{"collection":"Bible & Christianity","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/bib/cmt/kad/pro017.htm","path":"bib/cmt/kad/pro017.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/kad/pro017.htm","text":"Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsh, [1857-78]\nA comparative proverb with \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1, pairing with Pro 16:32 :\nBetter a dry piece of bread, and quietness therewith,\nThan a house full of slain beasts with unquietness.\nSimilar to this in form and contents are Pro 15:16. and Pro 16:8. \u05e4\u05bc\u05ea \u05d7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d4 is a piece of bread (\u05e4\u05ea, fem., as Pro 23:8) without savoury drink (Theodotion, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8 \u0313 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, i.e., nothing with it), cf. Lev 7:10, a meat-offering without the pouring out of oil. \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd are not sacrificial gifts (Hitzig), but, as always, slain animals, i.e., either offerings or banquets of slain beasts; it is the old name of the \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05de\u05d9\u05dd (cf. Exo 18:12; Exo 24:5; Pro 7:14), part of which only were offered on the altar, and part presented as a banquet; and \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 (in contradist. to \u05d8\u05d1\u05d7, Lev 9:2; 43:16) denotes generally any kind of consecrated festival in connection with the worship of God, Sa1 20:29; cf. Gen 31:54. \"Festivals of hatred\" are festivals with hatred. \u05de\u05dc\u05d0 is part. with object.-accus.; in general \u05de\u05dc\u05d0 forms a constructive, \u05de\u05dc\u05d0 occurs only once (Jer 6:11), and \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05d9 not at all. We have already, Pro 7:14, remarked on the degenerating of the shelam\u0131\u0302m feasts; from this proverb it is to be concluded that the merriment and the excitement bordering on intoxication (cf. with Hitzig, Sa1 1:13 and Sa1 1:3), such as frequently at the Kirmsen merry-makings, brought quarrels and strife, so that the poor who ate his dry bread in quiet peace could look on all this noise and tumult without envy.\n2 A prudent servant shall rule over the degenerate son;\nAnd he divides the inheritance among the brethren.\nRegarding the contrasts of \u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc and \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1, vid., at Pro 10:5; Pro 14:35. The printed editions present \u05d1\u05bc\u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 in genit. connection: a son of the scandalous class, which is admissible; but Cod. 1294 and Cod. Jaman,\n(Note: The Cod. brought by Sapiir from Jemen, of which there is an account in the preface to the edition of Isaiah by Baer and me.)\nErf. No. 2, 3, write \u05d1\u05bc\u05d1\u05df \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 (with Tsere and Munach), and that is perhaps right, after Pro 10:5; Pro 17:25. The futures have here also a fut. signification: they say to what it will come. Grotius remarks, with reference to this: manumissus tutor filiis relinquetur; \u05d9\u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 tutorio officio. But if he is a conscientious, unselfish tutor, he will not enrich himself by property which belongs to another; and thus, though not without provision, he is yet without an inheritance. And yet the supplanting of the degenerate is brought about by this, that he loses his inheritance, and the intelligent servant steps into his place. Has one then to suppose that the master of the house makes his servant a co-heir with his own children, and at the same time names him as his executor? That were a bad anachronism. The idea of the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 was, at the time when this proverb was coined, one unknown - Israelitish iniquity knows only the intestate right of inheritance, regulated by lineal and gradual succession. Then, if one thinks of the degenerate son, that he is disowned by the father, but that the intelligent servant is not rewarded during the life of his master for his true services, and that, after the death of the master, to such a degree he possesses the esteem and confidence of the family, that he it is who divides the inheritance among the brethren, i.e., occupies the place amongst them of distributor of the inheritance, not: takes a portion of the inheritance, for \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 has not the double meaning of the Lat. participare; it means to divide, and may, with \u05d1\u05bc, mean \"to give a part of anything\" (Job 39:17); but, with the accus., nothing else than to distribute, e.g., Jos 18:2, where it is to be translated: \"whose inheritance had not yet been distributed (not yet given to them).\" Jerome, haereditatem dividet; and thus all translators, from the lxx to Luther.\n3 The fining-pot for silver, and the furnace for gold;\nAnd a trier of hearts is Jahve.