing that יקהּ is connected with the accusative of him who is obeyed, בן, as the representative of such an attributive clause, as of its virtual genitive, is elsewhere without example; and besides, it is unadvisable to explain away the proper name יקה, which speaks for itself. There are two other possibilities of comprehending המּשּׁא, without the change, or with the change of a single letter. Wetzstein, on Pro 31:1, has said regarding Mühlau's translation “King of Massa:” “I would more cautiously translate, 'King of the Massans,' since this interpretation is unobjectionable; while, on the contrary, this is not terra Massa, nor urbs Massa. It is true that the inhabitants of Massa were not pure nomads, after 30 and 31, but probably, like the other tribes of Israel, they were half nomads, who possessed no great land as exclusive property, and whose chief place did not perhaps bear their name. The latter may then have been as rare in ancient times as it is in the present day. Neither the Sammar, the Harb, the Muntefik, nor other half nomads whom I know in the southern parts of the Syrian desert, have any place which bears their name. So also, it appears, the people of Uz (עוץ), which we were constrained to think of as a dominant, firmly-settled race, since it had so great a husbandman as Job, possessed no קרית עוּץ. Only in certain cases, where a tribe resided for many centuries in and around a place, does the name of this tribe appear to have remained attached to it. Thus from גוּף דּוּמה, 'the low-country of the Dumahns,' or קרית דּוּמה, 'the city of Dumahns,' as also from קרית תּימא, 'the city of the Temans,' gradually there arose (probably not till the decline and fall of this tribe) a city of Dumah, a haven of Midian, and the like, so that the primary meaning of the name came to be lost.” It is clear that, from the existence of an Ishmaelite tribe משּׂא, there does not necessarily follow a similar name given to a region. The conj. ממּשּׂא, for המשּׂא (vid., Herzog's Encycl. xiv. 702), has this against it, that although it is good Heb., it directly leads to this conclusion (e.g., 2Sa 23:20, 2Sa 23:29, cf. 1Ki 17:1). Less objectionable is Bunsen's and Böttcher's המּשּׂאי. But perhaps המשׂא may also have the same signification; far rather at least this than that which Malbim, after השּׂר המשּׂא, 1Ch 15:27, introduced with the lxx ἄρχων τῶν ᾠδῶν: “We ought then to compare 2Sa 23:24, דודו בּית לחם, a connection in which, after the analogy of such Arabic connections as ḳaysu'aylana, Kais of the tribe of ‘Ailân (Ibn Coteiba, 13 and 83), or Ma'nu Ṭayyin, Ma'n of the tribe of Tay, i.e., Ma'n belonging to this tribe, as distinguished from other men and families of this name (Schol. Hamasae 144. 3), בית לחם is thought of as genit”^[111] (Mühlau). That בית לחם (instead of בּית הלּחמי) is easily changed, with Thenius and Wellhausen, after 1Ch 11:26, into מבּית לחם, and in itself it is not altogether homogeneous, because without the article. Yet it may be supposed that instead of משׂא, on account of the appelat. of the proper name (the lifting up, elatio), the word המשׂא might be also employed. And since בן־יקה, along with אגור, forms, as it were, one compositum, and does not at all destroy^[112] the regulating force of אגור, the expression is certainly, after the Arabic usus loq., to be thus explained: The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, of the tribe (the country) of Massa.
The second line of this verse, as it is punctuated, is to be rendered:
The saying of the man to Ithîel, to Ithîel and Uchal, not Ukkal; for, since Athias and van der Hooght, the incorrect form ואכּל has become current. J. H. Michaelis has the right form of the word ואכל. Thus, with כ raphatum, it is to be read after the Masora, for it adds to this word the remark לית וחסר, and counts it among the forty-eight words sometimes written defectively without ו (vid., this list in the Masora finalis, 27b, Col); and since it only remarks the absence of the letter lengthening the word where no dagesh follows the vocal, it thus supposes that the כ has no dagesh, as it is also found in Codd. (also Jaman.) written with the Raphe. לאיתיאל is doubly accentuated; the Tarcha represents the Metheg, after the rule Thorath Emeth, p. 11. The ל after נאם is, in the sense of the punctuation, the same dat. as in לאדני, Psa 110:1, and has an apparent right in him who asks כּי תדע in the 4th verse. Ithîel and Uchal must be, after an old opinion, sons, or disciples, or contemporaries, of Agur. Thus, e.g., Gesenius, in his Lex. under איתיאל, where as yet his reference to Neh 11:7 is wanting. איתיאל is rendered by Jefet and other Karaites, “there is a God” = איתי אל; but it is perhaps equivalent to אתּי אל, “God is with me;” as for אתּי rof sa ”;e, the form איתי is also found. אכל (אכל) nowhere occurs as a proper name; but in the region of proper names, everything, or almost everything, is possible.^[113]
Ewald sees in 1b-14 a dialogue: in Pro 30:2-4 the הגּבר, i.e., as the word appears to him, the rich, haughty mocker, who has worn out his life, speaks; and in Pro 30:5-14 the “Mitmirgott” [= God with me], or, more fully, “Mitmirgott-sobinichstark” [= God with me, so am I strong], i.e., the pious, humble man answers. “The whole,” he remarks, “is nothing but poetical; and it is poetical also that this discourse of mockery is called an elevated strain.” But (1) גּבר is a harmless word; and in נאם הגּבר, Num 24:3, Num 24:15; 2Sa 23:1, it is a solemn, earnest one; (2) a proper name, consisting of two clauses connected by Vav, no matter whether it be an actual or a symbolical name, is not capable of being authenticated; Ewald, §274b, recognises in 'גּדּלתּי וגו, 1Ch 25:4, the naming, not of one son of Heman, but of two; and (3) it would be a very forced, inferior poetry if the poet placed one half of the name in one line, and then, as if constrained to take a new breath, gave the other half of it in a second line. But, on the other hand, that איתיאל and אכל are the names of two different persons, to whom the address of the man is directed, is attested by the, in this case aimless, anadiplosis, the here unpoetical parallelism with reservation. The repetition, as Fleischer remarks, of the name Ithîel, which may rank with Uchal, as the son or disciple of Agur, has probably its reason only as this, that one placed a second more extended phrase simply along with the shorter. The case is different; but Fleischer's supposition, that the poet himself cannot have thus written, is correct. We must not strike out either of the two לאיתיאל; but the supposed proper names must be changed as to their vocalization into a declaratory clause. A principal argument lies in Pro 30:2, beginning with כּי: this כי supposes a clause which it established; for, with right, Mühlau maintains that כי, in the affirmative sense, which, by means of aposiopesis, proceeds from the confirmative, may open the conclusion and enter as confirmatory into the middle of the discourse (e.g., Isa 32:13), but cannot stand abruptly at the commencement of a discourse (cf. under Isa 15:1 and Isa 7:9). But if we now ask how it is to be vocalized, there comes at the same time into the sphere of investigation the striking phrase נאם הגּבר. This phrase all the Greek interpreters attest by their rendering, τάδε λέγει ὁ ἀνήρ (Venet. φησὶν ἀνήρ); besides, this is to be brought forward from the wilderness of the old attempts at a translation, that the feeling of the translators strives against the recognition in ואכל of a second personal name: the Peshito omits it; the Targ. translates it, after the Midrash, by ואוּכל (I may do it); as Theodotion, καὶ δυνήσομαι, which is probably also meant by the καὶ συνήσομαι (from συνείναι, to be acquainted with) of the Venet.; the lxx with καὶ παύομαι; and Aquila, καὶ τέλεσον (both from the verb כלה). As an objection to נאם הגבר is this, that it is so bald without being followed, as at Num 24:3, Num 24:15; 2Sa 23:1, with the attributive description of the man. Luther was determined thereby to translate: discourse of the man Leithiel.... And why could not לאיתיאל be a proper-name connection like שׁאלתּיאל (שׁלתּיאל)? Interpreted in the sense of “I am troubled concerning God,” is might be a symbolical name of the φιλόσοφος, as of one who strives after the knowledge of divine things with all his strength. But (1) לאה, with the accus. obj., is not established, and one is rather inclined to think of a name such as כּליתיאל, after Psa 84:3; (2) moreover, לאיתיאל cannot be at one time a personal name, and at another time a declarative sentence - one must both times transform it into לאיתי אל; but אל has to be taken as a vocative, not as accus., as is done by J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Bunsen, Zöckler, and others, thus: I have wearied myself, O God!... The nakedness of הגבר is accordingly not covered by the first Leithiel. Mühlau, in his work, seeks to introduce המשׂא changed into ממשׂא: “The man from Massa,” and prefers to interpret הגבר generically:^[114] “proverb (confession) of the man (i.e., the man must confess): I have wearied myself, O God!...” Nothing else in reality remains. The article may also be retrospective: the man just now named, whose “words” are announced, viz., Agur. But why was not the expression נאם אגור then used? Because it is not poetical to say: “the (previously named) man.” On the other hand, what follows applies so that one may understand, under הגבר, any man you choose. There are certainly among men more than too many who inquire not after God (Psa 14:2.). But there are also not wanting those who feel sorrowfully the distance between them and God. Agur introduces such a man as speaking, for he generalizes his own experience. Psa 36:2 (vid., under this passage) shows that a proper name does not necessarily follow נאם. With נאם הגבר Agur then introduces what the man has to confess - viz. a man earnestly devoted to God; for with נאם the ideas of that which comes from the heart and the solemnly earnest are connected. If Agur so far generalizes his own experience, the passionate anadiplosis does not disturb this. After long contemplation of the man, he must finally confess: I have troubled myself, O God! I have troubled myself, O God!... That the trouble was directed toward God is perhaps denoted by the alliteration of לאיתי with אל. But what now, further? ואכל is read as ואכל, ואכל, ואכל, ואכל, ואכל, and it has also been read as ואכל. The reading ואכל no one advocates; this that follows says the direct contrary, et potui (pollui). Geiger (Urschrift, p. 61) supports the reading ואכל, for he renders it interrogatively: “I wearied myself in vain about God, I wearied myself in vain about God; why should I be able to do it?” But since one may twist any affirmative clause in this way, and from a yes make a no, one should only, in cases of extreme necessity, consent to such a question in the absence of an interrogative word. Böttcher's לאיתי אל, I have wearied myself out in vain, is not Hebrew. But at any rate the expression might be אל־אכל, if only the Vav did not stand between the words! If one might transpose the letters, then we might gain ולא אכל, according to which the lxx translates: οὐ δυνήσομαι. At all events, this despairing as to the consequence of further trouble, “I shall be able to do nothing (shall bring it to nothing),” would be better than ואכל (and I shall withdraw - become faint), for which, besides, ואכלה should be used (cf. Pro 22:8 with Job 33:21). One expects, after לאיתי, the expression of that which is the consequence of earnest and long-continued endeavour. Accordingly Hitzig reads ואכל, and I have become dull - suitable to the sense, but unsatisfactory on this account, because כּלל, in the sense of the Arab. kall, hebescere, is foreign to the Heb. usus loq. Thus ואכל will be a fut. consec. of כלה. J. D. Michaelis, and finally Böttcher, read it as fut. consec. Piel ואכל or ואכל (vid., regarding this form in pause under Pro 25:9), “and I have made an end;” but it is not appropriate to the inquirer here complaining, when dissatisfaction with his results had determined him to abandon his research, and let himself be no more troubled. We therefore prefer to read with Dahler, and, finally, with Mühlau and Zöckler, ואכל, and I have withdrawn. The form understood by Hitzig as a pausal form is, in the unchangeableness of its vocals, as accordant with rule as those of יחד, Pro 27:17, which lengthen the a of their first syllables in pause. And if Hitzig objects that too much is said, for one of such meditation does not depart, we answer, that if the inquiry of the man who speaks here has completed itself by the longing of his spirit and his soul (Psa 84:3; Psa 143:7), he might also say of himself, in person, כליתי or ואכל. An inquiry proceeding not merely from intellectual, but, before all, from practical necessity, is meant - the doubled לאיתי means that he applied thereto the whole strength of his inner and his outer man; and ואכל, that he nevertheless did not reach his end, but wearied himself in vain. By this explanation which we give to 1a, no change of its accents is required; but 1b has to be written: נאם הגּבר לאיתי אל לאיתי אל ואכל^[115]

Verses 2-3

The כי now following confirms the fruitlessness of the long zealous search: 2 For I am without reason for a man, And a man's understanding I have not. 3 And I have not learned wisdom, That I may possess the knowledge of the All-Holy.
He who cannot come to any fixed state of consecration, inasmuch as he is always driven more and more back from the goal he aims at, thereby brings guilt upon himself as a sinner so great, that every other man stands above him, and he is deep under them all. So here Agur finds the reason why in divine things he has failed to attain unto satisfying intelligence, not in the ignorance and inability common to all men - he appears to himself as not a man at all, but as an irrational beast, and he misses in himself the understanding which a man properly might have and ought to have. The מן of מאישׁ is not the partitive, like Isa 44:11, not the usual comparative: than any one (Böttcher), which ought to be expressed by מכּל־אישׁ, but it is the negative, as Isa 52:14; Fleischer: rudior ego sum quam ut homo appeller, or: brutus ego, hominis non similis. Regarding בּער, vid., under Pro 12:1.^[116]
Pro 30:3 now says that he went into no school of wisdom, and for that reason in his wrestling after knowledge could attain to nothing, because the necessary conditions to this were wanting to him. But then the question arises: Why this complaint? He must first go to school in order to obtain, according to the word “To him who hath is given,” that for which he strove. Thus למדתּי refers to learning in the midst of wrestling; but למד, spiritually understood, signifies the acquiring of a kennens [knowledge] or könnens [knowledge = ability]: he has not brought it out from the deep point of his condition of knowledge to make wisdom his own, so that he cannot adjudge to himself knowledge of the all-holy God (for this knowledge is the kernel and the star of true wisdom). If we read 3b לא אדע, this would be synchronistic, nesciebam, with למדתי standing on the same line. On the contrary, the positive אדע subordinates itself to ולא־למדתי, as the Arab. fâa' lama, in the sense of (ita) ut scirem scientiam Sanctissimi, thus of a conclusion, like Lam 1:19, a clause expressive of the intention, Ewald, §347a. קדשׁים is, as at Pro 9:10, the name of God in a superlative sense, like the Arab. el-kuddûs.

Verse 4

Pro 30:4 4 Who hath ascended to the heavens and descended? Who hath grasped the wind in his fists? Who hath bound up the waters in a garment? Who hath set right all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what his son's name, if thou knowest?
The first question here, 'מי וגו, is limited by Pazer; עלה־שׁמים has Metheg in the third syllable before the tone. The second question is at least shut off by Pazer, but, contrary to the rule, that Pazer does not repeat itself in a verse; Cod. Erfurt. 2, and several older editions, have for בחפניו more correctly בחפניו with Rebia. So much for the interpunction. חפנים are properly not the two fists, for the fist - that is, the hand gathered into a ball, pugnus - is called אגרף; while, on the contrary, חפן (in all the three dialects) denotes the palm of the hand, vola (vid., Lev 16:12); yet here the hands are represented after they have seized the thing as shut, and thus certainly as fists. The dual points to the dualism of the streams of air produced by the disturbance of the equilibrium; he who rules this movement has, as it were, the north or east wind in one first, and the south or west wind in the other, to let it forth according to his pleasure from this prison (Isa 24:22). The third question is explained by Job 26:8; the שׂמלה (from שׂמל, comprehendere) is a figure of the clouds which contain the upper waters, as Job 38:37, the bottles of heaven. “All the ends of the earth” are as at five other places, e.g., Psa 22:28, the most distant, most remote parts of the earth; the setting up of all these most remote boundaries (margines) of the earth is equivalent to the making fast and forming the limits to which the earth extends (Psa 74:17), the determining of the compass of the earth and the form of its figures. כּי תדע is in symphony with Job 38:5, cf. Job 38:18. The question is here formed as it is there, when Jahve brings home to the consciousness of Job human weakness and ignorance. But there are here two possible significations of the fourfold question. Either it aims at the answer: No man, but a Being highly exalted above all creatures, so that the question מה־שּׁמו [what his name?] refers to the name of this Being. Or the question is primarily meant of men: What man has the ability? - if there is one, then name him! In both cases מי עלה is not meant, after Pro 24:28, in the modal sense, quis ascenderit, but as the following ויּרד requires, in the nearest indicative sense, quis ascendit. But the choice between these two possible interpretations is very difficult. The first question is historical: Who has gone to heaven and (as a consequence, then) come down from it again? It lies nearest thus to interpret it according to the consecutio temporum. By this interpretation, and this representation of the going up before the descending again, the interrogator does not appear to think of God, but in contrast to himself, to whom the divine is transcendent, of some other man of whom the contrary is true. Is there at all, he asks, a man who can comprehend and penetrate by his power and his knowledge the heavens and the earth, the air and the water, i.e., the nature and the inner condition of the visible and invisible world, the quantity and extent of the elements, and the like? Name to me this man, if thou knowest one, by his name, and designate him to me exactly by his family - I would turn to him to learn from him what I have hitherto striven in vain to find. But there is not such an one. Thus: as I fell myself limited in my knowledge, so there is not at all any man who can claim limitless können and kennen ability and knowledge. Thus casually Aben Ezra explains, and also Rashi, Arama, and others, but without holding fast to this in its purity; for in the interpretation of the question, “Who hath ascended?” the reference to Moses is mixed up with it, after the Midrash and Sohar (Parasha, ויקהל, to Exo 35:1), to pass by other obscurities and difficulties introduced. Among the moderns, this explanation, according to which all aims at the answer, “there is no man to whom this appertains,” has no exponent worth naming. And, indeed, as favourable as is the quis ascendit in coelos ac rursus descendit, so unfavourable is the quis constituit omnes terminos terrae, for this question appears not as implying that it asks after the man who has accomplished this; but the thought, according to all appearance, underlies it, that such an one must be a being without an equal, after whose name inquiry is made. One will then have to judge עלה and וירד after Gen 28:12; the ascending and descending are compared to our German “auf und neider” up and down, for which we do not use the phrase “nieder und auf,” and is the expression of free, expanded, unrestrained presence in both regions; perhaps, since וירד is historical, as Psa 18:10, the speaker has the traditional origin of the creation in mind, according to which the earth arose into being earlier than the starry heavens above. Thus the four questions refer (as e.g., also Isa 40:12) to Him who has done and who does all that, to Him who is not Himself to be comprehended as His works are, and as He shows Himself in the greatness and wonderfulness of these, must be exalted above them all, and mysterious. If the inhabitant of the earth looks up to the blue heavens streaming in the golden sunlight, or sown with the stars of night; if he considers the interchange of the seasons, and feels the sudden rising of the wind; if he sees the upper waters clothed in fleecy clouds, and yet held fast within them floating over him; if he lets his eye sweep the horizon all around him to the ends of the earth, built up upon nothing in the open world-space (Job 26:7): the conclusion comes to him that he has before him in the whole the work of an everywhere present Being, of an all-wise omnipotent Worker - it is the Being whom he has just named as אל, the absolute Power, and as the קדשׁים, exalted above all created beings, with their troubles and limitations; but this knowledge gained viâ causalitatis, viâ eminentiae, and viâ negationis, does not satisfy yet his spirit, and does not bring him so near to this Being as is to him a personal necessity, so that if he can in some measure answer the fourfold מי, yet there always presses upon him the question מה־שׁמו, what is his name, i.e., the name which dissolves the secret of this Being above all beings, and unfolds the mystery of the wonder above all wonders. That this Being must be a person the fourfold מי presupposes; but the question, “What is his name?” expresses the longing to know the name of this supernatural personality, not any kind of name which is given to him by men, but the name which covers him, which is the appropriate personal immediate expression of his being. The further question, “And what the name of his son?” denotes, according to Hitzig, that the inquirer strives after an adequate knowledge, such as one may have of a human being. But he would not have ventured this question if he did not suppose that God was not a monas unity who was without manifoldness in Himself. The lxx translates: ἣ τί ὄνομα τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτοῦ (בּנו), perhaps not without the influence of the old synagogue reference testified to in the Midrash and Sohar of בנו to Israel, God's first-born; but this interpretation is opposed to the spirit of this חידה (intricate speech, enigma). Also in general the interrogator cannot seek to know what man stands in this relation of a son to the Creator of all things, for that would be an ethical question which does not accord with this metaphysical one. Geier has combined this ומה־שׁם־בנו with viii.; and that the interrogator, if he meant the חכמה, ought to have used the phrase ומה־שׁם־בּתּו, says nothing against this, for also in אמון, Pro 8:30, whether it means foster-child or artifex, workmaster, the feminine determination disappears. Not Ewald alone finds here the idea of the Logos, as the first-born Son of God, revealing itself, on which at a later time the Palestinian doctrine of מימרא דיהוה imprinted itself in Alexandria;^[117] but also J. D. Michaelis felt himself constrained to recognise here the N.T. doctrine of the Son of God announcing itself from afar. And why might not this be possible? The Rig-Veda contains two similar questions, x. 81, 4: “Which was the primeval forest, or what the tree from which one framed the heavens and the earth? Surely, ye wise men, ye ought in your souls to make inquiry whereon he stood when he raised the wind!” And i. 164, 4: “Who has seen the first-born? Where was the life, the blood, the soul of the world? Who came thither to ask this from any one who knew it?”^[118]
Jewish interpreters also interpret בנו of the causa media of the creation of the world. Arama, in his work עקדת יצחק, sect. xvi., suggests that by בנו we are to understand the primordial element, as the Sankhya-philosophy understands by the first-born there in the Rig, the Prakṛiti, i.e., the primeval material. R. Levi b. Gerson (Ralbag) comes nearer to the truth when he explains בנו as meaning the cause caused by the supreme cause, in other words: the principium principaiatum of the creation of the world. We say: the inquirer meant the demiurgic might which went forth from God, and which waited on the Son of God as a servant in the creation of the world; the same might which in chap. 8 is called Wisdom, and is described as God's beloved Son. But with the name after which inquiry is made, the relation is as with the “more excellent name than the angels,” Heb 1:4.^[119]
It is manifestly not the name בן, since the inquiry is made after the name of the בן; but the same is the case also with the name חכמה, or, since this does not harmonize, according to its grammatical gender, with the form of the question, the name דבר (מימר); but it is the name which belongs to the first and only-begotten Son of God, not merely according to creative analogies, but according to His true being. The inquirer would know God, the creator of the world, and His Son, the mediator in the creation of the world, according to their natures. If thou knowest, says he, turning himself to man, his equal, what the essential names of both are, tell them to me! But who can name them! The nature of the Godhead is hidden, as from the inquirer, so from every one else. On this side of eternity it is beyond the reach of human knowledge.
The solemn confession introduced by נאם is now closed. Ewald sees herein the discourse of a sceptical mocker at religion; and Elster, the discourse of a meditating doubter; in Pro 30:5, and on, the answer ought then to follow, which is given to one thus speaking: his withdrawal from the standpoint of faith in the revelation of God, and the challenge to subordinate his own speculative thinking to the authority of the word of God. But this interpretation of the statement depends on the symbolical rendering of the supposed personal names איתיאל and אכל, and, besides, the dialogue is indicated by nothing; the beginning of the answer ought to have been marked, like the beginning of that to which it is a reply. The confession, 1b-4, is not that of a man who does not find himself in the right condition, but such as one who is thirsting after God must renounce: the thought of a man does not penetrate to the essence of God (Job 11:7-9); even the ways of God remain inscrutable to man (Sir. 18:3; Rom 11:33); the Godhead remains, for our thought, in immeasurable height and depth; and though a relative knowledge of God is possible, yet the dogmatic thesis, Deum quidem cognoscimus, sed non comprehendimus, i.e., non perfecte cognoscimus quia est infinitus,^[120] even over against the positive revelation, remains unchanged. Thus nothing is wanting to make Pro 30:1-4 a complete whole; and what follows does not belong to that section as an organic part of it.

