{"collection":"Bible & Christianity","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/bib/cmt/kad/pro006.htm","path":"bib/cmt/kad/pro006.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/kad/pro006.htm","text":"Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsh, [1857-78]\nThe author warns against suretyship; or rather, he advises that if one has made himself surety, he should as quickly as possible withdraw from the snare.\n1 My son, if thou hast become surety for thy neighbour,\nHast given thy hand for another:\n2 Thou art entangled in the words of thy mouth,\nEnsnared in the words of thy mouth.\n3 Do this then, my son, and free thyself -\nFor thou hast come under the power of thy neighbour -\nGo, instantly entreat and importune thy neighbour.\n4 Give no sleep to thine eyes,\nAnd no slumber to thine eyelids;\n5 Tear thyself free like a gazelle from his hand,\nAnd as a bird from the hand of the fowler.\nThe chief question here is, whether \u05dc after \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 introduces him for whom or with whom one becomes surety. Elsewhere \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 (R. \u05e8\u05d1, whence also \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1, nectere, to twist close and compact) with the accusative of the person means to become surety for any one, to represent him as a surety, Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16 (Pro 27:13), Gen 43:9; Gen 44:33 (as with the accusative of the matter, to pledge anything, to deposit it as a pledge, Jer 30:21; Neh 5:3, = \u05e9\u05c2\u05d9\u05dd, Arab. wa\u1e0d'a, Job 17:3); and to become surety with any one is expressed, Gen 17:18, by \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9. The phrase \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05dc is not elsewhere met with, and is thus questionable. If we look to Pro 6:3, the \u05e8\u05e2 (\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4) mentioned there cannot possibly be the creditor with whom one has become surety, for so impetuous and urgent an application to him would be both purposeless and unbecoming. But if he is meant for whom one has become surety, then certainly \u05dc\u05e8\u05e2\u05da is also to be understood of the same person, and \u05dc is thus dat. commodi; similar to this is the Targumic \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u05d0 \u05e2\u05dc, suretyship for any one, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26. But is the \u05d6\u05e8, 1b, distinguished from \u05e8\u05e2\u05da, the stranger with whom one has become surety? The parallels Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16, where \u05d6\u05e8 denotes the person whom one represents, show that in both lines one and the same person is meant; \u05d6\u05e8 is in the Proverbs equivalent to \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8, each different from the person in the discourse, Pro 5:17; Pro 27:2 - thus, like \u05e8\u05e2\u05da, denotes not the friend, but generally him to whom one stands in any kind of relation, even a very external one, in a word, the fellow-creatures or neighbours, Pro 24:28 (cf. the Arab. sahbk and \u1e33arynk, which are used as vaguely and superficially). It is further a question, whether we have to explain 1b: if thou hast given thine hand to another, or for another. Here also we are without evidence from the usage of the language; for the phrase \u05ea\u05bc\u05e7\u05e2 \u05db\u05bc\u05e3, or merely \u05ea\u05bc\u05e7\u05e2, appears to be used of striking the hand in suretyship where it elsewhere occurs without any further addition, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26; Pro 11:15; however, Job 17:3, \u05e0\u05ea\u05e7\u05e2 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d3 appears the same: to strike into the hand of any one, i.e., to give to him the hand-stroke. From this passage Hitzig concludes that the surety gave the hand-stroke, without doubt in the presence of witnesses, first of all of the creditor, to the debtor, as a sign that he stood for him. But this idea is unnatural, and the \"without doubt\" melts into air. He on whose hand the stroke falls is always the person to whom one gives suretyship, and confirms it by the hand-stroke. Job also, l.c., means to say: who else but Thou, O Lord, could give to me a pledge, viz., of my innocence? If now the \u05d6\u05e8, v. 1b, is, as we have shown, not the creditor,\n(Note: A translation by R. Joseph Joel of Fulda, 1787, whose autograph MS Baer possesses, renders the passage not badly thus: - \"My son, if thou hast become surety for thy friend, and hast given the hand to another, then thou art bound by thy word, held by thy promise. Yet do what I say to thee, my son: Be at pains as soon as thou canst to get free, otherwise thou art in the power of thy friend; shun no trouble, be urgent with thy friend.\")\nbut the debtor, then is the \u05dc the dat. commodi, as 1a, and the two lines perfectly correspond. \u05ea\u05bc\u05e7\u05e2 properly means to drive, to strike with a resounding noise, cogn. with the Arab. wak'a, which may be regarded as its intrans. (Fl.); then particularly to strike the hand or with the hand. He to whom this hand-pledge is given for another remains here undesignated. A new question arises, whether in Pro 6:6, where \u05e0\u05d5\u05e7\u05e9\u05c1 (illaqueari) and \u05e0\u05dc\u05db\u05bc\u05d3 (comprehendi) follow each other as Isa 8:15, cf. Jer 50:24, the hypothetical antecedent is continued or not. We agree with Schultens, Ziegler, and Fleischer against the continuance of the \u05d0\u05dd. The repetition of the \u05d1\u05bc\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e4\u05d9\u05da (cf. Pro 2:14) serves rightly to strengthen the representation of the thought: thou, thou thyself and no other, hast then ensnared thyself in the net; but this strengthening of the expression would greatly lose in force by placing Pro 6:2 in the antecedent, while if Pro 6:2 is regarded as the conclusion, and thus as the principal proposition, it appears in its full strength.\nThe new commencement needs no particle denoting a conclusion; the \u05d0\u05e4\u05d5\u05d0, making the summons emphatic (cf. Kg2 10:10, frequently in interrogative clauses), connects it closely enough. \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea, neut., refers to what follows. The \u05d5 before \u05d4\u05e0\u05bc\u05e6\u05dc is explanatory, as we say in familiar language: Be so good as tell me, or do me the favour to come with me; while no Frenchman would say, Faites-moi le (ce) plaisir et venez avec moi (Fl.).\n(Note: For the right succession of the accents here (three serviles before the Pazer), vid., Torath Emeth, p. 30; Accentuationssystem, xii. 4. According to Gen-Naphtali, Mercha is to be given to the \u05d6\u05d0\u05ea.)\nThe clause \u05db\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05d0\u05ea\n(Note: The Zinnorith before the Mahpach in these words represents at the same time the Makkeph and rejects the Zinnorith; vid., Torath Emeth, p. 16, and my Psalmencomm. Bd. ii. (1860), p. 460, note 2.)\nis not to be translated: in case thou art fallen into the hand of thy neighbour; for this is represented (Pro 6:1, Pro 6:2) as having already in fact happened. On two sides the surety is no longer sui juris: the creditor has him in his hand; for if the debtor does not pay, he holds the surety, and in this way many an honourable man has lost house and goods, Sirach 29:18, cf. 8:13; - and the debtor has him, the surety, in his hand; for the performance which is due, for which the suretyship avails, depends on his conscientiousness. The latter is here meant: thou hast made thy freedom and thy possessions dependent on the will of thy neighbour for whom thou art the surety. The clause introduced with \u05db\u05bc\u05d9 gives the reason for the call to set himself free (\u05d4\u05e0\u05bc\u05e6\u05dc from \u05e0\u05e6\u05dc, R. \u05e6\u05dc, \u05e9\u05dc, to draw out or off); it is a parenthetical sentence. The meaning of \u05d4\u05ea\u05e8\u05e4\u05bc\u05e1 is certain. The verb \u05e8\u05e4\u05e1 (\u05e8\u05e4\u05e9\u05c2, \u05e8\u05e4\u05e1) signifies to stamp on, calcare, conclucare; the Kams\n(Note: el-Feyroozbdee's Kmus, a native Arabic Lexicon; vid., Lane's Arab. Lex. Bk. i. pt. 1, p. xvii.)