\nAn emblematical proverb, which means that Jahve is for the heart what the smelting-pot (from \u05e6\u05e8\u05e3, to change, particularly to melt, to refine) is for silver, and what the smelting furnace (\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8, from \u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8, R. \u05db\u05e8, to round, Exo 22:20) is for gold, that Jahve is for the heart, viz., a trier (\u05d1\u05d7\u05df, to grind, to try by grinding, here as at Psa 7:10) of their nature and their contents, for which, of the proof of metals, is elsewhere (Pro 16:2; Pro 21:2; Pro 24:12) used the word (cf. \u05d1\u05bc\u05d7\u05d5\u05df, the essay-master, Jer 6:7) \u05ea\u05bc\u05db\u05df, weigher, or \u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1, searcher (Ch1 28:9). Wherever the subject spoken of is God, the searcher of hearts, the plur. \u05dc\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea, once \u05dc\u05d1\u05d1\u05d5\u05ea ecno ,, is used; the form \u05dc\u05d1\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd occurs only in the status conjunctus with the suffix. In Pro 27:21 there follow the two figures, with which there is formed a priamel, as at Pro 26:3, another tertium comparationis.\n4 A profligate person giveth heed to perverse lips;\nFalsehood listeneth to a destructive tongue.\nThe meaning, at all events, is, that whoever gives ear with delight to words which are morally reprobate, and aimed at the destruction of neighbours, thereby characterizes himself as a profligate. Though \u05de\u05e8\u05e2 is probably not pred. but subj., yet so that what follows does not describe the \u05de\u05e8\u05e2 (the profligate hearkens...), but stamps him who does this as a \u05de\u05e8\u05e2 (a profligate, or, as we say: only a profligate...). \u05de\u05e8\u05e2, for \u05de\u05e8\u05e2, is warranted by Isa 9:16, where \u05de\u05e8\u05e2 (not \u05de\u05e8\u05e2 ton, according to which the Venet. here translates \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6) is testified to not only by correct codd. and editions, but also by the Masora (cf. Michlol 116b). \u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1 (from \u05e7\u05e9\u05c1\u05d1, R. \u05e7\u05e9, to stiffen, or, as we say, to prick, viz., the ear) is generally united with \u05dc or \u05d0\u05dc, but, as here and at Pro 29:12; Jer 6:19, also with \u05e2\u05dc. \u05d0\u05d5\u05df, wickedness, is the absolute contrast of a pious and philanthropic mind; \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea, from \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d4, not in the sense of eagerness, as Pro 10:3; Pro 11:6, but of yawning depth, abyss, catastrophe (vid., at Psa 5:10), is equivalent to entire destruction - the two genitives denote the property of the lips and the tongue (labium nequam, lingua perniciosa), on the side of that which it instrumentally aims at (cf. Psa 36:4; Psa 52:4): practising mischief, destructive plans. \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 beginning the second line is generally regarded as the subj. parallel with \u05de\u05e8\u05e2, as Luther, after Jerome, \"A wicked man gives heed to wicked mouths, and a false man listens willingly to scandalous tongues.\" It is possible that \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 denotes incarnate falsehood, as \u05e8\u05de\u05d9\u05bc\u05d4, Pro 12:27, incarnate slothfulness, cf. \u05de\u05e8\u05de\u05d4, Pro 14:25, and perhaps also Pro 12:17; \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7, Psa 58:2, \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05bc\u05d4, Mic 6:9; \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8 \u05e1\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05da, Isa 26:13, etc., where, without supplying \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 (\u05d0\u05e0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9), the property stands instead of the person possession that property. The clause, that falsehood listeneth to a deceitful tongue, means that he who listens to it characterizes himself thereby, according to the proverb, simile simili gaudet, as a liar. But only as a liar? The punctuation before us, which represents \u05de\u05e8\u05e2 by Dechi as subj., or also pred., takes \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 \u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05df as obj. with \u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05df as its governing word, and why should not that be the view intended? The representation of the obj. is an inversion less bold than Isa 22:2; Isa 8:22, and that \u05e2\u05dc here should not be so closely connected with the verb of hearing, as 4a lies near by this, that \u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e2\u05dc is elsewhere found, but not \u05d4\u05d0\u05d6\u05d9\u05df \u05e2\u05dc. Jewish interpreters, taking \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 as obj., try some other meaning of \u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05df than auscultans; but neither \u05d6\u05d5\u05df, to approach, nor \u05d6\u05d9\u05df, to arm (Venet. \u03c8\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9), gives a meaning suitable to this place. \u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05df is equivalent to \u05de\u05d0\u05d6\u05d9\u05df. As \u05d0\u05d0\u05d6\u05d9\u05df, Job 32:11, is contracted into \u05d0\u05d6\u05d9\u05df, so must \u05de\u05d0\u05d6\u05d9\u05df, if the character of the part. shall be preserved, become \u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05df, mediated by \u05de\u05d9\u05d6\u05d9\u05df.