Verses 5-6

Pro 30:5-6 5 Every word of Eloah is pure; A shield is He for those who hide themselves in Him. 6 Add thou not to His words, Lest He convict thee and thou becomest a liar.
Although the tetrastich is an independent proverb, yet it is connected to the foregoing Neûm [utterance, Pro 30:1]. The more limited a man is in his knowledge of God - viz. in that which presents itself to him lumine naturae, - so much the more thankful must he be that God has revealed Himself in history, and so much the more firmly has he to hold fast by the pure word of the divine revelation. In the dependent relation of Pro 30:5 to Psa 18:31 (2Sa 22:31), and of Pro 30:6 to Deu 4:2, there is no doubt the self-testimony of God given to Israel, and recorded in the book of the Tôra, is here meant. כּל־אמרת is to be judged after πᾶσα γραφή, 2Ti 3:16, not: every declaration of God, wherever promulgated, but: every declaration within the revelation lying before us. The primary passage Psa 18:31 has not כל here, but, instead of it, לכל החסים, and instead of אמרת אלוהּ it has יהוה 'אם; his change of the name of Jahve is also not favourable to the opinion that Pro 30:5. is a part of the Neûm, viz., that it is the answer thereto. The proverb in this contains traces of the Book of Job, with which in many respects that Neûm harmonizes; in the Book of Job, אלוהּ (with שׁדּי) is the prevailing name of God; whereas in the Book of Proverbs it occurs only in the passage before us. Mühlau, p. 41, notes it as an Arabism. צרף (Arab. ṣaraf, to turn, to change) is the usual word for the changing process of smelting; צרוּף signifies solid, pure, i.e., purified by separating: God's word is, without exception, like pure, massive gold. Regarding חסה, to hide oneself, vid., under Psa 2:12;: God is a shield for those who make Him, as revealed in His word, their refuge. The part. חסה occurs, according to the Masora, three times written defectively, - Pro 14:32; 2Sa 22:31; Neh 1:7; in the passage before us it is to be written לחוסים; the proverbs of Agur and Lemuel have frequently the plena scriptio of the part. act. Kal, as well as of the fut. Kal, common to the Book of Job (vid., Mühlau, p. 65).
In 6a, after Aben Ezra's Moznajim 2b (11b of Heidenheim's edition), and Zachoth 53a (cf. Lipmann's ed.), and other witnesses (vid., Norzi), t sp (the ף with dagesh) is to be written, - the Cod. Jaman. and others defect. without ו, - not tôsf; for, since תּוסף (Exo 10:28) is yet further abbreviated in this way, it necessarily loses^[121] the aspiration of the tenuis, as in ילדתּ (= ילדת). The words of God are the announcements of His holy will, measured by His wisdom; they are then to be accepted as they are, and to be recognised and obeyed. He who adds anything to them, either by an overstraining of them or by repressing them, will not escape the righteous judgment of God: God will convict him of falsifying His word (הוכיח, Psa 50:21; only here with ב of the obj.), and expose him as a liar - viz. by the dispensations which unmask the falsifier as such, and make manifest the falsehood of his doctrines as dangerous to souls and destructive to society. An example of this is found in the kingdom of Israel, in the destruction of which the curse of the human institution of its state religion, set up by Jeroboam, had no little share. Also the Jewish traditional law, although in itself necessary for the carrying over of the law into the praxis of private and public life, falls under the Deuteron. prohibition - which the poet here repeats - so far as it claimed for itself the same divine authority as that of the written law, and so far as it hindered obedience to the law - by the straining-at-a-gnat policy - and was hostile to piety. Or, to adduce an example of an addition more dogmatic than legal, what a fearful impulse was given to fleshly security by that overstraining of the promises in Gen 17, which were connected with circumcision by the tradition, “the circumcised come not into hell,” or by the overstraining of the prerogative attributed by Paul, Rom 9:4., to his people according to the Scriptures, in the principle, “All Israelites have a part in the future world!” Regarding the accentuation of the perf. consec. after פּן, vid., at Psa 28:1. The penultima accent is always in pausa (cf. Pro 30:9 and Pro 30:10).

Verses 7-9

In what now follows, the key-note struck in Pro 30:1 is continued. There follows a prayer to be kept in the truth, and to be preserved in the middle state, between poverty and riches. It is a Mashal-ode, vid., vol. i. p. 12. By the first prayer, “vanity and lies keep far from me,” it is connected with the warning of Pro 30:6. 7 Two things I entreat from Thee, Refuse them not to me before I die. 8 Vanity and lies keep far away from me Poverty and riches give me not: Cause me to eat the bread which is allotted to me, 9 Lest in satiety I deny, And say: Who is Jahve? And lest, in becoming poor, I steal, And profane the name of my God.
We begin with the settlement and explanation of the traditional punctuation. A monosyllable like שׁוא receives, if Legarmeh, always Mehuppach Legarmeh, while, on the contrary, the poly-syllable אשׂבּע has Asla Legarmeh. אל־תּתּן־לי, with double Makkeph and with Gaja in the third syllable before the tone (after the Metheg-Setzung, §28), is Ben-Asher's; whereas Ben-Naphtali prefers the punctuation אל־תּתּן לי (vid., Baer's Genesis, p. 79, note 3). Also פּן־אשׂבּע has (cf. פּן־ישׁתּה, Pro 31:5) Makkeph, and on the antepenultima Gaja (vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 32). The perf. consec. וכחשׁתּי has on the ult. the disjunctive Zinnor (Sarka), which always stands over the final letter; but that the ult. is also to be accented, is shown by the counter-tone Metheg, which is to be given to the first syllable. Also ואמרתּי has in correct Codd., e.g., Cod. 1294, the correct ultima toning of a perf. consec.; Kimchi in the Michlol 6b, as well as Aben Ezra in both of his Grammars, quotes only וגנבתּי ותפשׂתּי as toned on the penult. That וגנבתּי cannot be otherwise toned on account of the pausal accent, has been already remarked under 6b; the word, besides, belongs to the סף״פתתין בא, i.e., to those which preserve their Pathach unlengthened by one of the greater disjunctives; the Athnach has certainly in the three so-called metrical books only the disjunctive form of the Zakeph of the prose books. So much as to the form of the text.
As to its artistic form, this prayer presents itself to us as the first of the numerical proverbs, under the “Words” of Agur, who delighted in this form of proverb. The numerical proverb is a brief discourse, having a didactic end complete in itself, which by means of numerals gives prominence to that which it seeks to bring forward. There are two kinds of these. The more simple form places in the first place only one numeral, which is the sum of that which is to be brought forth separately: the numerical proverb of one cipher; to this class belong, keeping out of view the above prayer, which if it did not commence a series of numerical proverbs does not deserve this technical name on account of the low ciphers: Pro 30:24-28, with the cipher 4; Sir. 25:1 and 2, with the cipher 3. Similar to the above prayer are Job 13:20., Isa 51:19; but these are not numerical proverbs, for they are not proverbs. The more artistic kind of numerical proverb has two ciphers: the two-ciphered numerical proverb we call the sharpened (pointed) proverb. Of such two-ciphered numerical proverbs the “words” of Agur contain four, and the whole Book of Proverbs, reckoning Pro 6:16-19, five - this ascending numerical character belongs to the popular saying, 2Ki 9:32; Job 33:29; Isa 16:6, and is found bearing the stamp of the artistic distich outside of the Book of Proverbs, Psa 62:12; Job 33:14; Job 40:5; Job 5:19, and particularly Amos 1:3-2:6. According to this scheme, the introduction of Agur's prayer should be: אחת שׁאלתּי מאתּך וּשׁתּים אל־תּמנע ממּנּי בּטרם אמוּת and it could take this form, for the prayer expresses two requests, but dwells exclusively on the second. A twofold request he presents to God, these two things he wishes to be assured of on this side of death; for of these he stands in need, so as to be able when he dies to look back on the life he has spent, without the reproaches of an accusing conscience. The first thing he asks is that God would keep far from him vanity and lying words. שׁוא (= שׁוא, from שׁוא = שׁאה, to be waste, after the form מות) is either that which is confused, worthless, untrue, which comes to us from without (e.g., Job 31:5), or dissoluteness, hollowness, untruthfulness of disposition (e.g., Psa 26:4); it is not to be decided whether the suppliant is influenced by the conception thus from within or from without, since דבר־כּזב [a word of falsehood] may be said by himself as well as to him, a falsehood can intrude itself upon him. It is almost more probable that by שׁוא he thought of the misleading power of God-estranged, idolatrous thought and action; and by דבר־כזב, of lying words, with which he might be brought into sympathy, and by which he might ruin himself and others. The second petition is that God would give him neither poverty (ראשׁ, vid., Pro 10:4) nor riches, but grant him for his sustenance only the bread of the portion destined for him. The Hiph. הטריף (from טרף, to grind, viz., the bread with the teeth) means to give^[122] anything, as טרף, with which, 31:15, נתן חק is parallel: to present a fixed piece, a definite portion of sustenance. חק, Gen 47:22, the portion assigned as nourishment; cf. Job 23:14 חקּי, the decree determined regarding me. Accordingly, חקּי לחם does not mean the bread appropriately measured out for me (like ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος, that which is required for οὐσία, subsistence), but the bread appropriate for me, determined for me according to the divine plan. Fleischer compares (Arab.) ratab and marsaum, which both in a similar way designate a fixed sustentation portion. And why does he wish to be neither poor nor rich? Because in both extremes lie moral dangers: in riches, the temptation to deny God (which 'כּחשׁ בּה signifies, in the later Heb. כּפר בּעקּר, to deny the fundamental truth; cf. (Arab.) kafar, unbelieving), whom one flowing in superabundance forgets, and of whom one in his self-indulgence desires to know nothing (Job 21:14-16; Job 22:16.); in poverty, the temptation is to steal and to blaspheme the name of God, viz., by murmuring and disputing, or even by words of blasphemy; for one who is in despair directs the outbreaks of his anger against God (Isa 8:21), and curses Him as the cause of His misfortune (Rev 16:11, Rev 16:21). The question of godless haughtiness, מי יהוח, the lxx improperly change into מי יראה, τίς με ὁρᾶ. Regarding נורשׁ, to grow poor, or rather, since only the fut. Niph. occurs in this sense, regarding יוּרשׁ, vid., at Pro 20:13.
That the author here, by blaspheming (grasping at) the name of God, especially thinks on that which the Tôra calls “cursing (קלּל) God,” and particularly “blaspheming the name of the Lord,” Lev 24:15-16, is to be concluded from the two following proverbs, which begin with the catchword קלל:

Verse 10

Pro 30:10 10 Calumniate not a servant with his master, Lest he curse thee, and thou must atone for it.
Incorrectly Ewald: entice not a servant to slander against his master; and Hitzig: “Make not a servant tattle regarding his master.” It is true that the Poel לושׁן (to pierce with the tongue, linguâ petere) occurs twice in the sense of to calumniate; but that הלשׁין means nothing else, is attested by the post-bibl. Hebrew; the proverb regarding schismatics (בּרכּת המּינים) in the Jewish Schemone-Esre (prayer of the eighteen benedictions) began with ולמלשינים, “and to the calumniators” (delatoribus). Also in the Arab. âlsana signifies pertulit verba alicujus ad alterum, to make a babbler, rapporteur (Fleischer). That the word also here is not to be otherwise interpreted, is to be concluded from אל with the causative rendering. Rightly Symmachus, μὴ διαβάλῃς; Theodotion, μὴ καταλαλήσῃς; and according to the sense also, Jerome, ne accuses; the Venet. μὴ καταμηνύσῃς (give not him); on the contrary, Luther, verrate nicht [betray not], renders הלשׁין with the lxx, Syr. in the sense of the Aram. אשׁלם and the Arab. âslam (tradere, prodere). One should not secretly accuse (Psa 101:5) a servant with his master, and in that lies the character of slander (לשׁון הרע) when one puts suspicion upon him, or exaggerates the actual facts, and generally makes the person suspected - one thereby makes a man, whose lot in itself is not a happy one, at length and perhaps for ever unhappy, and thereby he brings a curse on himself. But it is no matter of indifference to be the object of the curse of a man whom one has unrighteously and unjustly overwhelmed in misery: such a curse is not without its influence, for it does not fruitlessly invoke the righteous retribution of God, and thus one has sorrowfully to atone for the wanton sins of the tongue (veaschāmta, for ve-aschamtá as it is would be without pause).

Verses 11-14

There now follows a Priamel,^[123] the first line of which is, by יקלל, connected with the יקללך of the preceding distich: 11 A generation that curseth their father, And doth not bless their mother; 12 A generation pure in their own eyes, And yet not washed from their filthiness; 13 A generation - how haughty their eyes, And their eyelids lift themselves up; 14 A generation whose teeth are swords and their jaw teeth knives To devour the poor from the earth and the needy from the midst of men.
Ewald translates: O generation! but that would have required the word, 13a, הדּור (Jer 2:31), and one would have expected to have found something mentioned which the generation addressed were to take heed to; but it is not so. But if “O generation!” should be equivalent to “O regarding the generation!” then הוי ought to have introduced the sentence. And if we translate, with Luther: There is a generation, etc., then ישׁ is supplied, which might drop out, but could not be omitted. The lxx inserts after ἔκγονον the word κακόν, and then renders what follows as pred. - a simple expedient, but worthless. The Venet. does not need this expedient, for it renders γενεὰ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ βλασφημέσει; but then the order of the words in 11a would have been דור יקלל אביו; and in 12a, after the manner of a subst. clause, דור טהור בעיניו הוא, one sees distinctly, from Pro 30:13 and Pro 30:14, that what follows דור is to be understood, not as a pred., but as an attributive clause. As little can we interpret Pro 30:14, with Löwenstein, as pred. of the three subj., “it is a generation whose teeth are swords;” that would at least have required the words דור הוא; but Pro 30:14 is not at all a judgment valid for all the three subjects. The Targ. and Jerome translate correctly, as we above;^[124] but by this rendering there are four subjects in the preamble, and the whole appears, since the common pred. is wanting, as a mutilated Priamel. Perhaps the author meant to say: it is such a generation that encompasses us; or: such is an abomination to Jahve; for דור is a Gesamtheit = totality, generation of men who are bound together by contemporary existence, or homogeneity, or by both, but always a totality; so that these Pro 30:11-14, might describe quatuor detestabilia genera hominum (C. B. Michaelis), and yet one generatio, which divide among themselves these four vices, of blackest ingratitude, loathsome self-righteousness, arrogant presumption, and unmerciful covetousness. Similar is the description given in the Mishna Sota ix. 14, of the character of the age in which the Messiah appeared. “The appearance of this age,” thus it concludes, “is like the appearance of a dog; a son is not ashamed before his father; to whom will we then look for help? To our Father in heaven!”^[125]
The undutifulness of a child is here placed first. To curse one's parents is, after Exo 21:17, cf. Pro 20:10, a crime worthy of death; “not to bless,” is here, per litoten, of the same force as קלּל to curse. The second characteristic, Pro 30:12, is wicked blindness as to one's judgment of himself. The lxx coarsely, but not bad: τὴν δ ̓ ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἀπένιψεν. Of such darkness one says: sordes suas putat olere cinnama. רחץ is not the abbreviated part. (Stuart), as e.g., Exo 3:2, but the finite, as e.g., Hos 1:6.
In 13a the attributive clause forms itself, so as to express the astonishing height of arrogance, into an exclamation: a generation, how lofty are their eyes (cf. e.g., Pro 6:17, עינים רמות)! to which, as usual, it is simply added: and his eyelids (palpebrae) lift themselves up; in Lat., the lifting up of the eyebrow as an expression of haughtiness is described by elatum (superbum) supercilium.
The fourth characteristic is insatiable covetousness, which does not spare even the poor, and preys upon them, the helpless and the defenceless: they devour them as one eats bread, Psa 14:4. The teeth, as the instruments of eating, are compared to swords and knives, as at Psa 57:4 to spears and arrows. With שׁנּיו there is interchanged, as at Job 29:17; Jon 1:6, מתלּעתיו (not 'מת, as Norzi writes, contrary to Metheg-Setzung, §37, according to which Gaja, with the servant going before, is inadmissible), transposed from מלתּעתיו, Psa 58:7, from לתע, to strike, pierce, bite. The designation of place, מארץ, “from the earth” (which also, in pausa, is not modified into מארץ), and מאדם, “from the midst of men,” do not belong to the obj.: those who belong to the earth, to mankind (vid., Psa 10:18), for thus interpreted they would be useless; but to the word of action: from the earth, out from the midst of men away, so that they disappear from thence (Amo 8:4). By means of fine but cobweb combinations, Hitzig finds Amalek in this fourfold proverb. But it is a portrait of the times, like Psa 14:1-7, and certainly without any national stamp.