\nexplains rafas by rakad balarjal. The Hithpa. might, it is true, mean to conduct oneself in a trampling manner, to tread roughly, as \u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d1\u05bc\u05d0, and the medial Niph. \u05e0\u05d1\u05bc\u05d0, to conduct oneself speaking (in an impassioned manner); but Psa 68:31 and the analogy of \u05d4\u05ea\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05e1\u05e1 favour the meaning to throw oneself in a stamping manner, i.e., violently, to the ground, to trample upon oneself - i.e., let oneself be trampled upon, to place oneself in the attitude of most earnest humble prayer. Thus the Graec. Venet. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, Rashi (\"humble thyself like to the threshold which is trampled and trode upon\"), Aben-Ezra, Immanuel (\"humble thyself under the soles of his feet\"); so Cocceius, J. H. Michaelis, and others: conculcandum te praebe. \u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05d4\u05d1 is more controverted. The Talmudic-Midrash explanation (b. Joma, 87a; Bathra, 173b, and elsewhere): take with thee in great numbers thy friends (\u05e8\u05d4\u05d1 = \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05bc\u05d4), is discredited by this, that it has along with it the explanation of \u05d4\u05ea\u05e8\u05e4\u05e1 by (\u05d9\u05d3) \u05e4\u05bc\u05e1 \u05d7\u05ea\u05bc\u05e8, solve palmam (manus), i.e., pay what thou canst. Also with the meaning to rule (Parchon, Immanuel), which \u05e8\u05d4\u05d1 besides has not, nothing is to be done. The right meaning of \u05e8\u05d4\u05d1 \u05d1\u05bc is to rush upon one boisterously, Isa 3:5. \u05e8\u05d4\u05d1 means in general to be violently excited (Arab. rahiba, to be afraid), and thus to meet one, here with the accusative: assail impetuously thy neighbour (viz., that he fulfil his engagement). Accordingly, with a choice of words more or less suitable, the lxx translates by \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5, Symm., Theodotion by \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, the Graec. Venet. by \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, the Syr. (which the Targumist copies) by \u05d2\u05e8\u05d2 (solicita), and Kimchi glosses by: lay an arrest upon him with pacifying words. The Talmud explains \u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05da as plur.;\n(Note: There is here no distinction between the Kethb and the Ker\u0131\u0302. The Masora remarks, \"This is the only passage in the Book of Proverbs where the word is written with Yod (\u05d9);\" it thus recognises only the undisputed \u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05da.)\nbut the plur., which was permissible in Pro 3:28, is here wholly inadmissible: it is thus the plena scriptio for \u05e8\u05e2\u05da with the retaining of the third radical of the ground-form of the root-word (\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9 = \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4), or with \u05d9 as mater lectionis, to distinguish the pausal-form from that which is without the pause; cf. Pro 24:34. lxx, Syr., Jerome, etc., rightly translate it in the sing. The immediateness lying in \u05dc\u05da (cf. \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5, Mat 5:24) is now expressed as a duty, Pro 6:4. One must not sleep and slumber (an expression quite like Psa 132:4), not give himself quietness and rest, till the other has released him from his bail by the performance of that for which he is surety. One must set himself free as a gazelle or as a bird, being caught, seeks to disentangle itself by calling forth all its strength and art.\nThe naked \u05de\u05d9\u05bc\u05d3 is not to be translated \"immediately;\" for in this sense the word is rabbinical, not biblical. The versions (with exception of Jerome and the Graec. Venet.) translate as if the word were \u05de\u05e4\u05bc\u05d7 [out of the snare]. Bertheau prefers this reading, and Bttcher holds \u05d7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d3 [a hunter] to have fallen out after \u05de\u05d9\u05d3. It is not a parallelism with reservation; for a bird-catcher is not at the same time a gazelle-hunter. The author, if he has so written, has conceived of \u05de\u05d9\u05d3, as at Kg1 20:42, as absolute, and connected it with \u05d4\u05e0\u05bc\u05e6\u05dc: tear thyself free like the gazelle from the hand into which thou hast fallen (Hitzig); according to which, the section should be accentuated thus: \u05d4\u05e0\u05e6\u05dc \u05db\u05e6\u05d1\u05d9 \u05de\u05d9\u05d3. \u05e6\u05d1\u05d9, Aram. \u05d8\u05d1\u05d9, Arab. zaby, is the gazelle (Arab. ghaz\u00e2l), so called from its elegance; \u05e6\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8, the bird, from its whistling (\u05e6\u05e4\u05e8, Arab. \u1e63afar, R. \u05e6\u05e3, cf. Arab. saff\u00e2rat, the whistling of a bird), Arab. safar, whistler (with prosthesis, 'a\u1e63afwar, warbler, Psalm. p. 794). The bird-catcher is called \u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1 (from \u05d9\u05e7\u05e9\u05c1, after the form \u05d9\u05db\u05dc, cog. \u05e7\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1, Isa 29:21, \u05e0\u05e7\u05e9\u05c1, R. \u05e7\u05e9), after the form \u05d1\u05bc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d3 (fem. \u05d1\u05bc\u05d2\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4), or \u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1; one would think that the Kametz, after the form k\u00e2twl (vid., under Isa 1:17), must here be fixed, but in Jer 5:26 the word is vocalized \u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd.\nAs Elihu (Job 35:11) says that God has set the beasts as our teachers, so he sends the sluggard to the school of the ant (Ameise), so named (in Germ.) from its industry (Emsigkeit):\n6 Go to the ant, sluggard;\nConsider her ways, and be wise!\n7 She that hath no judge,\nDirector, and ruler:\n8 She prepareth in summer her food,\nHas gathered in harvest her store.\nThe Dech written mostly under the \u05dc\u05da separates the inseparable. The thought, Go to the ant, sluggard! permits no other distinction than in the vocative; but the Dech of \u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e0\u05de\u05dc\u05d4 is changed into Munach\n(Note: Cod. 1294 accentuates \u05dc\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e0\u05de\u05dc\u05d4; and that, according to Ben-Asher's rule, is correct.)\non account of the nature of the Athnach-word, which consists of only two syllables without the counter-tone. The ant has for its Hebrew-Arabic name \u05e0\u05de\u05dc\u05d4, from the R. \u05e0\u05dd (Isaiah, p. 687), which is first used of the sound, which expresses the idea of the low, dull, secret - thus of its active and yet unperceived motion; its Aramaic name in the Peshto, \u00fbmenaa', and in the Targ. \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e0\u05d0 (also Arab. sumsum, simsim, of little red ants), designates it after its quick activity, its busy running hither and thither (vid., Fleischer in Levy's Chald. Wrterb. ii. 578). She is a model of unwearied and well-planned labour. From the plur. \u05d3\u05bc\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05d4 it is to be concluded that the author observed their art in gathering in and laying up in store, carrying burdens, building their houses, and the like (vid., the passages in the Talmud and Midrash in the Hamburg Real-Encyclopdie fr Bibel und Talmud, 1868, p. 83f.). To the ant the sluggard (\u05e2\u05e6\u05dc, Aram. and Arab. \u05e2\u05d8\u05dc, with the fundamental idea of weight and dulness) is sent, to learn from her to be ashamed, and to be taught wisdom.\nThis relative clause describes the subject of Pro 6:8 more fully: it is like a clause with \u05d2\u05bc\u05dd \u05db\u05bc\u05d9, quamquam.\n(Note: Pro 6:7 is commonly halved by Rebia; but for the correct accentuation, vid., Torath Emeth, p. 48, 3.)