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