Verses 15-16

With the characteristic of insatiableness Pro 30:11-14 closes, and there follows an apophthegma de quatuor insatiabilibus quae ideo comparantur cum sanguisuga (C. B. Michaelis). We translate the text here as it lies before us: 15 The ‛Alûka hath two daughters: Give! Give! Three of these are never satisfied; Four say not: Enough! 16 The under-world and the closing of the womb; The earth is not satisfied with water; And the fire saith not: Enough!
We begin with Masoretic externalities. The first ב in הב is Beth minusculum; probably it had accidentally this diminutive form in the original MSS, to which the Midrash (cf. Sepher Taghin ed. Bargès, 1866, p. 47) has added absurd conceits. This first הב has Pasek after it, which in this case is servant to the Olewejored going before, according to the rule Thorath Emeth, p. 24, here, as at Psa 85:9, Mehuppach. The second הב, which of itself alone is the representative of Olewejored, has in Hutter, as in the Cod. Erfurt 2, and Cod. 2 of the Leipzig Public Library, the pausal punctuation הב (cf. קח, 1Sa 21:10), but which is not sufficiently attested. Instead of לא־אמרוּ, 15b, לא אמרוּ, and instead of לא־אמרה f, 16b, לא אמרה are to be written; the Zinnorith removes the Makkeph, according to Thorath Emeth, p. 9, Accentuationssystem, iv. §2. Instead of מים, 16a, only Jablonski, as Mühlau remarks, has מים; but incorrectly, since Athnach, after Olewejored, has no pausal force (vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 37). All that is without any weight as to the import of the words. But the punctuation affords some little service for the setting aside of a view of Rabbenu Tam (vid., Tosaphoth to Aboda zara 17a, and Erubin 19a), which has been lately advocated by Löwenstein. That view is, that ‛Alûka is the name of a wise man, not Solomon's, because the Pesikta does not reckon this among the names of Solomon, nor yet a name of hell, because it is not, in the Gemara, numbered among the names of Gehinnom. Thus לעלוּקה would be a superscription, like לדוד and לשׁלמה, Psa 26:1; Psa 72:1, provided with Asla Legarmeh. But this is not possible, for the Asla Legarmeh, at Psa 26:1 and Psa 72:1, is the transformation of Olewejored, inadmissible on the first word of the verse (Accentuationssystem, xix. §1); but no Olewejored can follow such an Asla Legarmeh, which has the force of an Olewejored, as after this לעלוקה, which the accentuation then does not regard as the author's name given as a superscription. עלוּקה is not the name of a person, and generally not a proper name, but a generic name of certain traditional signification. “One must drink no water” - says the Gemara Aboda zara 12b - “out of a river or pond, nor (immediately) with his mouth, nor by means of his hand; he who, nevertheless, does it, his blood comes on his own head, because of the danger. What danger? סכּנת עלוּקה,” i.e., the danger of swallowing a leech. The Aram. also designates a leech by עלוּקא (cf. e.g., Targ. Ps. 12:9: hence the godless walk about like the leech, which sucks the blood of men), and the Arab. by 'alaḳ (n. unit. 'alaḳat), as the word is also rendered here by the Aram. and Arab. translators. Accordingly, all the Greeks render it by βδέλλη; Jerome, by sanguisuga (Rashi, sangsue); also Luther's Eigel is not the Igel erinaceus [hedgehog], but the Egel, i.e., as we now designate it, the Blutegel [leech], or (less correctly) Blutigel. עלוּקה is the fem. of the adj. עלוּק, attached to, which meaning, together with the whole verbal stem, the Arab. has preserved (vid., Mühlau's Mittheilung des Art. 'aluka aus dem Kamus, p. 42).^[126]
But if, now, the ‛Alûka is the leech,^[127] which are then its two daughters, to which is here given the name הב הב, and which at the same time have this cry of desire in their mouths? Grotius and others understand, by the two daughters of the leech, the two branches of its tongue; more correctly: the double-membered overlip of its sucker. C. B. Michaelis thinks that the greedy cry, “Give! Give!” is personified: voces istae concipiuntur ut hirudinis filiae, quas ex se gignat et velut mater sobolem impense diligat. But since this does not satisfy, symbolical interpretations of ‛Aluka have been resorted to. The Talmud, Aboda zara 17a, regards it as a name of hell. In this sense it is used in the language of the Pijut (synagogue poetry).^[128]
If ‛Alûka is hell, then fancy has the widest room for finding an answer to the question, What are the two daughters? The Talmud supposes that רשׁות (the worldly domination) and מינות (heresy) are meant. The Church-fathers also, understanding by ‛Alûka the power of the devil, expatiated in such interpretations. Of the same character are Calmet's interpretation, that sanguisuga is a figure of the mala cupiditas, and its twin-daughters are avaritia and ambitio. The truth lying in all these is this, that here there must be some kind of symbol. But if the poet meant, by the two daughters of the ‛Alûka, two beings or things which he does not name, then he kept the best of his symbol to himself. And could he use ‛Alûka, this common name for the leech, without further intimation, in any kind of symbolical sense? The most of modern interpreters do nothing to promote the understanding of the word, for they suppose that ‛Alûka, from its nearest signification, denotes a demoniacal spirit of the character of a vampire, like the Dakinî of the Indians, which nourish themselves on human flesh; the ghouls of the Arabs and Persians, which inhabit graveyards, and kill and eat men, particularly wanderers in the desert; in regard to which it is to be remarked, that (Arab.) ‛awlaḳ is indeed a name for a demon, and that al‛aluwaḳ, according to the Kamus, is used in the sense of alghwal. Thus Dathe, Döderlein, Ziegler, Umbreit; thus also Hitzig, Ewald, and others. Mühlau, while he concurs in this understanding of the word, and now throwing open the question, Which, then, are the two daughters of the demoness ‛Alûka? finds no answer to it in the proverb itself, and therefore accepts of the view of Ewald, since 15b-16, taken by themselves, form a fully completed whole, that the line 'לעלוקה וגו is the beginning of a numerical proverb, the end of which is wanting. We acknowledge, because of the obscurity - not possibly aimed at by the author himself - in which the two daughters remain, the fragmentary characters of the proverb of the ‛Alûka; Stuart also does this, for he regards it as brought out of a connection in which it was intelligible - but we believe that the line 'שׁלושׁ וגו is an original formal part of this proverb. For the proverb forming, according to Mühlau's judgment, a whole rounded off: שׁלושׁ הנה לא תשׂבענה ארבע לא אמרו הון שׁאול ועצר רחם ארץ לא שׂבעה מים ואשׁ לא אמרה הון contains a mark which makes the original combination of these five lines improbable. Always where the third is exceeded by the fourth, the step from the third to the fourth is taken by the connecting Vav: Pro 30:18, וארבע; Pro 30:21, ותחת ארבע; Pro 30:29, וארבעה. We therefore conclude that 'ארבע לא וגו is the original commencement of independent proverb. This proverb is:
Four things say not: Enough!
The under-world and the closing of the womb [i.e., unfruitful womb] -
The earth is not satisfied with water,
And the fire says not: Enough! a tetrastich more acceptable and appropriate than the Arab. proverb (Freytag, Provv. iii. p. 61, No. 347): “three things are not satisfied by three: the womb, and wood by fire, and the earth by rain;” and, on the other hand, it is remarkable to find it thus clothed in the Indian language,^[129] as given in the Hitopadesa (p. 67 of Lassen's ed.), and in Pantschatantra, i. 153 (ed. of Kosegarten): nâgnis tṛpjati kâshṭhânân nâpagânân mahôdadhih nântakah sarvabhûtânân na punsân vâmalocanâh.
Fire is not sated with wood, nor the ocean with the streams,
Nor death with all the living, nor the beautiful-eyed with men.
As in the proverb of Agur the 4 falls into 2 + 2, so also in this Indian sloka. In both, fire and the realm of death (ântaka is death as the personified “end-maker”) correspond; and as there the womb and the earth, so here feminarium cupiditas and the ocean. The parallelizing of ארץ and רחם is after passages such as Psa 139:15; Job 1:21 (cf. also Pro 5:16; Num 24:7; Isa 48:1); that of שׁאול and אשׁ is to be judged of^[130] after passages such as Deu 32:22, Isa 56:1-12 :24. That לא אמרו הון repeats itself in לא אמרה הון is now, as we render the proverb independently, much more satisfactory than if it began with 'שׁלושׁ וגו: it rounds itself off, for the end returns into the beginning. Regarding הון, vid., Pro 1:13. From הוּן, to be light, it signifies living lightly; ease, superabundance, in that which renders life light or easy. “Used accusatively, and as an exclamation, it is equivalent to plenty! enough! It is used in the same sense in the North African Arab. brrakat (spreading out, fulness). Wetzstein remarks that in Damascus lahôn i.e., hitherto, is used in the sense of ḥajah, enough; and that, accordingly, we may attempt to explain הון of our Heb. language in the sense of (Arab.) hawn haddah, i.e., here the end of it!” (Mühlau).
But what do we now make of the two remaining lines of the proverb of the ‛Alûka? The proverb also in this division of two lines is a fragment. Ewald completes it, for to the one line, of which, according to his view, the fragment consists, he adds two:
The bloodsucker has two daughters, “Hither! hither!”
Three saying, “Hither, hither, hither the blood,
The blood of the wicked child.”
A proverb of this kind may stand in the O.T. alone: it sounds as if quoted from Grimm's Mährchen, and is a side-piece to Zappert's altdeutsch. Schlummerliede. Cannot the mutilation of the proverb be rectified in a less violent way without any self-made addition? If this is the case, that in Pro 30:15 and Pro 30:16, which now form one proverb, there are two melted together, only the first of which lies before us in a confused form, then this phenomenon is explained by supposing that the proverb of the ‛Alûka originally stood in this form:
The ‛Alûka has two daughters: Give! give! -
The under-world and the closing of the womb;
There are three that are never satisfied.
Thus completed, this tristich presents itself as the original sidepiece of the lost tetrastich, beginning with ארבע. One might suppose that if שׁאול and עצר רחם have to be regarded as the daughters of the ‛Alûka, which Hitzig and also Zöckler have recognised, then there exists no reason for dividing the one proverb into two. Yet the taking of them as separate is necessary, for this reason, because in the fourth, into which it expands, the ‛Alûka is altogether left out of account. But in the above tristich it is taken into account, as was to be expected, as the mother with her children. This, that sheol (שׁאול is for the most part fem.), and the womb (רחם = רחם, which is fem., Jer 20:17) to which conception is denied, are called, on account of their greediness, the daughters of the ‛Alûka, is to be understood in the same way as when a mountain height is called, Isa 5:1, a horn of the son of oil. In the Arab., which is inexhaustibly rich in such figurative names, a man is called “a son of the clay (limi);” a thief, “a son of the night;” a nettle, “the daughter of fire.” The under-world and a closed womb have the ‛Alûka nature; they are insatiable, like the leech. It is unnecessary to interpret, as Zöckler at last does, ‛Alûka as the name of a female demon, and the לילית, “daughters,” as her companions. It may be adduced in favour of this view that לעלוּקה is without the article, after the manner of a proper name. But is it really without the article? Such a doubtful case we had before us at Pro 27:23. As yet only Böttcher, §394, has entered on this difficulty of punctuation. We compare Gen 29:27, בּעבדה; 1Ki 12:32, לעגלים; 1Ch 13:7, בּעגלה; and consequently also Psa 146:7, לעשׁוּקים; thus the assimilating force of the Chateph appears here to have changed the syntactically required ל and בּ into ל and בּ. But also supposing that עלוּקה in לעלוּקה is treated as a proper name, this is explained from the circumstance that the leech is not meant here in the natural history sense of the word, but as embodied greediness, and is made a person, one individual being. Also the symbol of the two daughters is opposed to the mythological character of the ‛Alûka. The imper. הב, from יהב, occurs only here and at Dan 7:17 (= תּן), and in the bibl. Heb. only with the intentional āh, and in inflection forms. The insatiableness of sheol (Pro 27:20) is described by Isa; Isa 5:14; and Rachel, Gen 30:1, with her “Give me children,” is an example of the greediness of the “closed-up womb” (Gen 20:18). The womb of a childless wife is meant, which, because she would have children, the nuptiae never satisfy; or also of one who, because she does not fear to become pregnant, invites to her many men, and always burns anew with lust. “In Arab. 'aluwaḳ means not only one fast bound to her husband, but, according to Wetzstein, in the whole of Syria and Palestine, the prostitute, as well as the κίναιδοι, are called 'ulak (plur. 'alwak), because they obtrude themselves and hold fast to their victim” (Mühlau). In the third line, the three: the leech, hell, and the shut womb, are summarized: tira sunt quae non satiantur. Thus it is to be translated with Fleischer, not with Mühlau and others, tira haec non satiantur. “These three” is expressed in Heb. by שׁלשׁ־אלּה, Exo 21:11, or אלּה(ה) שׁלשׁת, 2Sa 21:22; הנּה (which, besides, does not signify haec, but illa) is here, taken correctly, the pred., and represents in general the verb of being (Isa 51:19), vid., at Pro 6:16. Zöckler finds the point of the proverb in the greediness of the unfruitful womb, and is of opinion that the poet purposely somewhat concealed this point, and gave to his proverb thereby the enhanced attraction of the ingenious. But the tetrastich 'אברע וגו shows that hell, which is compared to fire, and the unfruitful womb, to which the parched and thirsty earth is compared, were placed by the poet on one and the same line; it is otherwise with Pro 30:18-20, but where that point is nothing less than concealed.

Verse 17

The proverb of the ‛Alûka is the first of the proverbs founded on the figure of an animal among the “words” of Agur. It is now followed by another of a similar character: 17 An eye that mocketh at his father, And despiseth obedience to his mother: The ravens of the brook shall pluck it out, And the young eagles shall eat it.
If “an eye,” and not “eyes,” are spoken of here, this is accounted for by the consideration that the duality of the organ falls back against the unity of the mental activity and mental expression which it serves (cf. Psychol. p. 234). As haughtiness reveals itself (Pro 30:13) in the action of the eyes, so is the eye also the mirror of humble subordination, and also of malicious scorn which refuses reverence and subjection to father and mother. As in German the verbs [verspotten, spotten, höhnen, hohnsprechen signifying to mock at or scorn may be used with the accus., genit., or dat., so also לעג [to deride] and בּוּז [to despise] may be connected at pleasure with either an accusative object or a dative object. Ben-Chajim, Athias, van der Hooght, and others write תּלעג; Jablonski, Michaelis, Löwenstein, תּלעג, Mühlau, with Norzi, accurately, תּלעג, with Munach, like תּבחר, Psa 65:5; the writing of Ben-Asher^[131] is תּלעג, with Gaja, Chateph, and Munach. The punctuation of ליקהת is more fluctuating. The word לקהת (e.g., Cod. Jaman.) may remain out of view, for the Dag. dirimens in ק stands here as firmly as at Gen 49:10, cf. Psa 45:10. But it is a question whether one has to write ליקּהת with Yod quiesc. (regarding this form of writing, preferred by Ben-Naphtali, the Psalmen-Comm. under Psa 45:10, in both Edd.; Luzzatto's Gramm. §193; Baer's Genesis, p. 84, note 2; and Heidenheim's Pentateuch, with the text-crit. Comm. of Jekuthiël ha-Nakdans, under Gen 47:17; Gen 49:10), as it is found in Kimchi, Michlol 45a, and under יקה, and as also Norzi requires, or ליקּהת (as e.g., Cod. Erfurt 1), which appears to be the form adopted by Ben-Asher, for it is attested^[132] as such by Jekuthiël under Gen 49:10, and also expressly as such by an old Masora-Cod. of the Erfurt Library. Löwenstein translates, “the weakness of the mother.” Thus after Rashi, who refers the word to קהה, to draw together, and explains it, Gen 49:10, “collection;” but in the passage before us, understands it of the wrinkles on the countenance of the aged mother. Nachmani (Ramban) goes still further, giving to the word, at Gen 49:10, everywhere the meaning of weakness and frailty. Aben Ezra also, and Gersuni (Ralbag), do not go beyond the meaning of a drawing together; and the lxx, with the Aram., who all translate the word by senectus, have also קהה in the sense of to become dull, infirm (certainly not the Aethiopic leheḳa, to become old, weak through old age). But Kimchi, whom the Venet. and Luther^[133] follow, is informed by Abulwalîd, skilled in the Arab., of a better: יקהה (or יקּהה, cf. נצּרה, Psa 141:3) is the Arab. wakhat, obedience (vid., above יקה under 1a). If now it is said of such a haughty, insolent eye, that the ravens of the brook (cf. 1Ki 17:4) will pluck it out, and the בני־נשׁר eat it, they, the eagle's children, the unchildlike human eye: it is only the description of the fate that is before such an one, to die a violent death, and to become a prey to the fowls of heaven (cf. e.g., Jer 16:3., and Passow's Lex. under κόραξ); and if this threatening is not always thus literally fulfilled, yet one has not on that account to render the future optatively, with Hitzig; this is a false conclusion, from a too literal interpretation, for the threatening is only to be understood after its spirit, viz., that a fearful and a dishonourable end will come to such an one. Instead of יקּרוּה, as Mühlau reads from the Leipzig Cod., יקרוה, with Mercha (Athias and Nissel have it with Tarcha), is to be read, for a word between Olewejored and Athnach must always contain a conjunctive accent (Thorath Emeth, p. 51; Accentuationssystem, xviii. §9). ערבי־נחל is also irregular, and instead of it ערבי־נחל is to be written, for the reason given above under Pro 30:16 (מים).

Verses 18-20

The following proverb, again a numerical proverb, begins with the eagle, mentioned in the last line of the foregoing: 18 Three things lie beyond me, And four I understand not: 19 The way of the eagle in the heavens, The way of a serpent over a rock, The way of a ship on the high sea, And the way of a man with a maid. 20 Thus is the way of the adulterous woman: She eateth and wipeth her mouth, and saith: I have done no iniquity. נפלאוּ ממּנּי, as relative clause, like 15b (where Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion rightly: τρία δέ ἐστιν ἃ οὐ πλησθήσεται), is joined to שׁלשׁה המּה. On the other hand, ארבע (τέσσαρα, for with the Kerı̂, conforming to 18a, ארבּעה, τέσσαρας) has to be interpreted as object. accus. The introduction of four things that are not known is in expressions like Job 42:3; cf. Psa 139:6. The turning-point lies in the fourth; to that point the other three expressions gravitate, which have not an object in themselves, but are only as folie to the fourth. The articles wanting after הנּשׁר: they would be only the marks of the gender, and are therefore unnecessary; cf. under Pro 29:2. And while בּשּׁמים, in the heavens, and בלב־ים, in the sea, are the expressions used, עלי צוּר is used for on the rock, because here “on” is not at the same time “in,” “within,” as the eagle cleaves the air and the ship the waves. For this same reason the expression, “the way of a man בּעלמה,” is not to be understood of love unsought, suddenly taking possession of and captivating a man toward this or that maid, so that the principal thought of the proverb may be compared to the saying, “marriages are made in heaven;” but, as in Kidduschin 2b, with reference to this passage, is said coitus via appellatur. The ב refers to copula carnalis. But in what respect did his understanding not reach to this? “Wonderful,” thus Hitzig explains as the best interpreter of this opinion elsewhere (cf. Psychol. p. 115) propounded, “appeared to him the flying, and that how a large and thus heavy bird could raise itself so high in the air (Job 39:27); then how, over the smooth rock, which offers no hold, the serpent pushes itself along; finally, how the ship in the trackless waves, which present nothing to the eye as a guide, nevertheless finds its way. These three things have at the same time this in common, that they leave no trace of their pathway behind them. But of the fourth way that cannot be said; for the trace is left on the substrat, which the man דּרך, and it becomes manifest, possibly as pregnancy, keeping out of view that the עלמה may yet be בתולה. That which is wonderful is consequently only the coition itself, its mystical act and its incomprehensible consequences.” But does not this interpretation carry in itself its own refutation? To the three wonderful ways which leave no traces behind them, there cannot be compared a fourth, the consequences of which are not only not trackless, but, on the contrary, become manifest as proceeding from the act in an incomprehensible way. The point of comparison is either the wonderfulness of the event or the tracklessness of its consequences. But now “the way of a man בתולה” is altogether inappropriate to designate the wonderful event of the origin of a human being. How altogether differently the Chokma expresses itself on this matter is seen from Job 10:8-12; Ecc 11:5 (cf. Psychol. p. 210). That “way of a man with a maid” denotes only the act of coition, which physiologically differs in nothing from that of the lower animals, and which in itself, in the externality of its accomplishment, the poet cannot possibly call something transcendent. And why did he use the word בעלמה, and not rather בּנקבה [with a female] or בּאשּׁה [id.]? For this reason, because he meant the act of coition, not as a physiological event, but as a historical occurrence, as it takes place particularly in youth as the goal of love, not always reached in the divinely-appointed way. The point of comparison hence is not the secret of conception, but the tracelessness of the carnal intercourse. Now it is also clear why the way of the serpent עלי צור was in his eye: among grass, and still more in sand, the trace of the serpent's path would perhaps be visible, but not on a hard stone, over which it has glided. And it is clear why it is said of the ship בלב־ים [in the heart of the sea]: while the ship is still in sight from the land, one knows the track it follows; but who can in the heart of the sea, i.e., on the high sea, say that here or there a ship has ploughed the water, since the water-furrows have long ago disappeared? Looking to the heavens, one cannot say that an eagle has passed there; to the rock, that a serpent has wound its way over it; to the high sea, that a ship has been steered through it; to the maid, that a man has had carnal intercourse with her. That the fact might appear on nearer investigation, although this will not always guide to a certain conclusion, is not kept in view; only the outward appearance is spoken of, the intentional concealment (Rashi) being in this case added thereto. Sins against the sixth [= seventh] commandment remain concealed from human knowledge, and are distinguished from others by this, that they shun human cognition (as the proverb says: אין אפיטרופוס לעריות, there is for sins of the flesh no ἐπίτροπος) - unchastity can mask itself, the marks of chastity are deceitful, here only the All-seeing Eye (עין ראה כּל, Aboth ii. 1) perceives that which is done. Yet it is not maintained that “the way of a man with a maid” refers exclusively to external intercourse; but altogether on this side the proverb gains ethical significance. Regarding עלמה (from עלם, pubes esse et caeundi cupidus, not from עלם, to conceal, and not, as Schultens derives it, from עלם, signare, to seal) as distinguished from בּתוּלה, vid., under Isa 7:14. The mark of maidenhood belongs to עלמה not in the same way as to בתולה (cf. Gen 24:43 with 16), but only the marks of puberty and youth; the wife אשּׁה (viz., אושׁת אישׁ) cannot as such be called עלמה. Ralbag's gloss עלמה שׁהיא בעולה is incorrect, and in Arama's explanation (Akeda, Abschn. 9): the time is not to be determined when the sexual love of the husband to his wife flames out, ought to have been ודרך אישׁ בּאשׁתּו ne. One has therefore to suppose that Pro 30:20 explains what is meant by “the way of a man with a maid” by a strong example (for “the adulterous woman” can mean only an old adulteress), there not inclusive, for the tracklessness of sins of the flesh in their consequences.
This 20th verse does not appear to have been an original part of the numerical proverb, but is an appendix thereto (Hitzig). If we assume that כּן points forwards: thus as follows is it with the... (Fleischer), then we should hold this verse as an independent cognate proverb; but where is there a proverb (except Pro 11:19) that begins with כּן? כן, which may mean eodem modo (for one does not say כּן גּם) as well as eo modo, here points backwards in the former sense. Instead of וּמחתה פּיה (not פּיה; for the attraction of that which follows, brought about by the retrogression of the tone of the first word, requires dageshing, Thorath Emeth, p. 30) the lxx has merely ἀπονιψαμένη, i.e., as Immanuel explains: מקנּחה עצמה, abstergens semet ipsam, with Grotius, who to tergens os suum adds the remark: σεμνολογία (honesta elocutio). But eating is just a figure, like the “secret bread,” Pro 9:17, and the wiping of the mouth belongs to this figure. This appendix, with its כן, confirms it, that the intention of the four ways refers to the tracklessness of the consequences.

Verses 21-23

It is now not at all necessary to rack one's brains over the grounds or the reasons of the arrangement of the following proverb (vid., Hitzig). There are, up to this point, two numerical proverbs which begin with שׁתּים, Pro 30:7, and שׁתּי, Pro 30:15; after the cipher 2 there then, Pro 30:18, followed the cipher 3, which is now here continued: 21 Under three things doth the earth tremble, And under four can it not stand: 22 Under a servant when he becomes king, And a profligate when he has bread enough; 23 Under an unloved woman when she is married, And a maid-servant when she becomes heiress to her mistress.
We cannot say here that the 4 falls into 3 + 1; but the four consists of four ones standing beside one another. ארץ is here without pausal change, although the Athnach here, as at Pro 30:24, where the modification of sound occurs, divides the verse into two; מארץ, 14b (cf. Psa 35:2), remains, on the other hand, correctly unchanged. The “earth” stands here, as frequently, instead of the inhabitants of the earth. It trembles when one of the four persons named above comes and gains free space for acting; it feels itself oppressed as by an insufferable burden (an expression similar to Amo 7:10); - the arrangement of society is shattered; an oppressive closeness of the air, as it were, settles over all minds. The first case is already designated, Pro 19:10, as improper: under a slave, when he comes to reign (quum rex fit); for suppose that such an one has reached the place of government, not by the murder of the king and by the robbery of the crown, but, as is possible in an elective monarchy, by means of the dominant party of the people, he will, as a rule, seek to indemnify himself in his present highness for his former lowliness, and in the measure of his rule show himself unable to rise above his servile habits, and to pass out of the limited circle of his earlier state. The second case is this: a נבל, one whose mind is perverted and whose conduct is profligate - in short, a low man (vid., Pro 17:17) - ישׂבּע־לחם (cf. Metheg-Setzung, §28), i.e., has enough to eat (cf. to the expression Pro 28:19; Jer 44:17); for this undeserved living without care and without want makes him only so much the more arrogant, and troublesome, and dangerous. The שׂנוּאה, in the second case, is not thought of as a spouse, and that, as in supposed polygamy, Gen 29:31; Deu 21:15-17, as fallen into disfavour, but who again comes to favour and honour (Dathe, Rosenmüller); for she can be שׂנואה without her own fault, and as such she is yet no גּרוּשׁה; and it is not to be perceived why the re-assumption of such an one should shatter social order. Rightly Hitzig, and, after his example, Zöckler: an unmarried lady, an old spinster, is meant, whom no one desired because she had nothing attractive, and was only repulsive (cf. Grimm, under Sir. 7:26b). If such an one, as כּי תבעל says, at length, however, finds her husband and enters into the married relation, then she carries her head so much the higher; for she gives vent to ill-humour, strengthened by long restraint, against her subordinates; then she richly requites her earlier and happily married companions for their depreciation of her, among whom she had to suffer, as able to find no one who would love her. In the last case it is asked whether כּי־תירשׁ is meant of inheriting as an heiress (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Targ., Jerome, the Venet., and Luther), or supplanting (Euchel, Gesenius, Hitzig), i.e., an entering into the inheritance of the dead, or an entering into the place of a living mistress. Since ירשׁ, with the accus. of the person, Gen 15:3-4, signifies to be the heir of one, and only with the accus. of peoples and lands signifies, “to take into possession (to seize) by supplanting,” the former is to be preferred; the lxx (Syr.), ὅταν ἐκβάλῃ, appear to have read כּי־תגרשׁ. This גּרשׁ would certainly be, after Gen 21:10, a piece of the world turned upside down; but also the entering, as heiress, into the inheritance, makes the maid-servant the reverse of that which she was before, and brings with it the danger that the heiress, notwithstanding her want of culture and dignity, demean herself also as heiress of the rank. Although the old Israelitish law knew only intestate succession to an inheritance, yet there also the case might arise, that where there were no natural or legal heirs, the bequest of a wife of rank passed over to her servants and nurses.