\nThe community of ants exhibits a peculiar class of workers; but it is not, like that of bees, composed of grades germinating in the queen-bee as the head. The three offices here named represent the highest judiciary, police, and executive powers; for \u05e7\u05e6\u05d9\u05df (from \u05e7\u05e6\u05d4, to distinguish, with the ending in, vid., Jesurun, p. 215 s.) is the judge; \u05e9\u05c1\u05d8\u05e8 (from \u05e9\u05c1\u05d8\u05e8, Arab. sa\u1e6dr, to draw lines, to write) is the overseer (in war the director, controller), or, as Saalschtz indicates the province of the schotrim both in cities and in the camp, the office of police; \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc (vid., Isaiah, p. 691), the governors of the whole state organism subordinated to the schoftim and the schotrim. The Syr., and the Targ. slavishly following it, translate \u05e7\u05e6\u05d9\u05df by \u05d7\u05e6\u05d3\u05bc\u05d0 (harvest), for they interchange this word with \u05e7\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8.\nIn this verse the change of the time cannot be occasioned by this, that \u05e7\u05d9\u05e5 and \u05e7\u05e6\u05d9\u05e8 are distinguished as the earlier and the later period of the year; for \u05e7\u05d9\u05e5 (= Arab. \u1e33ayt, from \u1e33\u00e2t, to be glowing hot, cf. Arab. kghyy\u1e6d of the glow of the mid-day heat) is the late summer, when the heat rises to the highest degree; but the son of the Shunammite succumbed to the sun-stroke in the time of harvest (Kg2 4:18.). Lwenstein judiciously remarks that \u05ea\u05bc\u05db\u05d9\u05df refers to immediate want, \u05d0\u05e0\u05e8\u05d4 to that which is future; or, better, the former shows them engaged in persevering industry during the summer glow, the latter as at the end of the harvest, and engaged in the bringing home of the winter stores. The words of the procuring of food in summer are again used by Agur, Pro 30:25; and the Aramaic fable of the ant and the grasshopper,\n(Note: Vid., Goldberg's Chofes Matmonim, Berlin 1845; and Landsberger's Berlin Graduation Thesis, Fabulae aliquot Aramaeae, 1846, p. 28.)\nwhich is also found among those of Aesop and of Syntipas, serves as an illustration of this whole verse. The lxx has, after the \"Go to the ant,\" a proverb of five lines, \u1f22 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. Hitzig regards it as of Greek origin; and certainly, as Lagarde has shown, it contains idiomatic Greek expressions which would not occur to a translator from the Hebrew. In any case, however, it is an interpolation which disfigures the Hebrew text by overlading it.\nAfter the poet has admonished the sluggard to take the ant as an example, he seeks also to rouse him out of his sleepiness and indolence:\n9 How long, O sluggard, wilt thou lie?\nWhen wilt thou rise up from thy sleep?\n10 \"A little sleep, a little slumber,\nA little folding of the hands to rest!\"\n11 So comes like a strong robber thy poverty,\nAnd thy want as an armed man.\nThe awakening cry, Pro 6:9, is not of the kind that Paul could have it in his mind, Eph 5:14. \u05e2\u05e6\u05dc has, as the vocative, Pasek after it, and is, on account of the Pasek, in correct editions accentuated not with Munach, but Mercha. The words, Pro 6:10, are not an ironical call (sleep only yet a little while, but in truth a long while), but per mimesin the reply of the sluggard with which he turns away the unwelcome disturber. The plurals with \u05de\u05e2\u05d8 sound like self-delusion: yet a little, but a sufficient! To fold the hands, i.e., to cross them over the breast, or put them into the bosom, denotes also, Ecc 4:5, the idler. \u05d7\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7, complicatio (cf. in Livy, compressis quod aiunt manibus sidere; and Lucan, 2:292, compressas tenuisse manus), for formed like \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d9, Pro 3:8, and the inf. \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05d1 like \u05d7\u05e1\u05e8, Pro 10:21, and \u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05dc, Pro 16:19. The perf. consec. connects itself with the words heard from the mouth of the sluggard, which are as a hypothetical antecedent thereto: if thou so sayest, and always again sayest, then this is the consequence, that suddenly and inevitably poverty and want come upon thee. That \u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05bc\u05da denotes the grassator, i.e., vagabond (Arab. dawwar, one who wanders much about), or the robber or foe (like the Arab. 'aduww, properly transgressor finium), is not justified by the usage of the language; \u05d4\u05dc\u05da signifies, Sa2 12:4, the traveller, and \u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05bc\u05da is one who rides quickly forward, not directly a \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (lxx).\nThe point of comparison, 11a, is the unforeseen, as in quick march or assault (Bttcher), and 11b the hostile and irretrievable surprise; for a man in armour, as Hitzig remarks, brings no good in his armour: he assails the opponent, and he who is without defence yields to him without the possibility of withstanding him. The lxx translate \u05db\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05de\u05d2\u05df by \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 (cf. \u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 = \u05de\u05e0\u05d9\u05be\u05d0\u05e8\u05d2, Job 7:6, lxx, Aq.), for what reason we know not. After Pro 6:11 they interpose two other lines: \"but if thou art assiduous, thy harvest will come to thee as a fountain, but want will go away \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\" Also this \"bad runner\" we must let go; for Lagarde's retranslation, \u05d5\u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05e8\u05da \u05db\u05d7\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e0\u05de\u05d2, no one can understand. The four lines, Pro 6:10, Pro 6:11 are repeated in the appendix of Words of the Wise, Pro 24:33.; and if this appendix originated in the time of Hezekiah, they may have been taken therefrom by the poet, the editor of the older Book of Proverbs. Instead of \u05db\u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05bc\u05da, \u05de\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05da is there used (so comes forward thy poverty, i.e., again and again, but certainly moving forward); and instead of \u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05e8\u05da, \u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05e8\u05d9\u05da is written, as also here, Pro 6:6, for \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05ea\u05da is found the variant \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05ea\u05d9\u05da with Jod as mater lectionis of the pausal Segol.\nThere follows now a third brief series of instructions, which run to a conclusion with a deterring prospect similar to the foregoing.\n12 A worthless man, a wicked man,\nIs he who practiseth falsehood with his mouth;\n13 Who winketh with his eyes, scrapeth with his foot,\nPointeth with his fingers.\n14 Malice is in his heart,\nHe deviseth evil at all times,\nHe spreadeth strife.\n15 Therefore suddenly his destruction shall come,\nSuddenly shall he be destroyed, and there is no remedy.\nIt is a question, what is the subject and what the predicate in Pro 6:12. Thus much is clear, that upon him who is here described according to his deceitful conduct the sentence of condemnation shall fall. He who is so described is thus subject, and \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d1\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05bc\u05e2\u05dc is without doubt predicate. But does the complex subject begin with \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05d5\u05df? Thus e.g., Hitzig: \"A worthless man is the wicked man who....