Verses 24-28

Another proverb with the cipher 4, its first line terminating in ארץ: 24 Four are the little things of the earth, And yet they are quick of wit - wise: 25 The ants - a people not strong, And yet they prepare in summer their food; 26 Conies - a people not mighty, And yet set their dwelling on the rocks; 27 No king have the locusts, And yet they go forth in rank and file, all of them together; 28 The lizard thou canst catch with the hands, And yet it is in the king's palaces.
By the disjunctive accent, ארבּעה, in spite of the following word toned on the beginning, retains its ultima-toning, 18a; but here, by the conjunctive accent, the tone retrogrades to the penult., which does not elsewhere occur with this word. The connection קטנּי־ארץ is not superlat. (for it is impossible that the author could reckon the שׁפנים, conies, among the smallest of beasts), but, as in the expression נכבּדּי־ארץ, the honoured of the earth, Isa 23:8. In 24b, the lxx, Syr., Jerome, and Luther see in מ the comparative: σοφώτερα τῶν σοφῶν (מחכמים), but in this connection of words it could only be partitive (wise, reckoning among the wise); the part. Pual מחכּמים (Theodotion, the Venet. σεσοφισμένα) was in use after Psa 88:6, and signified, like בּשׁל מבשּׁל, Exo 12:9, boiled well; thus חכמים מחכמים, taught wit, wise, cunning, prudent (cf. Psa 64:7, a planned plan = a cunningly wrought out plan; Isa 28:16, and Vitringa thereto: grounded = firm, grounding), Ewald, §313c. The reckoning moves in the contrasts of littleness to power, and of greatness to prudence. The unfolding of the ארבעה [four] begins with the הנּמלים [the ants] and שׁפנּים [conies], subject conceptions with apposit. joined; 26a, at least in the indetermination of the subject, cannot be a declaration. Regarding the fut. consec. as the expression, not of a causal, but of a contrasted connection, vid., Ewald, §342, 1a. The ants are called עם, and they deserve this name, for they truly form communities with well-ordered economy; but, besides, the ancients took delight in speaking of the various classes of animals as peoples and states.^[134]
That which is said, 25b, as also Pro 6:8, is not to be understood of stores laid up for the winter. For the ants are torpid for the most part in winter; but certainly the summer is their time for labour, when the labourers gather together food, and feed in a truly motherly way the helpless. שׁפן, translated arbitrarily in the Venet. by ἐχῖνοι, in the lxx by χοιρογρύλλιοι, by the Syr. and Targ. here and at Ps 104 by חגס, and by Jerome by lepusculus (cf. λαγίδιον), both of which names, here to be understood after a prevailing Jewish opinion, denote the Caninichen^[135] (Luther), Latin cuniculus (κόνικλος), is not the kaninchen [rabbit], nor the marmot, χοιρογρύλλιος (C. B. Michaelis, Ziegler, and others); this is called in Arab. yarbuw'; but שׁפן is the wabr, which in South Arab. is called thufun, or rather thafan, viz., the klippdachs (hyrax syriacus), like the marmot, which lives in societies and dwells in the clefts of the mountains, e.g., at the Kedron, the Dead Sea, and at Sinai (vid., Knobel on Lev 11:5; cf. Brehm's Thierleben, ii. p. 721ff., the Illustrirte Zeitung, 1868, Nr. 1290). The klippdachs are a weak little people, and yet with their weakness they unite the wisdom that they establish themselves among the rocks. The ants show their wisdom in the organization of labour, here in the arranging of inaccessible dwellings.

Verse 27

Thirdly, the locusts belong to the class of the wise little folk: these have no king, but notwithstanding that, there is not wanting to them guidance; by the power and foresight of one sovereign will they march out as a body, חצץ, dividing, viz., themselves, not the booty (Schultens); thus: dividing themselves into companies, ordine dispositae, from חצץ, to divide, to fall into two (cogn. חצה, e.g., Gen 32:7) or more parts; Mühlau, p. 59-64, has thoroughly investigated this whole wide range of roots. What this חצץ denotes is described in Joe 2:7 : “Like mighty men they hunt; like men of war they climb the walls; they march forward every one on his appointed way, and change not their paths.” Jerome narrates from his own observation: tanto ordine ex dispositione jubentis (lxx at this passage before us: ἀφ ̓ ἑνὸς κελεύσματος εὐτάκτως) volitant, ut instar tesserularum, quae in pavimentis artificis figuntur manu, suum locum teneant et ne puncto quidem et ut ita dicam ungue transverso declinent ad alterum. Aben Ezra and others find in חצץ the idea of gathering together in a body, and in troops, according to which also the Syr., Targ., Jerome, and Luther translate; Kimchi and Meîri gloss חצץ by חותך and כורת, and understand it of the cutting off, i.e., the eating up, of plants and trees, which the Venet. renders by ἐκτέμνουσα.

Verse 28

In this verse the expression wavers in a way that is with difficulty determinable between שׂממית and שׁממית. The Edd. of Opitz Jablonski and Van der Hooght have 'שׂם, but the most, from the Venetian 1521 to Nissel, have 'שׁם (vid., Mühlau, p. 69). The Codd. also differ as to the reading of the word; thus the Codd. Erfurt 2 and 3 have 'שׂם, but Cod. 1294 has 'שׁם. Isaak Tschelebi and Moses Algazi, in their writings regarding words with שׁ and שׂ (Constant. 1723 and 1799), prefer 'שׂם, and so also do Mordecai Nathan in his Concordance (1563-4), David de Pomis (1587), and Norzi. An important evidence is the writing סממית, Schabbath 77b, but it is as little decisive as סריון [coat of mail], used by Jer 44:4, is decisive against the older expression שׁריון. But what kind of a beast is meant here is a question. The swallow is at once to be set aside, as the Venet. translates (χελιδών) after Kimchi, who explains after Abulwalîd, but not without including himself, that the Heb. word for (Arab.) khuttaf (which is still the name given to the swallow from its quickness of motion), according to Haja's testimony, is much rather סנוּנית, a name for the swallow; which also the Arab. (Freytag, ii. p. 368) and the modern Syriac confirm; besides, in old Heb. it has the name of סוּס or סיס (from Arab. shash, to fly confusedly hither and thither). In like manner the ape (Aben Ezra, Meîri, Immanuel) is to be set aside, for this is called קוף (Indian kapi, kap, kamp, to move inconstantly and quickly up and down),^[136] and appears here admissible only on the ground that from בידים תתפשׂ they read that the beast had a resemblance to man. There remains now only the lizard (lxx, Jerome) and the spider (Luther) to be considered. The Talmud, Schabbath 77b, reckons five instances in which fear of the weaker pursues the stronger: one of these instances is אימת סנוניתעל הנשׁר, another אימת סממית על העקרב. The swallow, thus Rashi explains, creeps under the wings of the eagle and hinders it from spreading them out in its flight; and the spider (araigne) creeps into the ear of the scorpion; or also: a bruised spider applied heals the scorpion's sting. A second time the word occurs, Sanhedrin 103b, where it is said of King Amon that he burnt the Tôra, and that over the altar came a שממית (here with ש), which Rashi explains of the spider (a spider's web). But Aruch testifies that in these two places of the Talmud the explanation is divided between ragnatelo (spider) and (Ital.) lucêrta (lizard). For the latter, he refers to Lev 11:30, where לטאה (also explained by Rashi by lézard) in the Jerus. Targ. is rendered^[137] by שממיתא (the writing here also varies between שׁ and שׂ or ס). Accordingly, and after the lxx and Jerome, it may be regarded as a confirmed tradition that שממית means not the spider, for which the name עכּבישׁ is coined, but the lizard, and particularly the stellion (spotted lizard). Thus the later language used it as a word still living (plur. סממיּות, Sifre, under Deu 33:19). The Arab. also confirms this name as applicable to the lizard.^[138] “To this day in Syria and in the Desert it is called samawiyyat, probably not from poison, but from samawah = שׁממה, the wilderness, because the beast is found only in the stony heaps of the Kharab” (Mühlau after Wetzstein). If this derivation is correct, then שׁממית is to be regarded as an original Heb. expression; but the lizard's name, samm, which, without doubt, designates the animal as poisonous (cf. סם, samam, samm, vapour, poisonous breath, poison), favours Schultens' view: שממית = (Arab.) samamyyat, afflatu interficiens, or generally venenosa. In the expression בּידים תּתפּשׂ, Schultens, Gesenius, Ewald, Hitzig, Geier, and others, understand ידים of the two fore-feet of the lizard: “the lizard feels (or: seizes) with its two hands;” but granting that ידים is used of the fifteen feet of the stellio, or of the climbing feet of any other animal (lxx καλαβώτης = ἀσκαλαβώτης), yet it is opposed by this explanation, that in line first of this fourth distich an expression regarding the smallness of the weakness of the beast is to be expected, as at 25a, 26a, and 27a. And since, besides, תפשׂ with ביד or בכף always means “to catch” or “seize” (Eze 21:16; Eze 29:7; Jer 38:23), so the sense according to that explanation is: the lizard thou canst catch with the hand, and yet it is in kings' palaces, i.e., it is a little beast, which one can grasp with his hand, and yet it knows how to gain an entrance into palaces, by which in its nimbleness and cunning this is to be thought of, that it can scale the walls even to the summit (Aristoph. Nubes 170). To read תּתּפשׂ with Mühlau, after Böttcher, recommends itself by this, that in תּהפּשׂ one misses the suff. pointing back (תּתפּשׂנּה); also why the intensive of תפשׂ is used, is not rightly comprehended. Besides, the address makes the expression more animated; cf. Isa 7:25, תבוא. In the lxx as it lies before us, the two explanations spoken of are mingled together: καὶ καλαβώτης (= ἀσκαλαβώτης) χερσὶν ἐπειδόμενος καὶ εὐάλωτος ὢν... This εὐάλωτος ὢν (Symmachus, χερσὶν ἐλλαμβανόμενος) hits the sense of 28a. In היכלי מלך, מלך is not the genit. of possession, as at Psa 45:9, but of description (Hitzig), as at Amo 7:13.

Verses 29-31

Another numerical proverb with the cipher 4 = 3 + 1: 29 Three things are of stately walk, And four of stately going: 30 The lion, the hero among beasts, And that turneth back before nothing; 31 The swift-loined, also the goat; And a king with whom is the calling out of the host.
Regarding היטיב with inf. following (the segolated n. actionis צעד is of equal force with an inf.), vid., under Pro 15:2.^[139]
The relation of the members of the sentence in 30a is like that in 25a and 26a: subj. and apposit., which there, as here, is continued in a verbal clause which appears to us as relative. It deserves to be here remarked that לישׁ, as the name for a lion, occurs only here and at Job 4:11, and in the description of the Sinai wilderness, Isa 30:6; in Arab. it is layth, Aram. לית, and belongs to the Arameo-Arab. dialect of this language; the lxx and Syr. translate it “the young lion;” the Venet. excellently, by the epic λῖς. בּבּהמה has the article only to denote the genus, viz., of the beasts, and particularly the four-footed beasts. What is said in 30b (cf. with the expression, Job 39:22) is described in Isa 30:4. The two other beasts which distinguish themselves by their stately going are in 31a only briefly named. But we are not in the condition of the readers of this Book of Proverbs, who needed only to hear the designation זרזיר מתנים at once to know what beast was meant. Certainly זרזיר, as the name for a beast, is not altogether unknown in the post-bibl. Heb. “In the days of Rabbi Chija (the great teacher who came from Babylon to the Academy of Sepphoris), as is narrated in Bereschith rabba, sect. 65, a zarzir flew to the land of Israel, and it was brought to him with the question whether it were eatable. Go, said he, place it on the roof! Then came an Egyptian raven and lighted down beside it. See, said Chija, it is unclean, for it belongs to the genus of the ravens, which is unclean (Lev 11:15). From this circumstance there arose the proverb: The raven goes to the zarzir because it belongs to his own tribe.”^[140]
Also the Jer. Rosch ha-schane, Halacha 3: “It is the manner of the world that one seeks to assist his zarzir, and another his zarzir, to obtain the victory;” and Midrash Echa v. 1, according to which it is the custom of the world, that one who has a large and a little zarzir in his house, is wont to treat the little one sparingly, so that in the case of the large one being killed, he might not need to buy another. According to this, the zarzir is a pugnacious animal, which also the proverb Bereschith rabba, c. 75, confirms: two zarzir do not sleep on one board; and one makes use of his for contests like cock-fights. According to this, the זרזיר is a bird, and that of the species of the raven; after Rashi, the étourneau, the starling, which is confirmed by the Arab. zurzur (vulgar Arab. zarzur), the common name of starlings (cf. Syr. zarzizo, under zrz of Castelli). But for the passage before us, we cannot regard this as important, for why is the starling fully named זרזיר מתנים? To this question Kimchi has already remarked that he knows no answer for it. Only, perhaps, the grave magpie (corvus pica), strutting with upraised tail, might be called succinctus lumbos, if מתנים can at all be used here of a bird. At the earliest, this might possibly be used of a cock, which the later Heb. named directly גּבר, because of its manly demeanour; most old translators so understand it. The lxx translates, omitting the loins, by ἀλέκτωρ ἐμπεριπατῶν θηλείαις εὔψυχος, according to which the Syr. and Targ.: like the cock which struts about proudly among the hens;^[141]
Aquila and Theodotion: ἀλέκτωρ (ἀλεκτρυὼν) νώτου; The Quinta: ἀλέκτωρ ὀσφύος; Jezome: gallus succinctus lumbos. Ṣarṣar (not ṣirṣir, as Hitzig vocalizes) is in Arab. a name for a cock, from ṣarṣara, to crow, an onomatopoeia. But the Heb. זרזיר, as the name of a bird, signifies, as the Talmud proves on the ground of that history, not a cock, but a bird of the raven order, whether a starling, a crow, or a magpie. And if this name of a corvinus is formed from the onomatopoeia זרזר, the weaker form of that (Arab.) ṣarṣar, then מתנים, which, for זרזיר, requires the verbal root זרז, to girdle, is not wholly appropriate; and how strangely would the three animals be mingled together, if between לישׁ and תישׁ, the two four-footed animals, a bird were placed! If, as is to be expected, the “Lendenumgürtete” [the one girded about the loins = זרזיר מתנים] be a four-footed animal, then it lies near, with C. B. Michaelis and Ziegler, after Ludolf's^[142] example, to think of the zebra, the South African wild ass. But this animal lay beyond the sphere of the author's observation, and perhaps also of his knowledge, and at the same time of that of the Israelitish readers of this Book of Proverbs; and the dark-brown cross stripes on a white ground, by which the zebra is distinguished, extend not merely to its limbs, but over the whole body, and particularly over the front of the body. It would be more tenable to think of the leopard, with its black round spots, or the tiger, with dark stripes; but the name זרזיר מתנים scarcely refers to the colour of the hair, since one has to understand it after the Aram. זרז חרציהּ = שׁנּס מתניו, 1Ki 18:46, or אחר חלציו, Job 38:3, and thus of an activity, i.e., strength and swiftness, depending on the condition of the loins. Those who, with Kimchi, think that the נמר [leopard] is thus named, ground their view, not on this, that it has rings or stripes round its legs, but on this, that it דק מתנים וחזק במתניו. But this beast has certainly its definite name; but a fundamental supposition entering into every attempt at an explanation is this, that זרזיר מתנים, as well as לישׁ and תישׁ, is the proper name of a beast, not a descriptive attribute. Therefore the opinion of Rosse, which Bochart has skilfully established in the Hierozoicon, does not recommend itself, for he only suggests, for choice, to understand the name, “the girded about the loins,” in the proper sense of straps and clasps around and on the loins (thus e.g., Gesenius, Fleischer, Hitzig), or of strength, in the sense of the Arab. habuwk, the firmly-bound = compact, or ṣamm alṣlab, the girded loin (thus e.g., Muntinghe). Schultens connects together both references: Utrumque jungas licet. That the by-name fits the horse, particularly the war-horse, is undeniable; one would have to refer it, with Mühlau, to the slender structure, the thin flanks, which are reckoned among the requisites of a beautiful horse.^[143]
But if succinctus lumbos were a by-name of a horse, why did not the author at once say סוס זרזיר מתנים? We shall give the preference to the opinion, according to which the expression, “girt about the loins” = “with strong loins,” or “with slender limbs,” is not the by-name, but the proper name of the animal. This may be said of the hunting-hound, lévrier (according to which the Venet., incorrectly translating מתנים: λαγῳοκύων ψοιῶν),^[144] which Kimchi ranks in the first place. Luther, by his translation, Ein Wind = Windhund [greyhound], of good limbs, has given the right direction to this opinion. Melanchton, Lavater, Mercier, Geier, and others, follow him; and, among the moderns, so also do Ewald and Böttcher (also Bertheau and Stuart), which latter supposes that before זרזיר מתנים there originally stood כבל, which afterwards disappeared. But why should the greyhound not at once be called זרזיר מתנים? We call the smaller variety of this dog the Windspiel [greyhound]; and by this name we think on a hound, without saying Windspielhund. The name זרזיר מתנים (Symmachus excellently: περιεσφιγμένος, not περιεσφραγισμένος, τὴν ὀσφύν, i.e., strongly bound in the limbs) is fitted at once to suggest to us this almost restless, slender animal, with its high, thin, nimble limbs. The verbal stem זרר (Arab.) zarr, signifies to press together, to knit together; the reduplicative form זרזר, to bind firmly together, whence זרזיר, firmly bound together, referred to the limbs as designating a natural property (Ewald, §158a): of straight and easily-moveable legs.^[145]
The hunting-hound (salâki or salûki, i.e., coming from Seleucia) is celebrated by the Arab. poets as much as the hunting-horse.^[146]
The name כּלב, though not superfluous, the author ought certainly to have avoided, because it does not sound well in the Heb. collocation of words.
There now follows תישׁ, a goat, and that not the ram (Jerome, Luther), which is called איל, but the he-goat, which bears this name, as Schultens has already recognised, from its pushing, as it is also called עתּוּד, as paratus ad pugnam; the two names appear to be only provincially different; שׂעיר, on the contrary, is the old he-goat, as shaggy; and צפיר also perhaps denotes it, as Schultens supposes, with twisted, i.e., curled hair (tortipilus). In Arab. tays denotes the he-goat as well as the roebuck and the gazelle, and that at full growth. The lxx (the Syr. and Targ., which is to be emended after the Syr.) is certainly right, for it understands the leading goat: καὶ τράγος ἡγούμενος αἰπολίου. The text, however, has not ותישׁ, but או תישׁ, ἢ τράγος (Aquila, Theodotion, Quinta, and the Venet.). Böttcher is astonished that Hitzig did not take hold of this או, and conjectures תּאו־תישׁ, which should mean a “gazelle-goat” (Mühlau: dorcas mas). But it is too bold to introduce here תּאו (תּוא), which is only twice named in the O.T., and תאו־תישׁ for תּאו זכר is not the Heb. style; and besides, the setting aside of או has a harsh asyndeton for its consequence, which bears evidence to the appearance that תאו and תישׁ are two different animals. And is the או then so objectionable? More wonderful still must Sol 2:9 appear to us. If the author enumerated the four of stately going on his fingers, he would certainly have said ותישׁ. By או he communicates to the hearer, setting before him another figure, how there in the Song Sulamith's fancy passed from one object to another.
To the lion, the king of the animal world, the king אלקוּם עמּו corresponds. This אלקום Hitzig regards as mutilated from אלהים (which was both written and pronounced as אלקום by the Jews, so as to conceal the true sound of the name of God) - which is untenable, for this reason, that this religious conclusion [“A king with whom God is”] accords badly with the secular character of this proverb. Geiger (Urschrift, p. 62ff.) translates: “and King Alkimos corresponding to it (the lustful and daring goat)” - he makes the harmless proverb into a ludibrium from the time of the Maccabeo-Syrian war. The lxx, which the Syr. and Targ. follow, translates καὶ βασιλεὺς δημηγορῶν ἐν ἔθνει; it appears to have changed אלקום עמו into קם אל עמו (standing with his people and haranguing them), like the Quinta: καὶ βας. ἀναστὰς (ὃς ἀνέστη) ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ. Ziegler and Böttcher also, reading עמּו and אל without any transposition, get ומלך אל־קוּם עמּו t, which the former translates: “a king with the presence of his people;” the latter, “a king with the setting up of his people,” - not accordant with the thought, for the king should be brought forward as מיטיב לכת. For the same reason, Kimchi's explanation is not suitable: a king with whom is no resistance, i.e., against whom no one can rank himself (thus e.g., also Immanuel); or more specially, but not better: who has no successor of his race (according to which the Venet. ἀδιάδεκτος ξὺν ἑαυτῷ). Rather this explanation commends itself: a king with whom (i.e., in war with whom) is no resistance. Thus Jerome and Luther: against whom no one dare place himself; thus Rashi, Aben Ezra, Ralbag (שׁאין תקומה עמו), Ahron b. Josef (קום = ἀντίστασις), Arama, and others; thus also Schultens, Fleischer (adversus quem nemo consistere audet), Ewald, Bertheau, Elster, Stuart, and others. But this connection of אל with the infin. is not Heb.; and if the Chokma, xii. 28, has coined the expression אל־מות for the idea of “immortality,” then certainly it does not express the idea of resistlessness by so bold a quasi compositum. But this boldness is also there mitigated, for יהי is supplied after אל, which is not here practicable with קוּם, which is not a subst. like מות. Pocock in the Spec. historiae Arabum, and Castellus in the Lex. Heptaglotton (not Castellio, as the word is printed by Zöckler), have recognised in אלקום the Arab. âlkawm; Schultens gives the lxx the honour of this recognition, for he regards their translation as a paraphrase of ὁ δῆμος μετ ̓ αὐτοῦ. Bertheau thinks that it ought to be in Arab. kawmuhu, but אלקום עמו = âlkawhu ma'ahu is perfectly correct, âlkawhu is the summons or the Heerbann = arriere-ban;^[147] in North Africa they speak in their language in the same sense of the Gums. This explanation of אלקום, from the Arab. Dachselt (rex cum satellitio suo), Diedrichs in his Arab.-Syr. Spicilegium (1777), Umbreit, Gesenius, and Vaihinger, have recognised, and Mühlau has anew confirmed it at length. Hitzig, on the contrary, remarks that if Agur wrote on Arab. territory, we could be contented with the Arab. appellative, but not with the article, which in words like אלגּבישׁ and אלמגּים is no longer of force as an art., but is an integ. component part of the word. We think that it is with אלקום exactly as with other words descriptive of lordship, and the many similar that have passed over into the Spanish language; the word is taken over along with the article, without requiring the Heb. listener to take the art. as such, although he certainly felt it better than we do, when we say “das Alkoran” [the Alcoran], “das Alcohol,” and the like. Blau also, in his Gesch. der Arab. Substantiv-Determ.,^[148] regards it as certain that Agur borrowed this אלקום from the idiom of the Arabians, among whom he lived, and heard it constantly spoken. By this explanation we first reach a correspondence between what is announced in lines first and second and line sixth. A king as such is certainly not “comely in going;” he can sit upon his throne, and especially as δημηγορῶν will he sit (Act 12:21) and not stand. But the majesty of his going shows itself when he marches at the head of those who have risen up at his summons to war. Then he is for the army what the תישׁ he-goat is for the flock. The או, preferred to ו, draws close together the רישׁ e and the king (cf. e.g., Isa 14:9).