\" But the interchange of \u05e2\u05d3\u05dd and \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 is a sign of parallel relation; and if 12b belonged attributively to \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05d5\u05df, then since \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05df is not used, it ought at least to have been continued by \u05d4\u05d4\u05d5\u05dc\u05da. The general moral categories, 12a, are thus predicates, as was indeed besides probable; the copious division of the subject demands also in point of style a more developed predicate. Pro 16:27 is simpler in plan, and also logically different. There the expression is, as is usual, \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05dc. Since \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05d0\u05d5\u05df is not possible, the author uses instead \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05dc. This word, composed of \u05d1\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9 and \u05d9\u05e2\u05dc (from \u05d9\u05e2\u05dc, \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc, to be useful, to be good for), so fully serves as one word, that it even takes the article, Sa1 25:25. It denotes worthlessness, generally in a chain of words in the genitive, but also the worthless, Job 34:18; and it is to be so taken here, for \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd does not form a constructivus, and never governs a genitive. \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05dc is thus a virtual adjective (as nequam in homo nequam); the connection is like that of \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd \u05e8\u05e9\u05c1\u05e2, Pro 11:7, and elsewhere, although more appositional than this pure attributive. Synonymous with \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9\u05e2\u05dc is \u05d0\u05d5\u05df (from an, to breathe), wickedness, i.e., want of all moral character. Thus worthless and wicked is he who practises deceit with his mouth (cf. Pro 4:24), i.e., who makes language the means of untruthfulness and uncharitableness. \u05e2\u05e7\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea \u05e4\u05bc\u05d4 is meant in a moral sense, but without excluding that distortion of the mouth which belongs to the mimicry of the malicious. It is the accus. of the object; for \u05d4\u05dc\u05da is also bound in a moral sense with the accusative of that which one practises, i.e., dealing with, exercises himself in, Pro 2:7; Pro 28:18, Isa 33:15.\n\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05e5 \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5 is translated according to the sense: who winks (nictat) with his eyes; but that is not the proper meaning of the word, for \u05e7\u05e8\u05e5 is used not only of the eyes. Pro 10:10 (cf. Pro 16:30, qui oculos morsicat or connivet), Psa 35:19, but also of the lips, Pro 16:30. Thus Lwenstein's explanation: who opens up the eyes, is incorrect. The verb \u05e7\u05e8\u05e5 unites in it the meanings of Arab. qrts, to pinch off with a sharp implement, and Arab. qrd, with a blunt instrument (Arab. mi\u1e33ra\u1e0d, pincers). It means to pince, to nip, as Arab. \u1e33ar\u1e63, pincer - e.g., \u1e33ar\u1e63 balskyn alarsasat, he cuts off with the knife the leaden seal - hence frequently, to nip together the eyes, provincially: to wink (\"zwickern,\" frequent. of \"zwicken,\" to nip) with the eyes - the action of the deceiver, who thereby gives the sign to others that they help or at least do not hinder him from bantering and mocking, belying and deceiving a third person (Fl.); cf. Ali's proverb, \"O God, pardon to us the culpable winking with the eye (ramzat),\" and Fleischer's notes thereon, the Proverbs of Ali, p. 100f.\nThat the words which follow, \u05d1\u05bc\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 \u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc, are meant of discourse, i.e., the giving of signs, with the feet, and, so to say, significant oratio pedestris (lxx, Aben-Ezra, Bertheau, Hitzig, and others), is very improbable, since the usage of language has set apart the Piel \u05de\u05dc\u05bc\u05dc for the meaning loqui, and \u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc admits another suitable signification, for \u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc means in Talmudic fricare, confricare - e.g., \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea, he who grinds the parched ears of corn (b. Beza 12b; Ma'seroth, iv. 5) - after which Syr., Targ., \u05ea\u05db\u05e1 (stamping), Aq. \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, Symm. \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, Jerome, (qui) terit pede, and Rashi \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05e9\u05c1\u05e3 (grinding, scratching); it means one who scrapes with his feet, draws them backwards and forwards on the ground in order thereby to give a sign to others; also the Arab. mll, levem et agilem esse, which as the synonym of Arab. sr is connected with Arab. f\u0131\u0302 of the way, signifies properly to move the feet quickly hither and thither (Fl.).\n(Note: The root-idea of the Arab. mall is unquietness of motion; the Arab. noun mallt signifies the glow with its flickering light and burning: glowing ashes, inner agitation, external haste; Arab. malil (\u05de\u05dc\u05dc) is the feverish patient, but also one quickly hastening away, and generally an impatient or hasty person (vid., Wetstein in Baudissin in his Job. Tischendorfianus, vii. 6). The grinding is made by means of a quick movement hither and thither; and so also is speaking, for the instrument of speech, particularly the tongue, is set in motion. Only the meaning praecidere, circumcidere, does not connect itself with that root-idea: \u05de\u05dc in this signification appears to be a nance of \u05de\u05e8, stringere.)\n\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 appears here, in accordance with its primary signification (projicere, sc. brachium or digitum = monstrare), connected with \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05e6\u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05ea\u05d9\u05d5; another expression for this scornful, malicious \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d7 \u05d0\u05e6\u05d1\u05bc\u05e2, Isa 58:9.\nIn this verse is continued the description of the subject, only once returning to the particip. The clauses are arranged independently, but logically according to the complex conception of the subject. \u05ea\u05bc\u05d4\u05e4\u05bc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea .tce are just the knaveries, i.e., the malicious wickedness which comes to light in word and deportment as \u05e2\u05e7\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05ea \u05e4\u05d4. Regarding the double figure of the smithy and of agriculture underlying \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1, machinari, vid., at Pro 3:29, and regarding the omission of the \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0 to \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1, at Psa 7:10. The phrase \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05bc\u05d7 \u05de\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd (as Pro 6:19, Pro 16:28), to let loose disputes, so that they break forth, reminds us rather of the unfettering of the winds by Aeolus than of the casting in of the apple of discord. Instead of \u05de\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd the Ker\u0131\u0302 has \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd; on the other hand, \u05de\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd remains uncorrected Pro 6:19; Pro 10:12. The form \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd occurs once, Pro 18:18, and its constr. \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 once, Pro 19:13. Everywhere else the text has \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, for which the Ker\u0131\u0302 has \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, Pro 18:19; Pro 21:9, Pro 21:19; Pro 23:29; Pro 25:24; Pro 26:21; Pro 27:15. The forms \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df and \u05de\u05d3\u05df are also recognised: the former stands alone without any analogous example; the latter is compared at least with \u05de\u05e6\u05d3, Arab. mas\u00e2d (Psalmen, p. 163, 3). Probably these two forms are warranted by Gen 25:2, cf. Gen 37:28, Gen 37:36, where \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05df and \u05de\u05d3\u05df occur as the names of two sons of Abraham by Keturah. But the national name \u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd is no reason for the seven times laying aside of the regular form \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, i.e., \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, which is the plur. of \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05df after the forms \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, \u05de\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, although \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, after the forms \u05de\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd, \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd, is also found.\nWith the 14th verse the description terminates. A worthless and a wicked person is he who does such things. The point lies in the characteristic out of which the conclusion is drawn: therefore his ruin will suddenly come upon him, etc. Regarding \u05d0\u05d9\u05d3, the root-meaning of which is illustrated by Amo 2:13, vid., at Pro 1:26. \u05e4\u05bc\u05ea\u05d0\u05dd is an old accus. of an absol. \u05e4\u05bc\u05ea\u05d0, of the same meaning as \u05e4\u05bc\u05ea\u05e2, used as an adverbial accus., both originating in the root-idea of splitting, opening, breaking out and breaking forth. \"Shall be broken to pieces\" (as a brittle potter's vessel, Psa 2:9; Isa 30:14; Jer 29:11) is a frequent figure for the destruction (\u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u05e8) of an army (cf. Arab. \u00e2nksar \u00e2ljysh), of a city or a state, a man. \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df continues the \u05d9\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d1\u05e8 as Pro 29:1 : there shall be as it were no means of recovery for his shattered members (Fl.). Without the Vav this \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05de\u05e8\u05e4\u05bc\u05d0 would be a clause conceived of accusatively, and thus adverbially: without any healing.\nWhat now follows is not a separate section (Hitzig), but the corroborative continuation of that which precedes. The last word (\u05de\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, strife) before the threatening of punishment, 14b, is also here the last. The thought that no vice is a greater abomination to God than the (in fact satanical) striving to set men at variance who love one another, clothes itself in the form of the numerical proverb which we have already considered, pp. 12, 13. From that place we transfer the translation of this example of a Midda: -\n16 There are six things which Jahve hateth,\nAnd seven are an abhorrence to His soul:\n17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,\nAnd hands that shed innocent blood;\n18 An heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil,\nFeet that hastily run to wickedness,\n19 One that uttereth lies as a false witness,\nAnd he who soweth strife between brethren.\nThe sense is not, that the six things are hateful to God, and the seventh an abomination to Him besides (Lwenstein); the Midda-form in Amos 1:3-2:6, and in the proverb in Job 5:19, shows that the seven are to be numbered separately, and the seventh is the non plus ultra of all that is hated by God. We are not to translate: sex haecce odit, for \u05d4\u05de\u05bc\u05d4, \u05d4\u05e0\u05bc\u05d4, (\u05d4\u05dd, \u05d4\u05df) points backwards and hitherwards, but not, as \u05d0\u05dc\u05bc\u05d4, forwards to that immediately following; in that case the words would be \u05e9\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4, or more correctly \u05d4\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4 \u05e9\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1. But also Hitzig's explanation, \"These six things (viz., Pro 6:12-15) Jahve hateth,\" is impossible; for (which is also against that haecce) the substantive pronoun \u05d4\u05de\u05d4 nuonorp , \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 (\u05d4\u05d4\u05de\u05d4, \u05d4\u05d4\u05e0\u05d4) is never, like the Chald. \u05d4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5\u05df (\u05d4\u05de\u05bc\u05d5), employed as an accus. in the sense of \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\u05dd, \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4\u05df, it is always (except where it is the virtual gen. connected with a preposition) only the nom., whether of the subject or of the predicate; and where it is the nom. of the predicate, as Deu 20:15; Isa 51:19, substantival clauses precede in which \u05d4\u05e0\u05d4 (\u05d4\u05de\u05d4) represents the substantive verb, or, more correctly, in which the logical copula resulting from the connection of the clause itself remains unexpressed. Accordingly, '\u05e9\u05c2\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d4 is a relative clause, and is therefore so accentuated here, as at Pro 30:15 and elsewhere: sex (sunt) ea quae Deus odit, et septem (sunt) abominatio animae ejus. Regarding the statement that the soul of God hates anything, vid., at Isa 1:14. \u05ea\u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea, an error in the writing occasioned by the numeral (vid., Pro 26:25), is properly corrected by the Ker\u0131\u0302; the poet had certainly the singular in view, as Pro 3:32; Pro 11:1, when he wrote \u05ea\u05d5\u05e2\u05d1\u05ea. The first three characteristics are related to each other as mental, verbal, actual, denoted by the members of the body by means of which these characteristics come to light. The virtues are taken all together as a body (organism), and meekness is its head. Therefore there stands above all, as the sin of sins, the mentis elatae tumor, which expresses itself in elatum (grande) supercilium: \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05e8\u05de\u05d5\u05ea, the feature of the \u05e8\u05dd, haughty (cf. Psa 18:28 with Sa2 22:28), is the opposite of the feature of the \u05e9\u05c1\u05d7 \u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, Job 22:29; \u05e2\u05d9\u05df is in the O.T. almost always (vid., Sol 4:9) fem., and adjectives of course form no dual. The second of these characteristics is the lying tongue, and the third the murderous hands. \u05d3\u05bc\u05dd\u05be\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9 is innocent blood as distinguished from \u05d3\u05bc\u05dd \u05d4\u05e0\u05bc\u05e7\u05d9, the blood of the innocent, Deu 19:13.\n(Note: The writing \u05d3\u05bc\u05dd follows the Masoretic rule, vid., Kimchi, Michlol 205b, and Heidenheim under Deu 19:10, where in printed editions of the text (also in Norzi's) the irregular form \u05d3\u05bc\u05dd \u05e0\u05e7\u05d9 is found. Besides, the Metheg is to be given to \u05d3\u05bc\u05dd\u05be, so that one may not read it dom, as e.g., \u05e9\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1\u05be\u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea, Gen 7:11, that one may not read it \u05e9\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1\u05be.)\nThe fourth characteristic is a deceitful heart. On \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1, vid., Pro 6:14, Pro 3:29, and on \u05d0\u05d9\u05df, Pro 6:12. The fifth: feet running with haste to evil; \u05dc\u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 as \u05dc\u05e8\u05e2 in Isa 59:7, echoing the distich Pro 1:16, as here, 17b and 18b. The connection \u05de\u05d4\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5, propere cucurrit (contrast \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8 \u05dc), is equivalent to \u05e8\u05e5 \u05de\u05d4\u05e8.\nThe sixth: \"A speaker of lies, a tongue of falsehood,\" is hateful to God. It is one subject which is thus doubly characterized. \u05db\u05bc\u05d6\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd are fictions, and \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 is the disfiguring (deformatio) of the actual facts. They are purposely placed together in this connection. The derivations of these synonyms are obscure; Frst gives to the former the root-idea of spinning (properly knotting together), and to the latter that of painting. \u05db\u05d6\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd is introduced to support \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8.\n(Note: Isaak Albo thus distinguishes these synonyms in his dogmatic, bearing the title \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05e2\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, ii. 27.)