Verses 32-33

Another proverb, the last of Agur's “Words” which exhorts to thoughtful, discreet demeanour, here follows the proverb of self-conscious, grave deportment: 32 If thou art foolish in that thou exaltest thyself, Or in devising, - put thy hand to thy mouth! 33 For the pressure on milk bringeth forth butter, And pressure on the nose bringeth forth blood, And pressure on sensibility bringeth forth altercation.
Löwenstein translates Pro 30:32 :
Art thou despicable, it is by boasting;
Art thou prudent, then hold thy hand on thy mouth.
But if זמם denotes reflection and deliberation, then נבל, as its opposite, denotes unreflecting, foolish conduct. Then בּהתנשּׂא ne by boasting is not to be regarded as a consequent (thus it happens by lifting thyself up; or: it is connected with boasting); by this construction also, אם־נבלתּ must be accented with Dechi, not with Tarcha. Otherwise Euchel:
Hast thou become offensive through pride,
Or seems it so to thee, - lay thy hand to thy mouth.
The thought is appropriate,^[149] but נבלתּ for נבּלתּ is more than improbable; נבל, thus absolutely taken in an ethical connection, is certainly related to נבל, as כּסל, Jer 10:8, to כּסיל. The prevailing mode of explanation is adopted by Fleischer: si stulta arrogantia elatus fueris et si quid durius (in alios) mente conceperis, manum ori impone; i.e., if thou arrogantly, and with offensive words, wilt strive with others, then keep thyself back, and say not what thou hast in thy mind. But while מזמּה and מזמּות denote intrigues, Pro 14:17, as well as plans and considerations, זמם has never by itself alone the sense of meditari mala; at Psa 37:12, also with ל of the object at which the evil devices aim. Then for ואם ... אם (Arab. ân ... wân) there is the supposition of a correlative relation, as e.g., 1Ki 20:18; Ecc 11:3, by which at the same time זמּות is obviously thought of as a contrast to נבלתּ. This contrast excludes^[150] for זמות not only the sense of mala moliri (thus e.g., also Mühlau), but also the sense of the Arab. zamm, superbire (Schultens). Hitzig has the right determination of the relation of the members of the sentence and the ideas: if thou art irrational in ebullition of temper and in thought - thy hand to thy mouth! But התנשּׂא has neither here nor elsewhere the meaning of התעבּר (to be out of oneself with anger); it signifies everywhere to elevate or exalt oneself, i.e., rightly or wrongly to make much of oneself. There are cases where a man, who raises himself above others, appears as a fool, and indeed acts foolishly; but there are also other cases, when the despised has a reason and an object for vindicating his superiority, his repute, his just claim: when, as we say, he places himself in his right position, and assumes importance; the poet here recommends, to the one as well as to the other, silence. The rule that silence is gold has its exceptions, but here also it is held valid as a rule. Luther and others interpret the perfecta as looking back: “hast thou become a fool and ascended too high and intended evil, then lay thy hand on thy mouth.” But the reason in Pro 30:33 does not accord with this rendering, for when that has been done, the occasion for hatred is already given; but the proverb designs to warn against the stirring up of hatred by the reclaiming of personal pretensions. The perfecta, therefore, are to be interpreted as at Deu 32:29; Job 9:15, as the expression of the abstract present; or better, as at Job 9:16, as the expression of the fut. exactum: if thou wouldest have acted foolishly, since thou walkest proudly, or if thou hadst (before) thought of it (Aquila, Theodotion: καὶ ἐὰν ἐννοηθῇς) - the hand on thy mouth, i.e., let it alone, be silent rather (expression as Pro 11:24; Jdg 18:19; Job 40:4). The Venet. best: εἴπερ ἐμώρανας ἐν τῷ ἐπαίρεσθαι καὶ εἴπερ ἐλογίσω, χεὶρ τῷ στόματι. When we have now interpreted התנשׂא, not of the rising up of anger, we do not also, with Hitzig, interpret the dual of the two snorting noses - viz. of the double anger, that of him who provokes to anger, and that of him who is made angry - but אפּים denotes the two nostrils of one and the same person, and, figuratively, snorting or anger. Pressure against the nose is designated ומיץ־אף, ἐκμύζησις (ἐκπίεσις) μυκτῆρος (write ומיץ־אף, with Metheg, with the long tone, after Metheg-Setzung, §11, 9, 12), and מיץ אפּים, ἐκμύζησις θυμοῦ (Theodotion), with reference to the proper meaning of אפים, pressure to anger, i.e., to the stirring up and strengthening of anger. The nose of him who raises himself up comes into view, in so far as, with such self-estimation, sneering, snuffling scorn (μυκτηρίζειν) easily connects itself; but this view of מתנשׂא is not here spoken of.

Chap. 31

Verse 1

Superscription: 1 Words of Lemuel the king, The utterance wherewith his mother warned him.
Such would be the superscription if the interpunction of the text as it lies before us were correct. But it is not possibly right. For, notwithstanding the assurance of Ewald, §277b, למואל מלך, nevertheless, as it would be here used, remains an impossibility. Certainly under circumstances an indeterminate apposition can follow a proper name. That on coins we read מתתיה כהן גדול or נרון קיסר is nothing strange; in this case we also use the words “Nero, emperor,” and that we altogether omit the article shows that the case is singular: the apposition wavers between the force of a generic and of a proper name. A similar case is the naming of the proper name with the general specification of the class to which this or that one bearing the name belongs in lists of persons, as e.g., 1Ki 4:2-6, or in such expressions as, e.g., “Damascus, a town,” or “Tel Hum, a castle,” and the like; here we have the indefinite article, because the apposition is a simple declaration of the class.^[151]
But would the expression, “The poem of Oscar, a king,” be proper as the title of a book? Proportionally more so than “Oscar, king;” but also that form of indeterminate apposition is contrary to the usus loq., especially with a king with whom the apposition is not a generic name, but a name of honour. We assume that “Lemuel” is a symbolical name, like “Jareb” in “King Jareb,” Hos 5:13; Hos 10:6; so we would expect the phrase to be מלך למואל(ה) rather than למואל מלך. The phrase “Lemuel, king,” here in the title of this section of the book, sounds like a double name, after the manner of עבר מלך in the book of Jeremiah. In the Greek version also the phrase Λεμουέλου βασιλέως (Venet.) is not used as syntactically correct without having joined to the βασιλέως a dependent genitive such as τῶν Αράβων, while none of the old translators, except Jerome, take the words למואל מלך together in the sense of Lamuelis regis. Thus מלך משּׂא are to be taken together, with Hitzig, Bertheau, Zöckler, Mühlau, and Dächsel, against Ewald and Kamphausen; משׂא, whether it be a name of a tribe or a country, or of both at the same time, is the region ruled over by Lemuel, and since this proper name throws back the determination which it has in itself on מלך, the phrase is to be translated: “Words of Lemuel the king of Massa” (vid., under Pro 30:1). If Aquila renders this proper name by Λεμμοῦν, Symmachus by Ἰαμουήλ, Theodotion by Ρεβουήλ, the same arbitrariness prevails with reference to the initial and terminal sound of the word, as in the case of the words Ἀμβακούμ, Βεελζεβούλ, Βελίαρ. The name למוּאל sounds like the name of Simeon's first-born, ימוּאל, Gen 46:10, written in Num 26:12 and 1Ch 4:24 as נמוּאל; יואל also appears, 1Ch 4:35, as a Simeonite name, which Hitzig adduces in favour of his view that משׂא was a North Arab. Simeonite colony. The interchange of the names ימואל and נמואל is intelligible if it is supposed that ימואל (from ימה = ימא) designates the sworn (sworn to) of God, and נמואל (from נם Mishnic = נאם)^[152] the expressed (addressed) of God; here the reference of ימו and נמו to verbal stems is at least possible, but a verb למּה is found only in the Arab., and with significations inus. But there are two other derivations of the name: (1) The verb (Arab.) waâla signifies to hasten (with the infin. of the onomatop. verbs waniyal, like raḥyal, walking, because motion, especially that which is tumultuous, proceeds with a noise), whence mawnil, the place to which one flees, retreat. Hence למוּאל or למואל, which is in this case to be assumed as the ground-form, might be formed from אל מואל, God is a refuge, with the rejection of the א. This is the opinion of Fleischer, which Mühlau adopts and has established, p. 38-41; for he shows that the initial א is not only often rejected where it is without the support of a full vocal, e.g., נחנוּ = אנחנוּ, lalah = ilalah (Deus), but that this aphaeresis not seldom also occurs where the initial has a full vocal, e.g., לעזר = אלעזר, laḥmaru = âllahmaru (ruber), laḥsâ = âl-laḥsâ (the name of a town); cf. also Blau in Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xxv. 580. But this view is thus acceptable and tenable; a derivation which spares us by a like certainty the supposition of such an abbreviation established only by the late Palestinian לעזר, Λάζαρος, might well desire the preference. (2) Fleischer himself suggests another derivation: “The signification of the name is Deo consecratus, למו, poetic for ל, as also in Pro 31:4 it is to be vocalized למואל after the Masora.” The form למואל is certainly not less favourable to that first derivation than to this second; the û is in both cases an obscuration of the original. But that “Lemuel” may be explained in this second way is shown by “Lael,” Num 3:24 (Olshausen, §277d).^[153]
It is a beautiful sign for King Lemuel, and a verification of his name, that it is he himself by whom we receive the admonition with which his mother in her care counselled him when he attained to independent government. אשׁר connects itself with דברי, after we have connected משׂא with מלך; it is accus. of the manner to יסּרתּוּ = יסּרתהוּ; cf. הטּתּוּ, Pro 7:21, with גּמלתהוּ, Pro 31:12 : wherewith (with which words) she earnestly and impressively admonished him. The Syr. translates: words of Muel, as if ל were that of the author. “Others as inconsistently: words to Lemuel - they are words which is himself ought to carry in his mouth as received from his mother” (Fleischer).
The name “Massa,” is it here means effatum, would be proportionally more appropriate for these “Words” of Lemuel than for the “Words” of Agur, for the maternal counsels form an inwardly connected compact whole. They begin with a question which maternal love puts to itself with regard to the beloved son whom she would advise:

Verse 2

Pro 31:2 2 What, my son? and what the son of my womb? And what, O son of my vows?!
The thrice repeated מה is completed by תּעשׂה (cf. Köhler under Mal 2:15), and that so that the question is put for the purpose of exciting attention: Consider well, my son, what thou wilt do as ruler, and listen attentively to my counsel (Fleischer). But the passionate repetition of מה would be only affectation if thus interpreted; the underlying thought must be of a subjective nature: what shall I say, אדבּר (vid., under Isa 38:15), what advise thee to do? The question, which is at the same time a call, is like a deep sigh from the heart of the mother concerned for the welfare of her son, who would say to him what is beneficial, and say it in words which strike and remain fixed. He is indeed her dear son, the son whom she carries in her heart, the son for whom with vows of thanksgiving she prayed to God; and as he was given her by God, so to His care she commits him. The name “Lemuel” is, as we interpret it, like the anagram of the fulfilment of the vows of his mother. בּרי bears the Aramaic shade in the Arameo-Arab. colouring of these proverbs from Massa; בּריהּ is common in the Aram., and particularly in the Talmudic, but it can scarcely be adduced in support of ברי. וּמה belongs to the 24, מה, with ח or ע not following; vid., the Masora to Exo 32:1, and its correction by Norzi at Deu 29:23. We do not write וּמה־בּר; מה, with Makkeph and with Metheg, exclude one another.

Verse 3

The first admonition is a warning against effeminating sensuality:
Give not thy strength to women,
Nor thy ways to them that destroy kings.
The punctuation למחות sees in this form a syncopated inf. Hiph. = להמחות (vid., at Pro 24:17), according to which we are to translate: viasque tuas ad perdendos reges (ne dirige), by which, as Fleischer formulates the twofold possibility, it may either be said: direct not thy effort to this result, to destroy neighbouring kings - viz. by wars of invasion (properly, to wipe them away from the table of existence, as the Arabs say) - or: do not that by which kings are overthrown; i.e., with special reference to Lemuel, act not so that thou thyself must thereby be brought to ruin. But the warning against vengeful, rapacious, and covetous propensity to war (thus Jerome, so that Venet. after Kimchi: ἀπομάττειν βασιλέας, C. B. Michaelis, and earlier, Gesenius) does not stand well as parallel with the warning against giving his bodily and mental strength to women, i.e., expending it on them. But another explanation: direct not thy ways to the destruction of kings, i.e., toward that which destroys kings (Elster); or, as Luther translates: go not in the way wherein kings destroy themselves - puts into the words a sense which the author cannot have had in view; for the individualizing expression would then be generalized in the most ambiguous way. Thus למחות מלכין will be a name for women, parallel to לנּשׁים. So far the translation of the Targum: לבנת מלכין, filiabus (לאמהת?) regum, lies under a right supposition. But the designation is not thus general. Schultens explains catapultis regum after Eze 26:9; but, inasmuch as he takes this as a figure of those who lay siege to the hearts of men, he translates: expugnatricibus regum, for he regards מחות as the plur. of מחה, a particip. noun, which he translates by deletor. The connecting form of the fem. plur. of this מחה might certainly be מחות (cf. מזי, from מזה), but למחות מלכין ought to be changed into 'וגו 'לם; for one will not appeal to anomalies, such as 'לם, Pro 16:4; 'כּג, Isa 24:2; 'לם, Lam 1:19; or 'וגו 'הת, 1Ki 14:24, to save the Pathach of למחות, which, as we saw, proceeds from an altogether different understanding of the word. But if 'לם is to be changed into 'לם, then one must go further, since for מחה not an active but a conditional meaning is to be assumed, and we must write למחות, in favour of which Fleischer as well as Gesenius decides: et ne committe consilia factaque tua iis quae reges perdunt, regum pestibus. Ewald also favours the change למחות, for he renders מחה as a denom. of מח, marrow: those who enfeeble kings, in which Kamphausen follows him. Mühlau goes further; he gives the privative signification, to enfeeble, to the Piel מחה = makhakha (cf. Herzog's Real-Wörterb. xiv. 712), which is much more probable, and proposes לממחות: iis quae vires enervant regum. But we can appropriately, with Nöldeke, adhere to למחות, deletricibus (perditricibus), for by this change the parallelism is satisfied; and that מחה may be used, with immediate reference to men, of entire and total destruction, is sufficiently established by such passages as Gen 6:7; Jdg 21:17, if any proof is at all needed for it. Regarding the lxx and those misled by it, who, by מלכין and מלכים, 4a, think on the Aram. מלכּין, βουλαί, vid., Mühlau, p. 53.^[154]
But the Syr. has an idea worthy of the discourse, who translates epulis regum without our needing, with Mühlau, to charge him with dreaming of לחם in למחות. Perhaps that is true; but perhaps by למחות he thought of למחות (from מה, the particip. adj. of מחח): do not direct thy ways to rich food (morsels), such as kings love and can have. By this reading, 3b would mediate the transition to Pro 31:4; and that the mother refers to the immorality, the unseemliness, and the dangers of a large harem, only in one brief word (3a), cannot seem strange, much rather it may be regarded as a sign of delicacy. But so much the more badly does וּדרכיך accord with למחות. Certainly one goes to a banquet, for one finds leisure for it; but of one who himself is a king, it is not said that he should not direct his ways to a king's dainties. But if למחות refers to the whole conduct of the king, the warning is, that he should not regulate his conduct in dependence on the love and the government of women. But whoever will place himself amid the revelry of lust, is wont to intoxicate himself with ardent spirits; and he who is thus intoxicated, is in danger of giving reins to the beast within him.

Verses 4-5

Hence there now follows a warning against drunkenness, not unmediated by the reading למחות: 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, Not for kings to drink wine, Not for rulers to ask for intoxicating drink; 5 Lest he drink, and forget what is prescribed, And pervert the right of all the children of want.
The usual translation of 4a is: non decet reges... (as e.g., also Mühlau); but in this אל is not rightly rendered, which indeed is at times only an οὐ, spoken with close interest, but yet first of all, especially in such paraenetic connection as here, it is a dissuasive μή. But now לא למלכים שׁתות or לא למלכים לשׁתּות, after 2Ch 26:18; Mic 3:1, signifies: it is not the part of kings, it does not become them to drink, which may also be turned into a dissuasive form: let it not be the part of kings to drink, let them not have any business therewith, as if it belonged to their calling; according to which Fleischer renders: Absit a regibus, Lemuel, absit a regibus potare vinum. The clearer expression למואל, instead of למוּאל, is, after Böttcher, occasioned by this, that the name is here in the vocative; perhaps rather by this, that the meaning of the name: consecrated to God, belonging to God, must be placed in contrast to the descending to low, sensual lust. Both times we write אל לּמלכים with the orthophonic Dagesh^[155] in the ל following ל, and without the recompensative Dagesh, the want of which is in a certain measure covered by the Metheg (vid., Norzi). Regarding the inf. constr. שׁתו (cf. קנה, Pro 16:16), vid., Gesen. §75, Anm. 2; and regarding the sequence of accents here necessary, אל לּמלכים שׁתו־יין (not Mercha, Dechi, Athnach, for Dechi would be here contrary to rule), vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 22 §6, p. 43 §7.
In 4b nothing is to be gained from the Chethı̂b או. There is not a substantive או, desire, the constr. of which would here have to be read, not או (Umbreit, Gesenius), but או, after the form קו (Maurer); and why did the author not write תּאות שׁכר? But the particle או does not here also fall in with the connection; for if או שׁכר connect itself with יין (Hitzig, Ewald, and others), then it would drag disagreeably, and we would have here a spiritless classification of things unadvisable for kings. Böttcher therefore sees in this או the remains of the obliterated סבוא; a corrector must then have transformed the וא which remained into או. But before one ventures on such conjectures, the Kerı̂ אי [where?] must be tried. Is it the abbreviated אין (Herzog's Real-Wörterbuch, xiv. 712)? Certainly not, because וּלרוזנים אין שׁכר would mean: and the princes, or rulers (vid., regarding רוזנים at Pro 8:15), have no mead, which is inconsistent. But אין does not abbreviate itself into אי, but into אי. Not אי, but אי, is in Heb., as well as in Ethiop., the word with which negative adjectives such as אי נקי, not innocent, Job 22:30, and in later Heb. also, negative sentences, such as אי אפשׁר: it is not possible, are formed.^[156]
Therefore Mühlau vocalizes אי, and thinks that the author used this word for אל, so as not to repeat this word for the third time. But how is that possible? אי שׁכר signifies either: not mead, or: there is not mead; and both afford, for the passage before us, no meaning. Is, then, the Kerı̂ אי truly so unsuitable? Indeed, to explain: how came intoxicating drink to rulers! is inadmissible, since אי always means only ubi (e.g., Gen 4:9); not, like the Ethiop. aitê, also quomodo. But the question ubi temetum, as a question of desire, fits the connection, whether the sentence means: non decet principibus dicere (Ahron b. Josef supplies שׁיאמרו) ubi temetum, or: absit a principibus quaerere ubi temetum (Fleischer), which, from our view of 4a, we prefer. There is in reality nothing to be supplied; but as 4a says that the drinking of wine ought not to characterize kings, so 4b, that “Where is mead?” (i.e., this eager inquiry after mead) ought not to characterize rulers.^[157]
Why not? Pro 31:5 says. That the prince, being a slave to drink, may not forget the מחקּק, i.e., that which has been made and has become חק, thus that which is lawfully right, and may not alter the righteous cause of the miserable, who cry against their oppressors, i.e., may not handle falsely the facts of the case, and give judgment contrary to them. שׁנּה דין (Aquila, Theodotion, Quinta, ἀλλοιοῦν κρίσιν) is elsewhere equivalent to הטּה משׁפּט (עוּת). בּני־עני are those who are, as it were, born to oppression and suffering. This mode of expression is a Semitism (Fleischer), but it here heightens the impression of the Arab. colouring. In כל (Venet. ὡντινοῦν) it is indicated that, not merely with reference to individual poor men, but in general to the whole class of the poorer people, suffering humanity, sympathy and a regard for truth on the part of a prince given to sensuality are easily thrown aside. Wine is better suited for those who are in a condition to be timeously helped over which, is a refreshment to them.

Verses 6-7

Pro 31:6-7 6 Give strong drink to him that is perishing, And wine to those whose soul is in bitter woe; 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty, And let him think of his misery no more.
The preparation of a potion for malefactors who were condemned to death was, on the ground of these words of the proverb, cared for by noble women in Jerusalem (נשׁים יקרות שׁבירושׁלים), Sanhedrin 43a; Jesus rejected it, because He wished, without becoming insensible to His sorrow, to pass away from the earthly life freely and in full consciousness, Mar 15:23. The transition from the plur. to the sing. of the subject is in Pro 31:7 less violent than in Pro 31:5, since in Pro 31:6 singular and plur. already interchange. We write תּנוּ־שׁכר with the counter-tone Metheg and Mercha. אובד designates, as at Job 29:13; Job 31:19, one who goes to meet destruction: it combines the present signification interiens, the fut. signif. interiturus, and the perf. perditus (hopelessly lost). מרי נפשׁ (those whose minds are filled with sorrow) is also supported from the Book of Job; Job 3:20, cf. Pro 21:25, the language and thought and mode of writing of which notably rests on the Proverbs of Agur and Lemuel (vid., Mühlau, pp. 64-66). The Venet. τοῖς πικροῖς (not ψυξροῖς) τὴν ψυχήν. רישׁ (poverty) is not, however, found there, but only in the Book of Proverbs, in which this word-stem is more at home than elsewhere. Wine rejoices the heart of man, Psa 104:15, and at the same time raises it for the time above oppression and want, and out of anxious sorrow, wherefore it is soonest granted to them, and in sympathizing love ought to be presented to them by whom this its beneficent influence is to be wished for. The ruined man forgets his poverty, the deeply perplexed his burden of sorrow; the king, on the contrary, is in danger from this cause of forgetting what the law required at his hands, viz., in relation to those who need help, to whom especially his duty as a ruler refers.

Verses 8-9

Pro 31:8-9 8 Open thy mouth for the dumb, For the right of all the children of leaving; 9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, And do right to the poor and needy.
He is called dumb who suffers the infirmity of dumbness, as עוּר and פּסּח, Job 29:15, is he who suffers the infirmity of blindness or lameness, not here figuratively; at the same time, he who, on account of his youth, or on account of his ignorance, or from fear, cannot speak before the tribunal for himself (Fleischer). With ל the dat. commodi (lxx after Lagarde, μογιλάλῳ; Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, ἀλάλῳ; the Venet. after Gebhardt, βωβῷ) אל, of the object aimed at, interchanges, as e.g., 1Ki 19:3; 2Ki 7:7, אל־נפשׁם, for the preservation of their life, or for the sake of their life, for it is seldom that it introduces the object so purely as here. And that an infin. such as חלוף should stand as a subst. occurs proportionally seldomer in Heb. (Isa 4:4; Psa 22:7; cf. with ה of the artic., Num 4:12; Psa 66:9) than it does in Arab. בּני חלוף in the same way as בּני־עני, 5b, belongs to the Arab. complexion of this proverb, but without its being necessary to refer to the Arab. in order to fix the meaning of these two words. Hitzig explains after khalf, to come after, which further means “to have the disadvantage,” in which Zöckler follows him; but this verb in Arab. does not mean ὑστερεῖν (ὑστερεῖσθαι), we must explain “sons of him that remains behind,” i.e., such as come not forward, but remain behind ('an) others. Mühlau goes further, and explains, with Schultens and Vaihinger: those destitute of defence, after (Arab.) khalafahu he is ranked next to him, and has become his representative - a use of the word foreign to the Heb. Still less is the rendering of Gesenius justified, “children of inheritance” = children left behind, after khallafa, to leave behind; and Luther, “for the cause of all who are left behind,” by the phrase (Arab.) khallfany'an 'awnih, he has placed me behind his help, denied it to me, for the Kal of the verb cannot mean to abandon, to leave. And that בני חלוף means the opposers of the truth, or of the poor, or the litigious person, the quarrelsome, is perfectly inadmissible, since the Kal חלוף cannot be equivalent to (Arab.) khilaf, the inf. of the 3rd conj., and besides, the gen. after דּין always denotes those in whose favour, not those against whom it is passed; the latter is also valid against Ralbag's “sons of change,” i.e., who say things different from what they think; and Ahron b. Josef's “sons of changing,” viz., the truth into lies. We must abide by the meaning of the Heb. חלף, “to follow after, to change places, pass away.” Accordingly, Fleischer understands by חלוף, the going away, the dying, viz., of parents, and translates: eorum qui parentibus orbati sunt. In another way Rashi reaches the same sense: orphans deprived of their helper. But the connection בני חלף requires that we make those who are intended themselves the subject of חלוף. Rightly Ewald, Bertheau, Kamphausen, compare Isa 2:18 (and Psa 90:5., this with questionable right), and understand by the sons of disappearance those whose inherited lot, whose proper fate, is to disappear, to die, to perish (Symmachus: πάντων υἱῶν ἀποιχομένων; Jerome: omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt). It is not men in general as children of frailty that are meant (Kimchi, Meîri, Immanuel, Euchel, and others), after which the Venet. τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ μεταβάλλειν (i.e., those who must exchange this life for another), but such as are on the brink of the abyss. צדק in שׁפט־צדק is not equivalent to בּצדק, but is the accus. of the object, as at Zec 8:16, decide justice, i.e., so that justice is the result of thy judicial act; cf. Knobel on Deu 1:16. ודּין is imper., do right to the miserable and the poor; cf. Psa 54:3 with Jer 22:16; Jer 5:28. That is a king of a right sort, who directs his high function as a judge, so as to be an advocate [procurator] for the helpless of his people.