\nIt would also be verbally permissible to interpret \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 in the sense of \u05e2\u05d3\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8, like Pro 25:18, as in apposition to \u05db\u05d6\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd; but in the nearest parallel, Pro 14:15, the idea is personal, for it is said of the \u05e2\u05d3 \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 that he breathes out lies. In that place there can be no doubt that the clause is a verbal one, and \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7 finitum, viz., Hiph. of \u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7. This Hiph. signifies elsewhere also sufflare, Pro 20:8, afflare, Psa 10:5; Eze 21:26, perflare, Sol 4:16, anhelare (desiderare), Psa 12:6; Hab 2:3, but with \u05db\u05d6\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, efflare, a synonym to \u05d3\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05e8, as \u05d4\u05d1\u05bc\u05d9\u05e2 and \u05d4\u05d8\u05bc\u05d9\u05e3, which has (cf. Pro 12:17) no secondary meaning in use, but is mostly connected with \u05db\u05d6\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, not without reference to the fact that that which is false is without reality and is nothing more than \u05d4\u05d1\u05dc \u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7. But what kind of a form is \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7, where it is not, as Pro 14:5, the predicate of a verbal clause, but in connection with \u05db\u05d6\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, as here and at Pro 14:25; Pro 19:5, Pro 19:9 (once with \u05d0\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4, Pro 12:17), is the subject of a substantival clause? That which lies nearest is to regard it as a noun formed from the fut. Hiph. Such formations we indeed meet only among proper names, such as \u05d9\u05d0\u05d9\u05e8, \u05d9\u05db\u05d9\u05df, \u05d9\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd; however, at least the one n. appell. \u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 (an adversary) is found, which may be formed from the Hiph. as well as from the Kal. But should not the constr. of \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7 after the form \u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 be \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7? One does not escape from this consideration by deriving \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7, after the forms \u05d9\u05d2\u05d9\u05e2, \u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc, \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d3, \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1, and the like, from a secondary verb \u05d9\u05e4\u05d7, the existence of which is confirmed by Jer 4:31, and from which also \u05d9\u05e4\u05d7, Psa 27:12, appears to be derived, although it may be reduced also, after the form \u05d9\u05e8\u05d1 (with \u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1), to \u05d4\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7. But in this case also one expects as a connecting form \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7 like \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d3, as in reality \u05d9\u05e4\u05d7 from \u05d9\u05e4\u05d7 (cf. \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc, \u05e9\u05c2\u05de\u05d4\u05d9, from \u05d0\u05d1\u05dc, \u05e9\u05c2\u05de\u05d7). Shall it now be assumed that the Kametz is treated as fixed? This were contrary to rule, since it is not naturally long. Thus the connection is not that of the genitive. But if \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7 were a substantive formed with the preformative of the second modus like \u05d9\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05d8 Sa1 17:40, or were it a participial intensive form of active signification such as \u05e0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d0, then the verbal force remaining in it is opposed to the usage of the language. There remains nothing further, therefore, than to regard \u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05d7 as an attributive put in the place of a noun: one who breathes out; and there is a homogeneous example of this, for in any other way we cannot explain \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05d9\u05e3, Ecc 1:18. In 19b the numeral proverb reaches its point. The chief of all that God hates is he who takes a fiendish delight in setting at variance men who stand nearly related. Thus this brief proverbial discourse rounds itself off, coming again to 14b as a refrain.\nAfter these three smaller sections, the teacher of wisdom returns here to the theme of the eighth: Warning against sins of the flesh, whose power and prevalence among men is so immeasurably great, that their terrible consequences cannot sufficiently be held up before them, particularly before youth.\n20 Keep, my son, the commandment of thy father,\nAnd reject not the instruction of thy mother.\n21 Bind them to thy heart evermore,\nFasten them about thy neck.\nThe suff. -\u0113m refers to the good doctrine (cf. Pro 7:3) pointed out by \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4 and \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4; the masc. stands, as is usual (e.g., Pro 1:16; Pro 5:2), instead of the fem. Regarding the figure, reminding us of the Tefillin and of Amuletes for perpetual representation, vid., under Pro 3:3. Similarly of persons, Sol 8:6. The verb \u05e2\u05e0\u05d3 (only here and Job 31:36) signifies to bend, particularly to bend aside (Arab. 'ind, bending off, going aside; accus. as adv., aside, apud), and to bend up, to wind about, circumplicare.\nThe representation of the good doctrine is now personified, and becomes identified with it.\nWhen thou walkest, it will guide thee;\nWhen thou liest down, it will keep watch over thee;\nAnd when thou wakest, it will talk with thee.\nThe subject is the doctrine of wisdom, with which the representation of wisdom herself is identified. The futures are not expressive of a wish or of an admonition, but of a promise; the form of the third clause shows this. Thus, and in the same succession as in the schema Deu 6:7, cf. Pro 11:19, are the three circumstances of the outward life distinguished: going, lying down, and rising up. The punctuation \u05d1\u05bc\u05d4\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05da, found here and there, is Ben-Naphtali's variant; Ben-Asher and also the Textus rec. reject the Metheg in this case, vid., Baer's Metheg-Setzung, 28. The verb \u05e0\u05d7\u05d4, with its Hiph. in a strengthened Kal-signification, is more frequently found in the Psalms than in the Proverbs; the Arab. nh' shows that it properly signifies to direct (dirigere), to give direction, to move in a definite direction. \u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05e8 with \u05e2\u05dc, to take into protection, we had already Pro 2:11; this author has favourite forms of expression, in the repetition of which he takes delight. With lying down, sleeping is associated. \u05d5\u05d4\u05e7\u05d9\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea is, as Psa 139:18, the hypoth. perf., according to Ewald, 357a: et ut expergefactus es, illa te compellabit. Bertheau incorrectly: she will make thee thoughtful. But apart from the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of this Hiph. in the language of the Bible, the personification demands a clearer figure. \u05e9\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7 (\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7) signifies mental speech and audible speech (Gen 24:63, poet., in the Talmudic\n(Note: The conjecture thrown out by Wetstein, that (Arab.) shykh is equivalent to \u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7 (\u05de\u05e1\u05d9\u05d7), speaker, is untenable, since the verb shakh, to be old, a so-called munsarif, i.e., conjugated throughout, is used in all forms, and thus is certainly the root of the shykh.)\na common word); with \u05d1, speaking concerning something (fabulari de), Psa 69:13; with the accus., that which is said of a thing, Psa 145:5, or the address, briefly for \u05e9\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7 \u05dc, Job 12:8 (as \u05de\u05d2\u05bc\u05df with accus. Pro 4:9 = \u05de\u05d2\u05df \u05dc): when thou art awake, wisdom will forthwith enter into conversation with thee, and fill thy thoughts with right matter, and give to thy hands the right direction and consecration.\nSince in \u05d4\u05d9\u05d0 the idea of wisdom and of wholesome doctrine lie in one another, the author can proceed with proof:\nFor a lamp is the commandment, and instruction a light (Jerome et lex lux);\nAnd a way of life, disciplinary reproofs.\nThat \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 has here not the positive, specifically Israelitish sense, but the generalized sense of instruction in conformity with truth regarding the will of God and the duty of man, vid., p. 42. This instruction mediated by man, but of divine origin, is \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8, light, which enlightens the man who submits to it; and the commandment, \u05de\u05e6\u05d5\u05d4, which directs men in every case to do what is right, and forbids that which is wrong (including the prohibition Lev 4:2), is \u05e0\u05e8, a lamp which, kindled at that light, enlightens all the darkness of ignorance with reference to human conduct and its consequences. \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 and \u05e0\u05e8 are related to each other as general and particular, primary and derivative. Lwenstein accentuates incorrectly \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 instead of \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 (as the Cod. 1294 and the 3 Erfurt Codd.); vid., on the retrogression of the tone, not existing here, under Pro 3:15. The gen. \u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e1\u05e8 denotes the object or character of the admonition: not disciplinary in the external sense of the word, but rather moral, having in view discipline in the sense of education, i.e., moral edification and elevation. Such corrections are \u05d3\u05bc\u05e8\u05da \u05d7\u05d9\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd, the way to true life, direction how to obtain it.\nThe section thus closes:\nTo keep thee from the vile woman,\nFrom the flattery of the strange tongue.\nRegarding the genitive connection \u05d0\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1\u05ea \u05e8\u05e2, a woman of a wicked character, vid., under Pro 2:14; and regarding the adjectival connection \u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05df \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4, under Pro 6:17; the strange tongue is the tongue (\u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05df) of the strange (foreign) woman (vid., p. 81), alluring with smooth words (Pro 2:16). Ewald, Bertheau: from her of a smooth tongue, the stranger, as Symm., Theod., \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2; but \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\u05ea is a substantive (Gen 27:16), and as a fem. adject. form is without an example. Rather \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\u05ea \u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05df is to be regarded as the first member and \u05e0\u05db\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 as the second of the st. constr., for the former constitutes one idea, and \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df on this account remains unabbreviated; cf. Psa 68:22; Isa 28:1; but (1) this syntactical phenomenon is yet problematical, vid., Friedr. Philippi, Wesen und Ursprung des St. Constr. p. 17; and (2) the supposition of such an anomaly is here unnecessary.\nThe proaemium of these twelve proverbial discourses is now at an end. Wisdom herself begins striking the note of the Decalogue:\n25 Long not for her beauty in thy heart,\nAnd let her not catch thee with her eyelids;\n26 Because for a harlot one cometh down to a piece of bread,\nAnd a man's wife lieth in wait for a precious soul.\nThe warning 25a is in the spirit of the \"thou shalt not covet,\" Exo 20:17, and the \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, Mat 5:28, of the Preacher on the Mount. The Talmudic proverb \u05d4\u05e8\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d9 \u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 \u05e7\u05e9\u05d5 \u05de\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4 (Joma 29a) means only that the imagination of the sinful act exhausts the body even more than the act itself. The warning, \"let her not catch thee with her eyelids,\" refers to her (the adulteress's) coquettish ogling and amorous winking. In the reason added, beginning with \u05db\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d3\u05be (thus it is to be punctuated), there is the appositional connection \u05d0\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d4 \u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4, Gesen. 113; the idea of \u05d6\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 goes over into 26b. \"\u05dc\u05d7\u05dd \u05db\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05e8 [ = \u05db\u05bc\u05e8\u05db\u05bc\u05e8, R. kr, to round, vid., at Gen 49:5], properly a circle of bread, is a small round piece of bread, such as is still baked in Italy (pagnotta) and in the East (Arab. \u1e33ur\u1e63), here an expression for the smallest piece\" (Fl.). \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05d3 (constr. of \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05d3), as Job 2:4; Isa 32:14, is used in the sense of \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1, pro, and with \u05e2\u05d3 there is connected the idea of the coming down to this low point. Ewald, Bertheau explain after the lxx, \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9. But nothing is said here of price (reward); the parallelism is synonymous, not antithetic: he is doubly threatened with loss who enters upon such a course. The adulterer squanders his means (Pro 29:3) to impoverishment (vid., the mention of a loaf of bread in the description of poverty Sa1 2:36), and a man's wife (but at the same time seeking converse with another) makes a prey of a precious soul; for whoever consents to adulterous converse with her, loses not perhaps his means, but certainly freedom, purity, dignity of soul, yea, his own person. \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3 comprehends - as \u05e6\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05df, fisher's town [Zidon], Arab. \u1e63y\u00e2d, hunter and fisher, show - all kinds of hunting, but in Hebr. is used only of the hunting of wild beasts. The root-meaning (cf. \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05bc\u05d4) is to spy, to seize.\nThe moral necessity of ruinous consequences which the sin of adultery draws after it, is illustrated by examples of natural cause and effect necessarily connected:\n27 Can one take fire in his bosom\nAnd his clothes not be burned?\n28 Or can any one walk over burning coals\nAnd his feet not be burned?\n29 So he that goeth to his neighbour's wife,\nNo one remains unpunished that toucheth her.\nWe would say: Can any one, without being, etc.; the former is the Semitic \"extended (paratactic)\n(Note: The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 denotes the imperfect tense, because it is still extended to the future.)\nconstruction.\" The first \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 has the conjunctive Shalsheleth. \u05d7\u05ea\u05d4 signifies to seize and draw forth a brand or coal with the fire-tongs or shovel (\u05de\u05d7\u05ea\u05bc\u05d4, the instrument for this); cf. Arab. kh\u00e2t, according to Lane, \"he seized or snatched away a thing;\" the form \u05d9\u05d7\u05ea\u05bc\u05d4 is Kal, as \u05d9\u05d7\u05e0\u05d4 (vid., Khler, De Tetragammate, 1867, p. 10). \u05d7\u05d9\u05e7 (properly indentation) is here not the lap, but, as Isa 40:11, the bosom.\nA second example of destructive consequences naturally following a certain course is introduced with \u05d0\u05dd of the double question. \u05d2\u05bc\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd (from \u05d2\u05bc\u05d7\u05dc, after the form \u05e4\u05bc\u05d7\u05dd, but for which \u05d2\u05bc\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea is used) is the regular modification of ga\u1e25\u1e25al\u0131\u0302m (Gesen. 27, 2). The fem. \u05d5\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 is followed here (cf. on the other hand Pro 1:16) by the rhythmically full-sounding form \u05ea\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 (retaining the distinction of gender), from \u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05d4, Arab. kwy, to burn so that a brand-mark (\u05db\u05bc\u05d9, Isa 3:24, cauterium) remains.