Verse 10

A wife, such as she ought to be, is a rare treasure, a good excelling all earthly possession: 10 א A virtuous woman, who findeth her! She stands far above pearls in worth.
In the connection אושׁת חיל and the like, the idea of bodily vigour is spiritualized to that of capacity, ability, and is generalized; in virtus the corresponding transition from manliness, and in the originally Romanic “Bravheit,” valour to ability, is completed; we have translated as at Pro 12:4, but also Luther, “a virtuous woman,” is suitable, since Tugend (virtue) has with Tüchtigkeit [ability] the same root-word, and according to our linguistic [German] usage designates the property of moral goodness and propriety, while for those of former times, when they spoke of the tugend (tugent) of a woman, the word combined with it the idea of fine manners (cf. חן, Pro 11:16) and culture (cf. שׂכל טוב, Pro 13:15). The question מי ימצא, quis inveniat, which, Ecc 7:24, proceeds from the supposition of the impossibility of finding, conveys here only the idea of the difficulty of finding. In ancient Jerusalem, when one was married, they were wont to ask: מצא אומוצא, i.e., has he found? thus as is said at Pro 18:22, or at Ecc 7:26. A virtuous woman [braves Weib] is not found by every one, she is found by comparatively few. In 10b there is given to the thought which underlies the question a synonymous expression. Ewald, Elster, and Zöckler incorrectly render the ו by “although” or “and yet.” Fleischer rightly: the second clause, if not in form yet in sense, runs parallel to the first. מכר designates the price for which such a woman is sold, and thus is purchasable, not without reference to this, that in the Orient a wife is obtained by means of מהר. מכר, synon. מחיר, for which a wife of the right kind is gained, is רחוק, placed further, i.e., is more difficult to be obtained, than pearls (vid., regarding “pearls” at Pro 3:15), i.e., than the price for such precious things. The poet thereby means to say that such a wife is a more precious possession than all earthly things which are precious, and that he who finds such an one has to speak of his rare fortune.

Verse 11

The reason for this is now given: 11 ב The heart of her husband doth trust her, And he shall not fail of grain.
If we interpret שׁלל, after Ecc 9:8, as subject, then we miss לּו; it will thus be object., and the husband subj. to לא יחסּר: nec lucro carebit, as e.g., Fleischer translates it, with the remark that שׁלל denotes properly the spoil which one takes from an enemy, but then also, like the Arab. ḍanymat, can mean profit and gain of all kinds (cf. Rödiger in Gesenius' Thes.). Thus also in our “kriegen” = to come into possession, the reference to war disappears. Hitzig understands by שׁלל, the continual prosperity of the man on account of his fortunate possession of such a wife; but in that case the poet should have said שׂמחת שׁלל; for שׁלל is gain, not the feeling that is therewith connected. There is here meant the gain, profit, which the housewife is the means of bringing in (cf. Psa 78:13). The heart of her husband (בּעלּהּ) can be at rest, it can rest on her whom it loves - he goes after his calling, perhaps a calling which, though weighty and honourable, brings in little or nothing; but the wife keeps the family possessions scrupulously together, and increases them by her laborious and prudent management, so that there is not wanting to him gain, which he properly did not acquire, but which the confidence he is justified in reposing in his wife alone brings to him. She is to him a perpetual spring of nothing but good.

Verse 12

Pro 31:12 12 ג She doeth good to him, and not evil, All the days of her life; or, as Luther translates:
“Sie thut jm liebs und kein leids.” [She does him good, and no harm.]
She is far from ever doing him evil, she does him only good all her life long; her love is not dependent on freaks, it rests on deep moral grounds, and hence derives its power and purity, which remain ever the same. גּמל signifies to accomplish, to perform. To the not assimilated form גּמלתהוּ, cf. יסּרתּוּ, 1b.

Verse 13

The poet now describes how she disposes of things: 13 ד She careth for wool and flax, And worketh these with her hands' pleasure.
The verb דּרשׁ proceeds, as the Arab. shows,^[158] from the primary meaning terere; but to translate with reference thereto: tractat lanam et linum (lxx, Schultens, Dathe, Rosemüller, Fleischer), is inadmissible. The Heb. דרשׁ does not mean the external working at or manufacturing of a thing; but it means, even when it refers to this, the intention of the mind purposely directed thereto. Thus wool and flax come into view as the material of work which she cares to bring in; and ותּעשׂ signifies the work itself, following the creation of the need of work. Hitzig translates the second line: she works at the business of her hands. Certainly ב after עשׂה may denote the sphere of activity, Exo 31:4; 1 Kings 5:30, etc.; but if חפץ had here the weakened signification business, πρᾶγμα, - which it gains in the same way as we say business, affair, of any object of care - the scarcely established meaning presents itself, that she shows herself active in that which she has made the business of her hands. How much more beautiful, on the contrary, is the thought: she is active with her hands' pleasure! חפץ is, as Schultens rightly explains, inclinatio flexa et propensa in aliquid, and pulchre manibus diligentissimis attribuitur lubentia cum oblectatione et per oblectationem sese animans. עשׂה, without obj. accus., signifies often: to accomplish, e.g., Ps. 22:32; here it stands, in a sense, complete in itself, and without object. accus., as when it means “handeln” [agere], Pro 13:16, and particularly to act in the service of God = to offer sacrifice, Exo 10:25; it means here, and at Rth 2:19; Hab 2:4, to be active, as at Isa 19:15, to be effective; ותּעשׂ is equivalent to ותעשׂ בּמּלאכה or ותעשׂ מלאכתּהּ (cf. under Pro 10:4). And pleasure and love for the work, חפץ, can be attributed to the hands with the same right as at Psa 78:72, discretion. The disposition which animates a man, especially his inner relation to the work devolving upon him, communicates itself to his hands, which, according as he has joy or aversion in regard to his work, will be nimble or clumsy. The Syr. translates: “and her hands are active after the pleasure of her heart;” but בחפץ is not equivalent to כּחפצהּ; also בּחפץ, in the sense of con amore (Böttcher), is not used.

Verse 14

The following proverb praises the extent of her housewifely transactions: 14 ה She is like the ships of the merchant - Bringeth her food from afar.
She is (lxx ἐγένετο) like merchant ships (כּאניות, indeterminate, and thus to be read kōǒnı̂joth), i.e., she has the art of such ships as sail away and bring wares from a distance, are equipped, sent out, and managed by an enterprising spirit; so the prudent, calculating look of the brave wife, directed towards the care and the advancement of her house, goes out beyond the nearest circle; she descries also distant opportunities of advantageous purchase and profitable exchange, and brings in from a distance what is necessary for the supply of her house, or, mediately, what yields this supply (ממּרחק, Cod. Jaman. ממרחק, cf. under Isa 10:6), for she finds that source of gain she has espied.

Verse 15

With this diligence in her duties she is not a long sleeper, who is not awakened till the sun is up; but 15 ו She riseth up while it is yet night, And giveth food to her house, And the fixed portion to her maidens.
The fut. consec. express, if not a logical sequence of connection, yet a close inner binding together of the separate features of the character here described. Early, ere the morning dawns, such a housewife rises up, because she places care for her house above her own comfort; or rather, because this care is to her a satisfaction and a joy. Since now the poet means without doubt to say that she is up before the other inmates of the house, especially before the children, though not before the maids: we have not, in ותּתּן, to think that the inmates of the house, all in the morning night-watch, stand round about her, and that each receives from her a portion for the approaching day; but that she herself, early, whilst yet the most are asleep, gives out or prepares the necessary portions of food for the day (cf. ויּתּן, Isa 53:9). Regarding טרף, food, from טרף (to tear in pieces, viz., with the teeth), and regarding חק, a portion decreed, vid., at Pro 30:8. It is true that חק also means the appointed labour (pensum), and thus the day's work (דּבר יום); but the parallelism brings it nearer to explain after Pro 30:8, as is done by Gesenius and Hitzig after Exo 5:14.

Verse 16

This industry - a pattern for the whole house - this punctuality in the management of household matters, secures to her success in the extension of her household wealth: 16 ז She seeketh a field and getteth possession of it; Of the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
The field which she considereth, towards which her wish and her effort are directed, is perhaps not one beyond those which she already possesses, but one which has hitherto been wanting to her family; for the poet has, after Pro 31:23, an inhabitant of a town in his eye, - a woman whose husband is not a landlord, but has a business in the city. The perf. זממה precedes and gives circumstantiality to the chief factum expressed by ותּקּחה. Regarding זמם, vid., Pro 21:27. “לקח is the general expression for purchasing, as נתן, 24b, for selling. Thus the Aram. and Arab. אחד, while, (Arab.) akhadh w'ṭa, Turk. alisch werisch (from elmeḳ, to take, and wirmek, to give - viz. ṣâtun, in the way of selling; Lat. venum), post-bibl. משּׂא וּמתּן or מקּח וּממכּר, denotes giving and taking = business in general” (Fleischer). In 16b the Chethı̂b is, with Ewald and Bertheau, to be read נטע, and, with Hitzig, to be made dependent on ותקחה, as parallel obj.: “of her hands' fruit (she gaineth) a planting of vines.” But a planting of vines would be expressed by מטּע כרם (Mic 1:6); and the Kerı̂ נטעה is more acceptable. The perf., as a fundamental verbal form, is here the expression of the abstract present: she plants a vineyard, for she purchases vines from the profit of her industry (Isa 7:23, cf. Pro 5:2).

Verse 17

The poet has this augmented household wealth in his eye, for he continues: 17 ח She girdeth her loins with strength, And moveth vigorously her arms.
Strength is as the girdle which she wraps around her body (Psa 93:1). We write חגרה בעוז; both words have Munach, and the ב of בעוז is aspirated. Thus girded with strength, out of this fulness of strength she makes firm or steels her arms (cf. Psa 89:22). The produce of the field and vineyard extend far beyond the necessity of her house; thus a great portion is brought to sale, and the gain thence arising stimulates the industry and the diligence of the unwearied woman.

Verse 18

Pro 31:18 18 ט She perceiveth that her gain is good; And her light goeth not out at night.
The perf. and fut. are related to each other as antecedent and consequent, so that 18a can also be rendered as an hypothetical antecedent. She comes to find (taste) how profitable her industry is by the experience resulting from the sale of its product: the corn, the grapes, and the wine are found to be good, and thus her gain (cf. Pro 3:14) is better, this opened new source of nourishment productive.
This spurs on her active industry to redoubled effort, and at times, when she is not fully occupied by the oversight of her fields and vineyard, she has another employment over which her light goes not out till far in the night. בּלּילה is, as at Lam 2:19, a needless Kerı̂ for the poetic בּלּיל (Isa 16:3). What other business it is to which she gives attention till in the night, is mentioned in the next verse.

Verse 19

Pro 31:19 19 י She putteth her hand to the rock Spinnrocken; And her fingers lay hold on the spindle.
She applies herself to the work of spinning, and performs it with skill. The phrase שׁלּח יד בּ (שׁלח, Job 28:9) signifies to take up an object of work, and תּמך, with obj. accus. (cf. Amo 1:5), the handling of the instrument of work necessary thereto. כּפּים denotes the hands when the subject is skilful, successful work; we accordingly say יגיע כפים, not יגיע ידים; cf. Pro 31:13 and Pro 31:16, Psa 78:72. What פּלך means is shown by the Arab. falakat, which, as distinguished from mighzal, i.e., fuseau (Lat. fusus), is explained by bout arrondi et conique au bas du fuseau, thus: the whorl, i.e., the ring or knob fastened on the spindle below, which gives it its necessary weight and regulates its movement, Lat. verticellus, post-bibl. פּיקה (which Bartenora glosses by the Ital. fusajuolo) or צנּורה, e.g., Kelim ix. 6, כושׁ שׁבלע את הצנורה, a spindle which holds the whorl hidden (vid., Aruch under כש, iii.). But the word then also signifies per synecdochen partis pro toto, the spindle, i.e., the cylindrical wood on which the thread winds itself when spinning (cf. 2Sa 3:29, where it means the staff on which the infirm leans); Homer gives to Helen and the goddesses golden spindles (χρυσηλάκατοι). Accordingly it is not probable that כּישׁור also denotes the whorl, as Kimchi explains the word: “כישור is that which one calls by the name verteil, viz., that which one fixes on the spindle (פלך) above to regulate the spinning (מטוה),” according to which the Venet. renders כישׁור by σφόνδυλος, whorl, and פלך by ἄτρακτος, spindle. The old interpreters have not recognised that כישׁור denotes a thing belonging to the spinning apparatus; the lxx, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Syr., and Jerome see therein an ethical idea (from כּשׁר, to be capable, able); but Luther, not misled thereby, translates with unusual excellence:
She stretches her hand to the rock,
And her fingers grasp the spindle.
He has in this no predecessors, except only the Targumists, whose כוּנשׁרא (vid., Levy) appears also to denote the spinning-rock. The Syriac and Talmudic כּוּשׁ, which is compared by Gesenius-Dietrich, is another word, and denotes, not the rock, but the spindle. Immanuel also, who explains פלך as the מעזל, i.e., the spindle, understands (as perhaps also Parchon) by כישׁור the rock. And why should not the rock (wocken = distaff), i.e., the stock to which the tuft of flax, hemp, or wool is fixed for the purpose of being spun, Lat. colus, not be named כּישׁור, from כשׁר, to be upright as a stick, upright in height, or perhaps more correctly as מכשׁיר, i.e., as that which prepares or makes fit the flax for spinning? Also in צינק, Jer 29:26, there are united the meanings of the close and the confining dungeon, and שׁלה = שׁילון signifies^[159] the place which yields rest. The spinning-wheel is a German invention of the 16th century, but the rock standing on the ground, or held also in the hands, the spindle and the whorl, are more ancient.^[160]
With the spindle תמך stands in fit relation, for it is twirled between the fingers, as Catullus says of Fate:Libratum tereti versabat pollice fusum.^[161]

Verse 20

That which impels the housewife to this labour is not selfishness, not a narrow-hearted limitation of her care to the circle of what is her own, but love, which reaches out far beyond this circle: 20 כ She holdeth out her hand to the unfortunate, And stretcheth forth her hands to the needy.
With כּפּיה, 19b, is connected the idea of artistic skilfulness; with כּפּהּ, here that of offering for counsel (vid., at Isa 2:6); with sympathy and readiness to help, she presents herself to those who are oppressed by the misfortunes of life as if for an alliance, as if saying: place confidence in me, I shall do whatever I can - there thou hast my hand! Hitzig erroneously thinks of the open hand with a gift lying in it: this ought to be named, for כף in itself is nothing else than the half-opened hand. Also in 20b we are not to think of alms. Here Hitzig rightly: she stretches out to him both of her hands, that he might grasp them, both of them, or whichever he may. She does not throw to him merely a gift from a distance, but above all she gives to him to experience her warm sympathy (cf. Eze 16:49). Here, as at 19a, שׁלחה is punctuated (with Dagesh) as Piel. The punctuation supposes that the author both times not unintentionally made use of the intensive form. This one verse (20) is complete in itself as a description of character; and the author has done well in choosing such strong expressions, for, without this sympathy with misery and poverty, she, so good and trustworthy and industrious, might indeed be pleasing to her husband, but not to God. One could almost wish that greater expansion had been given to this one feature in the picture.

Verse 21

But the poet goes on to describe her fruitful activity in the nearest sphere of her calling: 21 ל She is not afraid of the snow for her house; For her whole house is clothed in scarlet.
A fall of snow in the rainy season of winter is not rare in Palestine, the Hauran, and neighbouring countries, and is sometimes accompanied with freezing cold.^[162]
She sees approaching the cold time of the year without any fear for her house, even though the season bring intense cold; for her whole house, i.e., the whole of the members of her family, are לבשׁ שׁנים. The connection is accusatival (Venet. ἐνδεδυμένος ἐρυθρά), as at 2Sa 15:32; Eze 9:2-3. שׁני, from שׁנה, to shine, glance clear, or high red, and is with or without תולעת the name of the colour of the Kermes worm, crimson or scarlet, perhaps to be distinguished from ארגּמן, the red-purple shell colour, and תּכלת, the blue. שׁנים are clothing or material coloured with such שׁני (bright red) (vid., at Isa 1:18). The explanation of the word by dibapha is inadmissible, because the doubled colouring, wherever it is mentioned, always refers to the purple, particularly that of Tyre (dibapha Tyria), not to the scarlet.^[163]
But why does the poet name scarlet-coloured clothing? On account of the contrast to the white snow, says Hitzig, he clothes the family in crimson. But this contrast would be a meaningless freak. Rather it is to be supposed that there is ascribed to the red material a power of retaining the heat, as there is to the white that of keeping off the heat; but evidence for this are wanting. Therefore Rosenmüller, Vaihinger, and Böttcher approve of the translation duplicibus (Jerome, Luther) [= with double clothing], because they read, with the lxx, שׁנים.^[164]
But, with right, the Syr., Targ. abide by זהוריתא, scarlet. The scarlet clothing is of wool, which as such preserves warmth, and, as high-coloured, appears at the same time dignified (2Sa 1:24).

Verse 22

From the protecting, and at the same time ornamental clothing of the family, the poet proceeds to speak of the bed-places, and of the attire of the housewife: 22 מ She prepareth for herself pillows; Linen and purple is her raiment.
Regarding מרבדּים (with ב raphatum), vid., at Pro 7:16. Thus, pillows or mattresses (Aquila, Theodotion, περιστρώματα; Jerome, stragulatam vestem; Luther, Decke = coverlets) to make the bed soft and to adorn it (Kimchi: ליפּות על המטות, according to which Venet. κόσμια); Symmachus designates it as ἀμφιτάπους, i.e., τάπητες (tapetae, tapetia, carpets), which are hairy (shaggy) on both sides.^[165]
Only the lxx makes out of it δισσὰς χλαίνας, lined overcoats, for it brings over שׁנים. By עשׂתה־לּהּ it is not meant that she prepares such pillows for her own bed, but that she herself (i.e., for the wants of her house) prepares them. But she also clothes herself in costly attire. שׁשׁ (an Egyptian word, not, as Heb., derived from שׁוּשׁ, cogn. ישׁשׁ, to be white) is the old name for linen, according to which the Aram. translates it by בּוּץ, the Greek by βύσσος, vid., Genesis, pp. 470, 557, to which the remark is to be added, that the linen [Byssus], according to a prevailing probability, was not a fine cotton cloth, but linen cloth. Luther translates שׁשׁ, here and elsewhere, by weisse Seide [white silk] (σηρικόν, i.e., from the land of the Σῆρες, Rev 18:12); but the silk, is first mentioned by Ezekiel under the name of משׁי; and the ancients call the country where silk-stuff (bombycina) was woven, uniformly Assyria. ארגּמן (Aram. ארגּון, derived by Benfey, with great improbability, from the rare Sanscrit word râgavant, red-coloured; much rather from רגם = רקם, as stuff of variegated colour) is red purple; the most valuable purple garments were brought from Tyre and Sidon.

Verse 23

Now, first, the description turns back to the husband, of the woman who is commended, mentioned in the introduction: 23 נ 32 Well known in the gates is her husband, Where he sitteth among the elders of the land.
Such a wife is, according to Pro 12:4, עטרת בּעלּהּ, - she advances the estimation and the respect in which her husband is held. He has, in the gates where the affairs of the city are deliberated upon, a well-known, reputable name; for there he sits, along with the elders of the land, who are chosen into the council of the city as the chief place of the land, and has a weighty voice among them. The phrase wavers between נודע (lxx περίβλεπτος γίνεται; Venet. ἔλνωσται) and נודע. The old Venetian edd. have in this place (like the Cod. Jaman.), and at Psa 9:17, נודע; on the contrary, Psa 76:2; Ecc 6:10, נודע, and that is correct; for the Masora, at this place and at Psa 76:2 (in the Biblia rabb), is disfigured.

Verse 24

The description, following the order of the letters, now directs attention to the profitable labour of the housewife: 24 ס She prepareth body-linen and selleth it, And girdles doth she give to the Phoenicians.
It is a question whether סדין signifies σινδών, cloth from Sindhu, the land of India (vid., at Isa 3:23); the Arab. sadn (sadl), to cause to hang down, to descend (for the purpose of covering or veiling), offers an appropriate verbal root. In the Talmud, סדין is the sleeping linen, the curtain, the embroidered cloth, but particularly a light smock-frock, as summer costume, which was worn on the bare body (cf. Mar 14:51.). Kimchi explains the word by night-shirt; the Edictum Diocletiani, xviii. 16, names σινδόνες κοιταρίαι, as the Papyrus Louvre, ὀθόνια ἐγκοιμήτρια; and the connection in the Edict shows that linen attire (ἐκ λίνου) is meant, although - as with שׁשׁ, so also with סדין - with the ancients and the moderns, sometimes linen and sometimes cotton is spoken of without any distinction. Aethicus speaks of costly girdles, Cosmogr. 84, as fabricated at Jerusalem: baltea regalia ... ex Hierosolyma allata; Jerusalem and Scythopolis were in later times the chief places in Palestine for the art of weaving. In Galilee also, where excellent flax grew, the art of weaving was carried on; and the ὀθόναι, which, according to Clemens Alex. Paedag. ii. 10, p. 239, were exported ἐκ γῆς Ἑβραίων, are at least in their material certainly synon. with σινδόνες. Regarding נתן, syn. מכר, opp. לקח, syn. נשׂא = קנה, vid., at 16a. There is no reason to interpret כּנעני here, with the obliteration of the ethnographical meaning, in the general sense of סחר, trader, merchant; for purple, 22b, is a Phoenician manufacture, and thus, as an article of exchange, can be transferred to the possession of the industrious wife.

Verse 25

The description is now more inward: 25 ע Strength and honour is her clothing; Thus she laugheth at the future day.
She is clothed with עז, strength, i.e., power over the changes of temporal circumstances, which easily shatter and bring to ruin a household resting on less solid foundations; clothed with הדר, glory, i.e., elevation above that which is low, little, common, a state in which they remain who propose to themselves no high aim after which they strive with all their might: in other words, her raiment is just pride, true dignity, with which she looks confidently into the future, and is armed against all sorrow and care. The connection of ideas, עז והדר (defectively written, on the contrary, at Psa 84:6, Masora, and only there written plene, and with Munach), instead of the frequent הוד והדר, occurs only here. The expression 25b is like Job 39:7, wherefore Hitzig rightly compares Job 24:14 to 25a. יום אחרון, distinguished from אחרית, and incorrectly interpreted (Rashi) of the day of death, is, as at Isa 30:8, the future, here that which one at a later period may enter upon.