\nThe instruction contained in these examples here follows: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f3c\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 (Pythagoras in Maximi Eclog. c. 39). \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc is here, as the second in Psa 51:1, a euphemism, and \u05e0\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05bc, to come in contact with, means, as \u05e0\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d0\u05dc, to touch, Gen 20:6. He who goes in to his neighbour's wife shall not do so with impunity (\u05e0\u05e7\u05d9). Since both expressions denote fleshly nearness and contact, so it is evident he is not guiltless.\nThe thief and the adulterer are now placed in comparison with one another, in such a way that adultery is supposed to be a yet greater crime.\n30 One does not treat the thief scornfully if he steals\nTo satisfy his craving when he is hungry;\n31 Being seized, he may restore sevenfold,\nGive up the whole wealth of his house.\nFor the most part 30a is explained: even when this is the case, one does not pass it over in the thief as a bagatelle. Ewald remarks: \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6 \u05dc stands here in its nearest signification of overlooking, whence first follows that of contemning. But this \"nearest\" signification is devised wholly in favour of this passage; - the interpretation, \"they do not thus let the thief pass,\" is set aside by Sol 8:1, Sol 8:7; for by 31b, cf. Sol 8:7, and 34a, cf. Sol 8:6, it is proved that from Pro 6:30 on, reminiscences from the Canticles, which belong to the literature of the Chokma, find their way into the Mashal language of the author. Hitzig's correct supposition, that \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6 \u05dc always signifies positive contemning, does not necessitate the interrogative interpretation: \"Does not one despise the thief if...?\" Thus to be understood, the author ought to have written \u05d0\u05e3 \u05db\u05d9 or \u05d2\u05dd \u05db\u05d9. Michaelis rightly: furtum licet merito pro infami in republica habetur, tamen si cum adulterio comparatur, minus probrosum est. Regarding \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05c1 in the sense of appetite, and even throat and stomach, vid., Psychologie, p. 204. A second is, that the thief, if he is seized (but we regard \u05d5\u05e0\u05de\u05e6\u05d0 not as the hypoth. perf., but as the part. deprehensus), may make compensation for this crime. The fut. \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05bc\u05dd thus to be understood as the potential lies near from this, that a sevenfold compensation of the thing stolen is unheard of in the Israelitish law; it knows only of a twofold, fourfold, fivefold restoration, Ex. 21:37; Exo 22:1-3, Exo 22:8 (cf. Saalschtz, Mos. Recht, p. 554ff.). This excess over that which the law rendered necessary leads into the region of free-will: he (the thief, by which we are now only to think of him whom bitter necessity has made such) may make compensation sevenfold, i.e., superabundantly; he may give up the whole possessions (vid., on \u05d4\u05d5\u05df at Pro 1:13) of his house, so as not merely to satisfy the law, but to appease him against whom he has done wrong, and again to gain for himself an honoured name. What is said in Pro 6:30 and Pro 6:31 is perfectly just. One does not contemn a man who is a thief through poverty, he is pitied; while the adulterer goes to ruin under all circumstances of contempt and scorn. And: theft may be made good, and that abundantly; but adultery and its consequences are irreparable.\nHere there is a contrast stated to Pro 6:30 :\n32 He who commits adultery (adulterans mulierem) is beside himself,\nA self-destroyer-who does this.\n33 He gains stripes and disgrace,\nAnd his reproach is never quenched.\n\u05e0\u05d0\u05e3, which primarily seems to mean excedere, to indulge in excess, is, as also in the Decalogue, cf. Lev 20:10, transitive: \u1f41 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1. Regarding being mad (herzlos = heartless) = amens (excors, vecors), vid., Psychologie, p. 254. \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5 is he who goes to ruin with wilful perversity. A self-murderer - i.e., he intends to ruin his position and his prosperity in life - who does it, viz., this, that he touches the wife of another. It is the worst and most inextinguishable dishonouring of oneself. Singularly Behaji: who annihilates it (his soul), with reference to Deu 21:12. Eccl. 4:17, where \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d4 would be equivalent to \u05d1\u05bc\u05d8\u05bc\u05dc, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, which is untrue and impossible.\n(Note: Behaji ought rather to have referred to Zep 3:19; Eze 7:27; Eze 22:14; but there \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d4 \u05d0\u05ea means agere cum aliquo, as we say: mit jemandem abrechnen (to settle accounts with any one).)\n\u05e0\u05d2\u05e2 refers to the corporal punishment inflicted on the adulterer by the husband (Deu 17:8; Deu 21:5); Hitzig, who rejects Pro 6:32, refers it to the stripes which were given to the thief according to the law, but these would be called \u05de\u05db\u05bc\u05d4 (\u05de\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea). The punctuation \u05e0\u05d2\u05e2\u05be\u05d5\u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u05df is to be exchanged for \u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 \u05e0\u05d2\u05e2 (Lwenstein and other good editors). \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 has a more active signification than our \"finden\" (to find): consequitur, \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9.\nOne who has been stolen from is to be appeased, but not the injured husband.\n34 For jealousy is the fury of a husband,\nAnd he spareth not in the day of vengeance.\n35 He regardeth not any ransom,\nAnd is not contented though thou offerest to him gifts ever so great.\nThe connection marks \u05e7\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 as the subject; for it respects carnal intercourse with another's wife. Jealousy is not usually \u05d7\u05de\u05d4, the glow of anger (from \u05d9\u05d7\u05dd, as \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d4 from \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05df), but \u05d7\u05de\u05ea\u05be\u05d2\u05bc\u05d1\u05e8 (constr. as \u05e9\u05c2\u05e0\u05ea), the glow of a man's anger, who with the putting forth of all his manly strength will seek satisfaction to his wounded honour. \u05d2\u05bc\u05d1\u05e8, here significant for \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1, with the fundamental idea of strength, firmness; cf. Arab. jabr, to make fast, to put right again something broken in pieces, particularly a broken vessel, hence Algebra, properly the operation by which an incomplete magnitude is completed (Fl.). The following \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05be\u05d9\u05d7\u05de\u05bc\u05dc (with the orthophonic Dagesh, as Pro 6:25 \u05d9\u05d7\u05de\u05bc\u05d3, and with Makkeph) is connected with \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8, with definite reference to the man whom the faithless guest has made a cuckold. When the day comes in which the adultery brought to light demands and admits of vengeance, then, wounded in his right and in his honour, he knows no mercy; he pays no regard to any atonement or recompense by which the adulterer seeks to appease him and induce him not to inflict the punishment that is due: he does not consent, even though thou makest ever so great the gift whereby thou thinkest to gain him. The phrase \u05e0\u05e9\u05c2\u05d0 \u05e4\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, signifies elsewhere to receive the countenance, i.e., the appearance and the impression of a man, i.e., to let it impress one favourably; here it is used of the \u05db\u05bc\u05e4\u05e8, i.e., the means by which covering, i.e., non-punishment, pardon of the crime, impunity of the guilty, is obtained. Regarding \u05d0\u05d1\u05d4, to consent to, vid., at Pro 1:10. \u05e9\u05c2\u05d7\u05d3, Aram. \u05e9\u05c2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05d3, is a gift, particularly bribery. That the language may again finally assume the form of an address, it beautifully rounds itself off.","title":"Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch: Proverbs: Proverbs Chapter 6","type":"page"}