Verse 26

The next verse presents one of the most beautiful features in the portrait: 26 פ She openeth her mouth with wisdom, And amiable instruction is on her tongue.
The ב of בּחכמה is, as also at Psa 49:5; Psa 78:2, that of means: when she speaks, then it is wisdom pressing itself from her heart outward, by means of which she breaks the silence of her mouth. With על, in the expression 26b, elsewhere תּהת interchanges: under the tongue, Psa 10:7, one has that which is ready to be spoken out, and on the tongue, Psa 15:3, that which is in the act of being spoken out. תּורת־חסד is a genitive connection after the manner of tôrath אמת, Mal 2:6. The gen. is not, as at Lev 6:2, in tôrath העלה, the gen. of the object (thus e.g., Fleischer's institutio ad humanitatem), but the gen. of property, but not so that חסד denotes grace (Symmachus, νόμος ἐπίχαρις; Theodotion, νόμος χάριτος), because for this meaning there is no example except Isa 40:6; and since חסד in the O.T. is the very same as in the N.T., love, which is the fulfilling of the law, Hos 6:6, cf. 1Ki 20:31,^[166] it is supposed that the poet, since he writes תורת חסד, and not תורת חן, means to designate by חסד this property without which her love for her husband, her industry, her high sentiment, would be no virtues, viz., unselfish, sympathizing, gentle love. Instruction which bears on itself the stamp of such amiability, and is also gracious, i.e., awakening love, because going forth from love (according to which Luther, translating holdselige Lere = pleasing instructions, thus understands it) - such instruction she carries, as house-mother (Pro 1:8), in her mouth. Accordingly the lxx translate (vid., Lagarde regarding the mistakes of this text before us) θεσμοὶ ἐλεημοσύνης, and Jerome lex clementiae. חסד is related to אהבה as grace to love; it denotes love showing itself in kindness and gracefulness, particularly condescending love, proceeding from a compassionate sympathy with the sufferings and wants of men. Such graceful instruction she communicates now to this and now to that member of her household, for nothing that goes on in her house escapes her observation.

Verse 27

Pro 31:27 27 צ She looketh well to the ways of her house, And eateth not the bread of idleness.
Although there exists an inner relation between 27a and Pro 31:26, yet 27a is scarcely to be thought of (Hitzig) as appos. to the suffix in לשׁונהּ. Participles with or without determination occur in descriptions frequently as predicates of the subject standing in the discourse of the same force as abstr. present declarations, e.g., Isa 40:22., Psa 104:13. צופיּה is connected with the accus. of the object of the intended warning, like Pro 15:3, and is compared according to the form with המיּה, Pro 7:11. הליבה signifies elsewhere things necessary for a journey, Job 6:19, and in the plur. magnificus it denotes show (pompa), Hab 3:6 : but originally the walk, conduct, Nah 2:6; and here in the plur. walks = comings and goings, but not these separately, but in general, the modi procedendi (lxx διατριβαι). The Chethı̂b has הילכות, probably an error in writing, but possibly also the plur. of הלכה, thus found in the post-bibl. Heb. (after the form צדקות), custom, viz., appointed traditional law, but also like the Aram. הלכא (emph. הלכתא), usage, manner, common practice. Hitzig estimates this Chethı̂b, understood Talmudically, as removing the section into a late period; but this Talmudical signification is not at all appropriate (Hitzig translates, with an incorrect rendering of צופיה, “for she sees after the ordering of the house”), and besides the Aram. הלכא, e.g., Targ. Pro 16:9, in the first line, signifies only the walk or the manner and way of going, and this gives with the Kerı̂ essentially the same signification. Luther well: Sie schawet wie es in jrem Hause zugeht [= she looks how it goes in her house]. Her eyes are turned everywhere; she is at one time here, at another there, to look after all with her own eyes; she does not suffer the day's work, according to the instructions given, to be left undone, while she folds her own hands on her bosom; but she works, keeping an oversight on all sides, and does not eat the bread of idleness (עצלוּת = עצלה, Pro 19:15), but bread well deserved, for εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι, μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω, 2Th 3:10.

Verse 28

Now begins the finale of this song in praise of the virtuous woman: 28 ק Her sons rise up and bless her, Her husband (riseth up) and praiseth her.
The Piel אשּׁר in such a connection is denom. of אשׁר (אשׁרי). Her children rise up (קוּם, like e.g., Jer 26:17, but here, perhaps, with the associated idea of reverential honour) and bless her, that she has on her part brought the house and them to such prosperity, such a position of respect, and to a state where love (חסד) reigns, and her husband rises up and sings her praise.

Verse 29

Pro 31:29 29 ר “Many are the daughters who have done bravely, But thou hast surpassed them all together.”
We have already often remarked, last time under Pro 29:6, that רב, not indeed in its sing., but in its plur. רבּים and רבּות, can precede, after the manner of a numeral, as attribute; but this syntactical licence, Pro 28:12, by no means appears, and needs to be assumed as little here as at Pro 8:26, although there is no reason that can be adduced against it. עשׂה חיל signifies here not the gaining of riches (the lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, Luther, Gesenius, Böttcher, and others), which here, where the encomium comes to its height, would give to it a mercenary mammon-worship note - it indeed has this signification only when connected with ל of the person: Sibi opes acquirere, Deu 6:17; Eze 28:4 - but: bravery, energy, and, as the reference to אשׁת חיל demands, moral activity, capacity for activity, in accordance with one's calling, ποιεῖν ἀρετήν, by which the Venet. translates it. בּנות is, as in the primary passages, Gen 30:13; Sol 6:9, a more delicate, finer name of women than נשׁים: many daughters there have always been who have unfolded ability, but thou my spouse hast raised thyself above them all, i.e., thou art excellent and incomparable. Instead of עלית, there is to be written, after Chajug, Aben Ezra (Zachoth 7a), and Jekuthiel under Gen 16:11, עלית; the Spanish Nakdanim thus distinguish the forms מצאת, thou hast found, and מצאת, she has found. כּלּנה, for כּלּן, Gen 42:36.

Verse 30

What now follows is not a continuation of the husband's words of praise (Ewald, Elster, Löwenstein), but an epiphonema auctoris (Schultens); the poet confirms the praise of the husband by referring it to the general ground of its reason: 30 ש Grace is deceit; and beauty, vanity - A wife that feareth Jahve, she shall be praised.
Grace is deceit, because he who estimates the works of a wife merely by the loveliness of her external appearance, is deceived by it; and beauty is vanity, vanitas, because it is nothing that remains, nothing that is real, but is subject to the law of all material things - transitoriness. The true value of a wife is measured only by that which is enduring, according to the moral background of its external appearance; according to the piety which makes itself manifest when the beauty of bodily form has faded away, in a beauty which is attractive.^[167] יראת (with Makkeph following),^[168] is here the connective form of יראה (fem. of ירא). The Hithpa. תתהלּל is here manifestly (Pro 27:2) not reflexive, but representative of the passive (cf. Pro 12:8, and the frequently occurring מהלּל, laudatus = laudandus), nowhere occurring except in the passage before us. In itself the fut. may also mean: she will be praised = is worthy of praise, but the jussive rendering (Luther: Let her be praised) is recommended by the verse which follows:

Verse 31

Pro 31:31 31 ת Give to her of the fruit of her hands; And let her works praise her in the gates!
The fruit of her hands is the good which, by her conduct, she has brought to maturity - the blessing which she has secured for others, but, according to the promise (Isa 3:10), has also secured for her own enjoyment. The first line proceeds on the idea that, on account of this blessing, she herself shall rejoice. תּנוּ־להּ (with Gaja, after Metheg-Setzung, §37) is not equivalent to give to her honour because of...; for in that case, instead of the ambiguous מן, another preposition - such e.g., as על - would have been used; and so תּנוּ, of itself, cannot be equivalent to תּנּוּ (sing the praise of), as Ziegler would read, after Jdg 11:40. It must stand with כבוד, or instead of מפּרי an accus. obj. is to be thought of, as at Psa 68:35; Deu 32:3, which the necessity of the case brings with it - the giving, as a return in the echo of the song of praise. Immanuel is right in explaining תנו־לה by תגמלו לה חסד or עשׂו עתה חסד וכבוד, cf. Psa 28:4. The מן, as is not otherwise to be expected, after תנו is partitive: give to her something of the fruit of her hands, i.e., recompense it to her, render it thankfully, by which not exclusively a requital in the form of honourable recognition, but yet this specially, is to be thought of. Her best praise is her works themselves. In the gates, i.e., in the place where the representatives of the people come together, and where the people are assembled, her works praise her; and the poet desires that this may be right worthily done, full of certainty that she merits it, and that they honour themselves who seek to praise the works of such a woman, which carry in themselves their own commendation.

1. In the Arab. language, influenced by philosophy, rwh, the anima vitalis, and nfs, the anima rationalis, are inverted; vid., Baudissin's Translationis antiquae Arab. libri Jobi quae supersunt (1870), p. 34.
2. Among the whole Heb. synon. for sinning, there exists no reflexive Niph.; and also the Arab. fsḳ has no ethical signification. נסכּל only, in the sense of fool, is found.
3. Cf. Gendlau's Sprichwörter u. Redensarten deutsch-jüdischer Vorzeit (1860), p. 235.
4. One sees from this interchange how softly the י was uttered; cf. Wellhausen's Text der B. Samuel (1871) (Preface). Kimchi remarks that we say אקטל for אקטל, because we would otherwise confound it with יקטל.
5. The old interpreters and also the best Jewish interpreters mar the understanding and interpretation of the text, on the one side, by distinguishing between a nearest and a deeper meaning of Scripture (דרך נגלה and דרך נסתר); on the other by this, that they suppose an inward connection of all the proverbs, and expend useless ingenuity in searching after the connection. The former is the method especially adopted by Immanuel and Meîri, the latter has most of all been used by Arama.
6. In vol. i. p. 266, we have acknowledged מרעהו, from מרע, friend, only for Pro 19:7, but at Pro 19:4 we have also found amicus ejus more probable than ab amico suo (= מן רעהו).
7. Lagarde erroneously calls Theodotion's ῥήσεις οὐκ αὐτῷ a translation of the Kerı̂; οὐκ is, however, לא, and instead of αὐτῷ the expression αὐτῶν, which is the translation of המה, is also found.
8. The lxx translates: παρὰ δὲ ἁρμόζεται γυνὴ ἀνδοί. Here as often (vid., my Jesurun) The Arab. usus loquendi makes itself felt in the idiom of the lxx, for shâkl means ἁρμόζειν.
9. While צפּחת, ṣaḥfat, in the sense of dish, is etymologically clear, for צלּחת, neither ṣalaḥ (to be good for), nor salakh (to be deaf, mangy), offers an appropriate verbal meaning. The Arab. zuluh (large dishes) stands under zalah (to taste, of the tasting of good), but is scarcely a derivative from it. Only צלח, which in the meaning of good for, proceeding from the idea of penetrating through, has retained the root-meaning of cleft, furnishes for צלּחת and צלוחית a root-word in some measure useful.
10. The 915 verses of the Mishle, according to the Masora, fall into eight sedarim, beginning as follows: Pro 1:1; Pro 5:18; Pro 9:12; Pro 14:4; Pro 18:10; Pro 22:22; Pro 25:13; Pro 28:16.
11. Vid., the Prefatio to the Masoretico-Critical Edition of Isaiah by Baer and myself; Leipzig, 1872.
12. There are spaces within the lines after Pro 1:7, Pro 1:9, Pro 1:33; Pro 2:22; Pro 3:18, Pro 3:35; Pro 5:17, Pro 5:23; Pro 6:4, Pro 6:11, Pro 6:15, Pro 6:19 (here a פ), Pro 6:35, Pro 8:21, Pro 8:31, Pro 8:35; Pro 9:18; Pro 17:25; Pro 18:9; Pro 22:19, Pro 22:27; Pro 23:14; Pro 24:22, Pro 24:33; Pro 26:21; Pro 28:10, Pro 28:16; Pro 29:17, Pro 29:27; Pro 30:6, Pro 30:9, Pro 30:14, Pro 30:17, Pro 30:20, Pro 30:24, Pro 30:28, Pro 30:33; Pro 31:9.
13. Vid., Gebhardt's Prolegomena to his new edition of the Versio Veneta.
14. Vid., Fleischer in Levy's Chald. Wörterbuch, i. 426.
15. A similar comparison from Bereschith Rabba, vid., Duke's Rabbin. Blumenlese, p. 126.
16. i.e., The fifth according to the arrangement of the Westminster Confession.
17. Vid., Fleischer in Levy's Chald. Wörterbuch, i. 419.
18. Vid., Dozy's Lettre à M. Fleischer (1871), p. 198.
19. Note: Vid., Friedr. Philippi's Status constructus, p. 17, Anm. 3; and cf. therewith such constructions as (Arab.) mân'u faḍlah âlmanhtâji, i.e., a refuser of the needy, his beneficence = one who denies to the needy his beneficence.
20. Note: The n. act formed from wazara is wazr, wizr, wizat. These three forms would correspond to the Heb. vězěr, vēzěr, and zěrěth (z'rāh, cf. rěděth, r'dah, Gen 46:3).
21. Note: The Arab. National Grammarians, it is true, view the matter otherwise. When ḳatlu zydn, the putting to death of Zeid, is used in the sense of Zeid's becoming dead, according to their view the fâ'l (the gen. subjecti) is omitted; the full expression would be ḳatlu 'amrn zaydnâ. Since now 'amrn is omitted, zaydn has in the gen. form taken the place of the fâ'l, but this gen. is the representative of the acc. objecti. Without thus going round about, we say: it is the gen. objecti.
22. Note: The Arabs call this indetermination âlnkrt lalt'ẓym wallthwyl. Vid., under Psa 2:12.
23. Note: In the old High German, the word for war is urlag (urlac), fate, because the issue is the divine determination, and nôt (as in “der Nibelunge Not”), as binding, confining, restraint; this nôt is the correlate to תשׁועה, victory; מלחמה corresponds most to the French guerre, which is not of Romanic, but of German origin: the Werre, i.e., the Gewirre [complication, confusion], for נלחם signifies to press against one another, to be engaged in close conflict; cf. the Homeric κλόνος of the turmoil of battle.
24. e.g., Aboth iv. 17: there are three crowns: the crown of the Tôra, the crown of the priesthood, and the crown of royalty; but כתר שׁם טוב, the crown of a good name, excels them all.
25. The text to Immanuel's Comment. (Naples 1487) has in both instances עמוּקה.
26. The Syr. n. fem. awchda (אוּחדא, Psa 49:5, Targ.) is equivalent to Heb. חידה, from (Syr.) achd, אחד = אחז, Neh 7:3, to shut up, properly, to lay hold on and retain; the Arab. akhdhat means magic, incantation; as seizing and making fast.
27. Thus Rosch ha-schana 26b: Levi came once to N.N. There a man came to meet him, and cried out קבען פלניא. Levi knew not what he would say, and went into the Madrash-house to ask. One answered him: He is a robber (גזלן) said that one to thee; for it is said in the Scriptures (Mal 3:8), “Will a man rob God?” etc. (vid., Wissenschaft Kunst Judenthum, p. 243). In the Midrash, שׁוחר טוב, to Psa 57:1-11, R. Levi says that אתה קיבע לי is used in the sense of אתה גוזל לי. And in the Midrash Tanchuma, P. תרומה, R. Levi answers the question, “What is the meaning of קבע, Mal 3:8?” - It is an Arabic expression. An Arabian, when he wishes to say to another מה אתה גוזלני, says instead of it, מה אתה קובעני. Perhaps קבע is cogn. to קבץ; the R. קב coincides in several groups of languages (also the Turkish ḳb) with the Lat. capere.
28. After Ben-Asher, the pointing is אם־אין־לך; while, on the contrary, Ben-Naphtali prefers אם־אין לך; vid., my Genesis (1869), pp. 74 (under Gen 1:3) and 81. So, without any bearing on the sense, Ben-Asher points למּה with Tarcha, Ben-Naphtali with Mercha.
29. As an analogical example, סגּי נהור, seeing clearly = blind.
30. In an appendix to Ochla We-Ochla, in the University Library at Halle, he reads שׂער, but with פליגא [doubtful] added.
31. We may write כּן הוּא: the Mehuppach (Jethîb) sign of the Olewejored standing between the two words represents also the place of the Makkeph; vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 20.
32. Immanuel makes so much of having recognised the verb in this פּתּך (and has he persuaded thee), that in the concluding part of his Divan (entitled Machberoth Immanuel), which is an imitation of Dante's Divina Commedia, he praises himself on this account in the paradise of King Solomon, who is enraptured by this explanation, and swears that he never meant that word otherwise.
33. The second part of the saying is, “But a fool knows not how a wise man feels, for he has never been a wise man.” I heard this many years ago, from the mouth of the American missionary Schaufler, in Constantinople.
34. The form כּי אם־ does not contradict the connection of the two particles. This use of the Makkeph is general, except in these three instances: Gen 15:4; Num 35:33; Neh 2:2.
35. Rashi reads בדרך לבך (walk), in the way of thy heart (which has become wise), and so Heidenheim found it in an old MS; but בדרך is equivalent to בדרך בינה, Pro 9:6.
36. The right punctuation of 26a is תּנה־בני לבּך, as it is found in the editions: Ven. 1615; Basel 1619; and in those of Norzi and Michaelis.
37. The Targ. translates 28b (here free from the influence of the Peshito) in the Syro-Palestinian idiom by וצאד אבניּא שׁברי, i.e., she seizes thoughtless sons.
38. We punctuate למי אוי, for that is Ben Asher's punctuation, while that of his opponent Ben Naphtali is למי־אוי. Vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 33.
39. The English version is, “when it moveth itself aright,” which one has perceived in the phenomenon of the tears of the wine, or of the movement in the glass. Vid., Ausland, 1869, p. 72.
40. However, we will not conceal it, that the post-bibl. Heb. does not know הפרישׁ in the sense of to prick, sting (the Midrash explains the passage by יפרישׁ בין לחיים, i.e., it cuts off life); and the Nestorian Knanishu of Superghan, whom I asked regarding aphrish, knew only of the meanings “to separate” and “to point out,” but not ”to sting.”
41. Vid., Nöldeke's Neusyrische Gram. p. 219, Anm., and p. 416.
42. This explanation is more correct than Levy's: he lifts himself up (boasts) with wisdom.
43. Vid., my hebräischen Römerbrief, p. 14f.
44. Write דּעה with Illuj after the preceding Legarmeh, like 12b, הוּא (Thorath Emeth, p. 28).
45. Vid., Strack's Prolegomena critica in V.T. (1872), p. 19.
46. This proverb, according to Aboth iv. 24, was the motto of that Samuel with the surname הקטן, who formulated ברכת המינים (the interpolation in the Schemone-Esre prayer directed against the schismatics): he thus distinguished between private enemies and the enemies of the truth.
47. We use the forms âwa, âba, âthûmm, for we suppose the interrogative to the copula; we also say fahad, vid., Mufaṣsal, p. 941.
48. This is particularly the name of what lies round about on the ground in the Bedouin tents, and which one takes up from thence (from ḳamesh, cogn. קבץ קמץ, ramasser, cf. the journal המגיד, 1871, p. 287b); in modern Arab., linen and matter of all kinds; vid., Bocthor, under linge and étoffe.
49. Perhaps ὄλυρα, vid., Lagarde's Gesamm. Abhandl. p. 59.
50. Cf. von Lasaulx, Philosophie der Geschichte, p. 128f.: “God and Nature love to conceal the beginning of things.”
51. It is something different when the weaver's beam, minwâl in Arab., is metaph. for kind and manner: they are 'aly minwâl wâḥad, is equivalent to they are of a like calibre, Arab. kalib, which is derived from καλόπους (καλοπόδιον), a shoemaker's last.
52. On this proceeds also the beautiful interpretation by Maimuni in the preface to More Nebuchim: Maskiyyôth sont des ciselures réticulaires, etc., according to Munk's translation from the Arab. text, vid., Kohut's Pers. Pentateuch-Uebers. (1871), p. 356. Accordingly Jewish interpreters (e.g., Elia Wilna) understand under אפניו the four kinds of writing: פשׁט, רמז, דרושׁ, and סוד, which are comprehended under the memorial word פרדס.
53. A favourite expression of Goethe's, vid., Büchmann's Geflügelte Worte, 1688.
54. Vid., Gieger's Zeitschrift, 1872, pp. 45-48, where it is endeavoured to be shown that נזם, as an earring, is rejected from the later biblical literature, because it had become “an object used in the worship of idols,” and that the word was used only of a ring for the nose as a permissible ornament, while עגיל was used for the earring. But that does not apply to the Solomonic era; for that, in the passage under review, נזם signifies a ring for the nose, is only a supposition of Geiger's, because it accords with his construction of history.
55. Hitzig compares Arab. kumêt; but this means bayard, as Lagarde remarks, the Greek κόμαιθος; and if by כתם gold foxes (gold money) are to be thought of, yet they have nothing whatever to do with bayards (red-brown horses); cf. Beohmer, de colorum nominibus equinorum, in his Roman. Stud. Heft 2, 1872, p. 285.
56. Another Greek translates πίνωσις χρυσῆ. This πίνωσις is a philological mystery, the solution of which has been attempted by Bochart, Letronne, and Field.
57. The writing wavers between על לב־רע (cf. על עם־דּל) and על־בל רע dna )על ע.
58. The Hebrew meaning investigare, and the equivalent Arabic ḥaḳr, contemnere (contemtui esse), are derivations from the primary meaning (R. חק): to go down from above firmly on anything, and thus to press in (to cut in), or also to press downward.
59. Cf. Sir. 3:20f. with Ben-Sira's Heb. text in my Gesch. der jüd. Poesie, p. 204 (vv. 30-32); nowhere does this adj. כבד appears here in this warning against meditating over the transcendental.
60. Vid., Drbal's Empirische Psychologie, §137.
61. It is true that the Gemara to Negaïm, Pro 14:1, explains the Mishnic צפרים דרור, “house-birds,” for it derives דרור from דור, to dwell.
62. Thus after Ben Asher; while, on the contrary, Ben Naphtali writes ענה כסיל with Munach, vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 41.
63. Vid., my dissertation on three little-observed passages in the Gospel of John, and their practical lessons, in the Evang. luth. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nos. 37, 38.
64. The Venet. translates שׁתה by ἄνους, so שׁטה (the post-bibl. designation of a fool) - one of the many indications that this translator is a Jew, and as such is not confined in his knowledge of language only to the bibl. Hebrew.
65. The plur. חוחים, 1Sa 13:6, signifies not thorn bushes, but rock-splitting; in Damascus, chôcha means a little gate in the wing of a large door; vid., Wetstein's Nordarabien, p. 23.
66. Vid., Schulze's Die bibl. Sprichwörter der deutschen Sprache, p. 71f.
67. Vid., Wahl's Das Sprichwort der heb.-aram. Literatur, p. 147; Duke's Rabbin. Blumenlese, p. 9.
68. The Targum has 12b after Codd. פּקח סכלא טב מגּיהּ (= Syr. pekach, expedit, convenit, melius est), it is far better circumstanced regarding the fool than regarding him. Vid., Geiger's Zeitschr. vi. (1868), p. 154.
69. The Arab. verb signifies radically: to turn, like the Persian verbs kashatn and kardydan, and like our “werden” to grow, turn, accords with vertere (Fleischer).
70. The Aram. עטל is the Hebr. עצל, as עטא = עצה; but in Arab. corresponds not to 'atal, but to 'azal.
71. Vid., regarding gleisen (to give a deceitful appearance) and gleissen (to throw a dazzling appearance), Schmitthenner-Weigand's Deutsches Wörterbuch.
72. Schultens explains the labia flagrantia by volubiliter prompta et diserta. But one sees from the Arab. dhaluḳa, to be loose, lightly and easily moved (vid., in Fleischer's Beiträgen zur arab. Sprachkunde the explanation of the designation of the liquid expressed with the point of the tongue by dhalḳiytt, at Pro 1:26-27; cf. de Sacy's Grammar), and dalḳ, to draw out (of the sword from its scabbard), to rinse (of water), that the meaning of the Heb. דלק, to burn, from R. דל, refers to the idea of the flickering, tongue-like movement of the flame.
73. Vid., de Goeje's Fragmenta Hist. Arab. ii. (1871), p. 94. The verb נכר, primarily to fix one's attention, sharply to contemplate anything, whence is derived the meanings of knowing and of not knowing, disowning. The account of the origin of these contrasted meanings, in Gesenius-Dietrich's Lexicon, is essentially correct; but the Arab. nakar there referred to means, not sharpness of mind, from nakar = הכּיר, but from the negative signification prevailing in the Arab. alone, a property by which one makes himself worthy of being disowned: craftiness, cunning, and then also in bonam partem: sagacity.
74. The fundamental idea of firmness in האמין is always in the subject, not the object. The Arabic interpreters remark that âman with ב expresses recognition, and with ל submission (vid., Lane's Lexicon under âman); but in Hebr. האמין with ב fiducia fidei, with ל assensus fidei; the relation is thus not altogether the same.
75. Sand is called by the name חוּל (חיל), to change, whirl, particularly to form sand-wreaths, whence (Arab.) al-Habil, the region of moving sand; vid., Wetzstein's Nord-arabien, p. 56.
76. Thus also Schultens in the Animadversiones, which later he fancied was derived from עתר, nidor, from the meaning nidorosa, and thence virulenta.
77. Vid., regarding this word, Schlottmann in Deutsch.-Morgenl. Zeitschrift, xxiv. 665, 668.
78. Gustave Baur's article “Vaterlandsliebe,” in Schmid's Pädagogischer Encyklopädie.
79. The translators transfer to this place a note from vol. ii. p. 191f. of the author's larger Comm. ü. den Psalter, to which Delitzsch refers the reader: - “The modern High German adj. elend, middle High German ellende, old High German alilandi, elilendi, or elilenti, is composed of ali and land. The adj. ali occurs only in old High German in composition. In the Gothic it is found as an independent adj., in the sense of alius and ἄλλυς (vid., Ulfilas, Gal 5:10
80. The second Munach is at Pro 22:3, as well as here, according to the rule Pro 18:4 of the Accentuationssystem, the transformation of the Dechi, and preserves its value of interpunction; the Legarmeh of ערום is, however, a disjunctive of less force than Dechi, so that thus the sequence of the accents denotes that ערום ראה רעה is a clause related to ונסתר as a hypothetical antecedent: if the prudent sees the calamity, then he hides himself from it. This syntactic relation is tenable at Pro 22:3, but not here at Pro 27:12. Here, at least, ערום would be better with Rebia, to which the following Dechi would subordinate itself. The prudent seeth the evil, concealeth himself; or also, prudent is he who sees the evil, hides himself. For of two disjunctives before Athnach, the first, according as it is greater or less than the second, retains either Legarmeh (e.g., Psa 1:5; Psa 86:12; Psa 88:14; Psa 109:14) or Rebia (Pro 12:2, Psa 25:2; Psa 69:9; Psa 146:5).
81. In Gesen. Lex. this אבדה stands to the present day under אבדה.
82. Vid., Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten (1872), p. 25.
83. The lxx translates ἐν μέσῳ συνεδρίου, and has thereby misled the Syr., and mediately the Targum.
84. The Targum of Pro 28:1 is, in Bereschith rabba, c. 84, ערק רשּׁיעא ולא רריפין להּ; that lying before us is formed after the Peshito.
85. Thus to be written with Gaja here and at Pro 29:6, after the rule of Metheg-Setzung, §42.
86. The three connected words ובאדם מבין ידע have, in Löwenstein, the accents Mercha, Mercha, Mugrash; but the Venetian, 1515, 20, Athias, v. d. Hooght, and Hahn, have rightly Tarcha, Mercha, Mugrash, - to place two Merchas in Ben-Naphtali's manner.
87. The Phoen. writes רש (i.e., רשׁ, rus); vid., Schröder's Phönizische Gram. p. 133; cf. Gesen. Thes. under ראשׁ.
88. If, as Hitzig, after J. H. Michaelis, remarks, the word were Ben-Asher's יקבּצנּוּ, then it would be thus rightly punctuated by Clodius and the moderns. Kimchi, in the Wörterbuch under קבץ, adduces this word as Ben-Asher's. But the Masora knows nothing of it. It marks יקבּצנּוּ, Jer 31:10, with לית as unicum, and thus supposes for the passages before us יקבּצנּוּ, which certainly is found in MSS, and is also marked on the margin with לית as unicum.
89. Böttcher supposes much rather עשּׁק = מעשּׁק; also, Pro 25:11, דבּר = מדבּר; but that does not follow from the defectiva scriptio, nor from anything else.
90. Aeneid, xi. 418.
91. Abulwalîd (Rikma, p. 69) also rightly explains אחרי, as a characterizing epithet, by אחרני (turned backwards).
92. Löwenstein writes מוכיח, after Metheg-Setzung, §43, not incorrectly; for the following word, although toned on the first syllable, begins with guttural having the same sound.
93. Accentuate ואמר אין פשׁע without Makkeph, as in Codd. 1294 and old editions.
94. We take the opportunity of remarking that the tendency to form together certain proverbs after one catchword is found also in German books of proverbs; vid., Paul, Ueber die urspr. Anord. von Friedanks Bescheidenheit (1870), p. 12.
95. Vid., Zunz, “Regarding the Idea and the Use of Tokhecha,” in Steinschneider's Heb. Bibliographia, entitled המחכיר, 1871, p. 70f.
96. According to this the Targum ולא מתתּבר (he remains obstinate), according to which the ולא מתתפיר (he does not lose his wits) of the Peshito is perhaps to be corrected. The distribution of the subjects is obscure.
97. The Targum translates תם, guiltlessness, and the Venet. (μισοῦσι) γνῶσιν, turning to Pro 1:22.
98. For εὐθεῖς δὲ συνάξουσιν (will bring away?) τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν, understood after Jer 45:5, lies linguistically yet further off.
99. מאיר has, by Löwenstein, Mehuppach Legarmeh, but incorrectly, since after Legarmeh two conjunctives cannot occur. Also Norzi with Mehuppach Mercha is irregular, since Ben-Asher recognises only two examples of this double accentuation to which this מאיר does not belong; vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 12. That the penultima toning מאיר in several editions is false scarcely needs to be remarked. Jablonski rightly points with Mehuppach on the ult., and Zinnorith on the preceding open syllable.
100. Their translation of Pro 29:17 and Pro 29:18 here is found, in a marred and mutilated form, after Pro 28:17. At that place the words are καὶ ἀγαπήσει σε.
101. The Syr. and Targ. also think on ענה, for they translate: “for he knows that he receives no strokes.”
102. In Jahrb. xi. p. 10f. Ewald compares, in an expressive way, the Ethiopic mannána (Piel) to scorn; menûn, a reprobate; and mannânı̂, one who is despised; according to which מנון hcih could certainly designate “a man despising scornfully his own benefactors, or an unthankful man.” But this verbal stem is peculiarly Ethiop., and is certainly not once found in Arab. For minnat (which Ewald compares) denotes benefaction, and the duty laid on one thereby, the dependence thereby produced. The verb (Arab.) minn (= מנן) signifies to divide; and particularly, partly to confer benefaction, partly to attribute benefaction, reckon to, enumerate, and thereby to bring out the sense of obligation. Thus nothing is to be derived from this verbal stem for מנון.
103. For אישׁ־אף (Löwenstein after Norzi) is to be written, with Baer (Thorath Emeth, p. 19), אישׁ אף ,)91. Thus also in Cod. Jaman.
104. According to the Lex. ‘Gezerî (from the Mesopotamian town of ‘Geziret ibn 'Amr), the word wakihon is, in the Mesopotamian language, “the overseer of the house in which is the cross of the Christians;” and accordingly, in Muhammed's letter to the Christians of Negran, after they became subject to him, “a monk shall not be removed from his monastery, nor a presbyter from his presbyterate, (waḳâhtah) wala watah wakahyttah” (this will be the correct phrase), “nor an overseer from his office.” The verbal stem waḳ-ah (יקהּ) is, as it appears, Northern Semitic; the South Arabian lexicographer Neshwan ignores it (Wetzstein in Mühlau).
105. Cf. Blau's Arab. im sechsten Jahrh. in the Deutsch. Morgl. Zeits. xxxiii. 590, and also p. 573 of the same, regarding a family of proselytes among the Jews in Taima.
106. Mühlau combines Nodab with Nudêbe to the south-east of Bosra; Blau (Deut. Morg. Zeit. xxv. 566), with the Ναβδαῖοι of Eupolemos named along with the Ναβατοῖοι. The Kamûs has Nadab as the name of a tribe.
107. Dozy (Israeliten in Mecca, p. 89f.) connects Massa with Mansâh, a pretended old name of Mecca.
108. These German quotations with the name of Mühlau are taken from the additions to his book, which he placed at my disposal.
109. Vid., Neubauer's Le Géographie du Talmud, pp. 325, 329, 382.
110. Derenbourg's Essai sur l'Hist. et la Géog. de la Palestine, i. p. 224.
111. In 'העם וגו, Jer 8:5, 'ירושׁ is though of as genit., although it may be also nom., after the scheme of apposition instead of annexion. That it is genit., cf. Philippi's St. Const. pp. 192-195.
112. We say, in Arab., without any anomaly, e.g., Alı̂ju-bnu-Muḥammadin Tajjiïn, i.e., the Ali son of Muhammed, of the tribe (from the tribe) of Tay; cf. Jos 3:11; Isa 28:1; Isa 63:11; and Deu 3:13.
113. Vid., Wetzstein's Inschriften aus den Trachonen und dem Haurangebirge (1864), p. 336f.
114. Thus, viz., that הגבר denotes, not the man as he ought to be, but the man as he usually is (the article, as the Arabic grammarians say, “not for the exhaustion of the characteristic marks of the genus,” but for the expression of “the quality mâhîje of the genus”).
115. The Munach is the transformation of Mugrash, and this sequence of accents - Tarcha, Munach, Silluk - remains the same, whether we regard אל as the accusative or as the vocative.
116. According to the Arab. בעיר is not a beast as grazing, but as dropping stercus (ba'r, camel's or sheep's droppings); to the R. בר, Mühlau rightly gives the meanings of separating, whence are derived the meanings of grazing as well as of removing (cleansing) (cf. Pers. thak karadn, to make clean = to make clean house, tabula rasa).
117. Vid., Apologetik (1869), p. 432ff.
118. Cited by Lyra in Beweis des Glaubens Jahrg. 1869, p. 230. The second of these passages is thus translated by Wilson (Rig-Veda-Sanhitá, London, 1854, vol. ii. p. 127): “Who has seen the primeval (being) at the time of his being born? What is that endowed with substance which the unsubstantial sustains? From earth are the breath and blood, but where is the soul? Who may repair to the sage to ask this?”
119. The Comm. there remarks: It is the heavenly whole name of the highly exalted One, the שׁם המפורשׁ, nomen explicitum, which here on this side has entered into no human heart, and can be uttered by no human tongue, the ὄνομα ὁ οὑδεὶς οῖδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ αὐτός, Rev 19:12.
120. Vid., Luthardt's Kimpendium der Dogmatik, §27.
121. That both Shevas in tôsp are quiesc., vid., Kimchi, Michlol 155 a b, who is finally decided as to this. That the word should be read tôspe'al is the opinion of Chagûg in הנוח 'ס (regarding the quiesc. letters), p. 6 of the Ed. by Dukes-Ewald.
122. The Venet. translates, according to Villoison, θέρψον με; but the MS has, according to Gebhardt, θρέψον.
123. Cf. vol. i. p. 13. The name (from praeambulum) given to a peculiar form of popular gnomic poetry which prevailed in Germany from the 12th (e.g., the Meistersinger or Minstrel Sparvogel) to the 16th century, but was especially cultivated during the 14th and 15th centuries. Its peculiarity consisted in this, that after a series of antecedents or subjects, a briefly-expressed consequent or predicate was introduced as the epigrammatic point applicable to all these antecedents together. Vid., Erschenburg's Denkmälern altdeutscher Dichtkinst, Bremen 1799.
124. The Syr. begins 11a as if הוי were to be supplied.
125. Cf. also Ali b. Abi Tâleb's dark description, beginning with hadha alzman (this age), Zur allg. Char. der arab. Poesie (1870), p. 54f.
126. Nöldeke has remarked, with reference to Mühlau's Monographie, that ‛aluḳa, in the sense of tenacious (tenax), is also found in Syr. (Geopon. xiii. 9, xli. 26), and that generally the stem עלק, to cleave, to adhere, is more common in Aram. than one would suppose. But this, however common in Arab., is by no means so in Syr.; and one may affirm that, among other Arabisms found in the Proverbs of Agur, the word ‛Alûka has decidedly an Arab. sound.
127. In Sanscrit the leech is called galaukas (masc.) or galaukâ (fem.), i.e., the inhabitant of the water (from gala, water, and ôkas, dwelling). Ewald regards this as a transformation of the Semitic name.
128. So says e.g., Salomo ha-Babli, in a Zulath of the first Chanukka-Sabbats (beginning אין צוּר חלף): יקדוּ כּהבהבי עלק, they burn like the flames of hell.
129. That not only natural productions, but also ideas and literary productions (words, proverbs, knowledge), were conveyed from the Indians to the Semites, and from the Semites to the Indians, on the great highways by sea and land, is a fact abundantly verified. There is not in this, however, any means of determining the situation of Massa.
130. The parallelizing of רחם and שׁאול, Berachoth 15b, is not directly aimed at by the poet.
131. The Gaja has its reason in the Zinnor that follows, and the Munach in the syllable beginning with a moveable Sheva; תּלעג with Scheva quiesc. must, according to rule, receive Mercha, vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 26.
132. Kimchi is here no authority, for he contradicts himself regarding such word-forms. Thus, regarding ויללת, Jer 25:36, in Michlol 87b, and under ילל. The form also wavers between כּיתרון and כּיתרון, Ecc 2:13. The Cod. Jaman. has here the Jod always quiesc.
133. Jerome translates, et qui despicit partum matris suae. To partus there separates itself to him here the signification expectatio, Gen 49:10, resting on a false combination with קוה. To think of pareo, parui, paritum (Mühlau), was not yet granted to him.
134. Vid., Walter von der Vogelweide, edited by Lachmann, p. 8f.
135. The kaninchen as well as the klippdachs [cliff-badgers] may be meant, Lev 11:5 (Deu 14:7); neither of these belong to the bisulca, nor yet, it is true, to the ruminants, though to the ancients (as was the case also with hares) they seemed to do. The klippdach is still, in Egypt and Syria, regarded as unclean.
136. Vid., A Weber's Indische Studien, i. pp. 217, 343.
137. The Samaritan has, Lev 11:30, שממית for אנקה, and the Syr. translates the latter word by אמקתא, which is used in the passage before us (cf. Geiger's Urschrift, p. 68f.) for שממית; omakto (Targ. akmetha) appears there to mean, not a spider, but a lizard.
138. Perhaps also the modern Greek, σαμιάμινθος (σαμιάμιδος, σαμιαμίδιον), which Grotius compares.
139. In 29a, after Norzi, מיטיבי, and in 29b, מיטבי, is to be written, and this is required by the little Masora to 1Sa 25:31, the great, to Eze 33:33, and also the Erfurt little Masora to the passage before us.
140. This “like draws to like” in the form: “not in vain goes the raven to the zarzir, it belongs just to its own tribe,” came to be often employed, Chullin 65a, Baba Kamma 92b. Plantavitius has it, Tendlau more at large, Sprichwörter, u.s.w., Nr. 577.
141. Regarding the Targum Text, vid., Levy under אבּכא and זרכּל. The expression דּמזדּרז (who is girded, and shows himself as such) is not unsuitable.
142. Ludolf gave, in his Hist. Aethiop. i. 10, and Commentarius, p. 150, only a description of the Zecora, without combining therewith זרזיר; but vid., Joh. Dietr. Winckler's Theol. u. Philol. Abhand. i. (1755) p. 33ff.: “A nearer explanation of what is to be understood by זרזיר מתנים, Pro 30:31, along with a statement from a hitherto unpublished correspondence between the learned philologists Hiob Ludolf and Matthai Leydecker, a Reformed preacher in Batavia.” With Ludolf, Joh. Simonis also, in the Arcanum Formarum (1735), p. 687f., decides in favour of the zebra.
143. Vid., Ahlwardt, Chalef elahmar's Qasside (1859), and the interpretation of the description of the horse contained therein, p. 210ff.
144. Thus reads Schleusner, Opusc. Crit. p. 318, and refers it to the horse: nam solebant equos figuris quibusdam notare et quasi sigillare.
145. The Aram. זרז is shortened from זרזר, as כּרך from כּרכּר; the particip. adj. זריז signifies nimble, swift, eager, e.g., Pesachim 4a: “the zealous obey the commandment - as soon as possible hasten to fulfil it.”
146. Vid., Ahlwardt, Chalef elahmar's Qasside, p. 205f.
147. Wetzstein's Ausgewählte Inschriften, p. 355: “The word ḳawm signifies people, not in the sense of populus, but in the sense of the Heb. קים (Job 24:7) = muḳawim abrajul, he who breaks with or against any one.” Incorrect in Gesenius-Dietrich's Heb. Wörterbuch.
148. In the “Alt-arab. Sprachstudien,” Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xxv. 539f.
149. Yet the Talmud, Nidda 27a, derives another moral rule from this proverb, for it interprets זמם in the sense of זמם = חסם, to tie up, to bridle, to shut up, but אם נבלת in the sense of “if thou hast made thyself despicable,” as Löwenstein has done.
150. The Arab. signification, to become proud, is a nüance of the primary signification, to hold erect - viz. the head - as when the rider draws up the head of a camel by means of the halter (Arab. zamam).
151. Thus it is also with the examples of indeterminate gentilicia, which Riehm makes valid for למואל מלך (for he translates למואל symbolically, which, however, syntactically makes no difference): “As analogous to 'Lemuel, a king,' one may adduce 'Jeroboam, son of Nebat, an Ephrathite,' 1Ki 11:26, instead of the usual form 'the Ephrathite;'” and בן־ימיני, Psa 7:1, for בן הימיני; on the contrary, כהן, 1Ki 4:5, does not belong to the subject, but is the pred.
152. In the Midrash Koheleth to Pro 1:1, the name Lemuel (as a name of Solomon) is explained: he who has spoken to God in his heart.
153. Simonis has also compared Aethiopic proper names, such as Zakrestos, Zaiasus. Zamikaël, Zamariam.
154. Also Hitzig's Blinzlerinnen [women who ogle or leer = seductive courtesans] and Böttcher's Streichlerinnen [caressers, viz., of kings] are there rejected, as they deserve to be.
155. Vid., Luth. Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 413. It is the rule, according to which, with Ben-Asher, it is to be written בּן־נּוּן.
156. The author of the Comm. עטרת זקנים to the ארח חיים, c. 6, Geiger and others would read אי, because אי is abbreviated from אין. But why not from אין, 1Sa 21:9? The traditional expression is אי; and Elias Levita in the Tishbi, as also Baer in the Siddur Abodath Jisrael, are right in defending it against that innovation.
157. The translation of Jerome, quia nullum secretum est ubi regnat ebrietas (as if the words were לית רזא אי שׁכר), corresponds to the proverb: נכנס יין יצא סוד :b, when the wine goes in the secret comes out; or, which is the same thing: if one adds יין (= 70), סוד (= 70) comes out.
158. The inquirer is there called (Arab.) daras, as libros terens.
159. Otherwise, but improbably, Schultens: colus a כשׁר = katr kathr, necti in orbem, circumnecti in globum. In פּלך, whence פּלך, he rightly finds the primary meaning of circumvolutio sive gyratio.
160. A view of the ancient art of spinning is afforded by the figures of the 12th Dynasty (according to Lepsius, 2380-2167 b.c.) in the burial chamber of Beni Hassan (270 kilometres above Bulak, on the right bank of the Nile). M. J. Henry, in his work L'Egypte Pharaonique (Paris 1846), Bd. 2, p. 431, mentions that there are figures there which represent “toutes les opérations de la fabrication des tissus depuis le filage jusqu au tissage.” Then he continues: Lex fuseaux dont se servent les fileuses sont excatement semblables aux nôtres, et on voit même ces fileuses imprimer le mouvement de rotation à ces fuseaux, en en froissant le bout inferieur entre leur main et leur cuisse.
161. In the “marriage of Peleus and Thetis,” Catullus describes the work of the Fates: “Their hands are ceaselessly active at their never-ending work; while the left holds the rock, surrounded with a soft fleece, the right assiduously draws the thread and forms it with raised fingers; then it swiftly turns the spindle, with the thumb stretched down, and swings it away in whirling circles.” Then follows the refrain of the song of the Fates: Currite ducentes subtegmina, currite, fusi. - (After Hertzberg's Translation.)
162. Vid., regarding a fall of snow in Jerusalem, the journal Saat auf Hoffnung Jahrg. 3, Heft 3; and in the Hauran Comm. to Job 38:22.
163. Vid., Blümner's Die gewerbliche Thâtigkeit der Völder des klassischen Alterthums (1869), p. 21f.
164. The lxx reads together שנים מרבדים, δισσὰς χλαίνας, and brings into Pro 31:21 (her husband remains without care for the members of the family if it does not snow χιονίζη, as it is to be read for χρονίζη) and 22 the husband, who appears to the translator too much kept in the background.
165. Vid., Lumbroso, Recherches sur l'Economie politique de l'Egypte sous les Lagides (Turin, 1870), p. 111; des tapis de laine de premeère qualité, pourpres, laineux des deux côtés (ἀμφίταποι).
166. Immanuel remarks that Tôrath חסד probably refers to the Tôra, and שׁכוהל חסד, i.e., which is wholly love, which goes forth in love, to the Gesetz = statute.
167. Vid., the application of Pro 31:30 in Taanith 26b: “Young man,” say the maidens, “lift up thine eyes and behold that which thou choosest for thyself! Direct thine eyes not to beauty (נוי), direct thine eyes to the family (משׁפחה); pleasantness is a deception, etc.”
168. The writing יראת־ is that of Ben Asher, יראת that of Ben Naphtali; Norzi, from a misunderstanding, claims יראת־ (with Gaja) as Ben Asher's manner of writing.