\n5 He that mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker;\nHe that rejoiceth over calamity remains not unpunished.\nLine first is a variation of Pro 14:31. God is, according to Pro 22:2, the creator of the poor as well as of the rich. The poor, as a man, and as poor, is the work of God, the creator and governor of all things; thus, he who mocketh the poor, mocketh Him who called him into existence, and appointed him his lowly place. But in general, compassion and pity, and not joy (\u05e9\u05c2\u05de\u05d7 \u05dc, commonly with \u05dc, of the person, e.g., Obad. Oba 1:12, the usual formula for \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1), is appropriate in the presence of misfortune (\u05d0\u05d9\u05d3, from \u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d3, to be heavily burdened), for such joy, even if he on whom the misfortune fell were our enemy, is a peccatum mortale, Job 31:29. There is indeed a hallowed joy at the actual revelation in history of the divine righteousness; but this would not be a hallowed joy if it were not united with deep sorrow over those who, accessible to no warning, have despised grace, and, by adding sin to sin, have provoked God's anger.\nWith this verse this series of proverbs closes as it began:\nA diadem of the old are children's children,\nAnd the glory of children are their parents.\nChildren are a blessing from God (Ps 127-128); thus, a family circle consisting of children and grandchildren (including great-grandchildren) is as a crown of glory surrounding the grey-haired patriarch; and again, children have glory and honour in their parents, for to have a man of an honoured name, or of a blessed memory, as a father, is the most effective commendation, and has for the son, even though he is unlike his father, always important and beneficial consequences. In 6b a fact of experience is expressed, from which has proceeded the rank of inherited nobility recognised among men - one may abnegate his social rights, but yet he himself is and remains a part of the moral order of the world. The lxx has a distich after Pro 17:4 the Vatican text places it after Pro 17:6 : \"The whole world of wealth belongs to the faithful, but to the unfaithful not even an obolus.\" Lagarde supposes that \u1f44\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd is a translation of \u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05e2\u05ea \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8, instead of \u05e9\u05c2\u05e4\u05ea \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8, 7a. But this ingenious conjecture does not amount to the regarding of this distich as a variation of Pro 17:7.\nThe proverbs following, Pro 17:7-10, appear to be united acrostically by the succession of the letters \u05e9 (\u05e9\u05c2, \u05e9\u05c1) and \u05ea.\n7 It does not become a fool to speak loftily,\nHow much less do lying lips a noble!\nAs at Isa 32:5., \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc and \u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05d1 are placed opposite to one another; the latter is the nobly magnanimous man, the former the man who thinks foolishly and acts profligately, whom it does not become to use lofty words, who thereby makes the impression of his vulgarity so much the more repulsive (cf. Job 2:10). \u05e9\u05bc\u05c2\u05e4\u05ea \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8 (not \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8, for the word belongs to those which retain their Pathach or Segol, in pausa) is neither elevated (soaring) (Ewald) nor diffuse (Jo. Ernst Jungius in Oetinger: lingua dicax ac sermonem ultra quam decorum verbis extendere solita), rather imperative (Bertheau), better presumptuous (Hitzig) words, properly words of superfluity, i.e., of superabundant self-consciousness and high pretension (cf. the transitive bearing of the Arab. watr with \u1f51\u03b2\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, from \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1, Aryan upar, Job, p. 363). Rightly Meri, \u05e9\u05c2\u05e4\u05ea \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8\u05e8\u05d4. It produces a disagreeable impression, when a man of vulgar mind and of rude conduct, instead of keeping himself in retirement, makes himself of importance, and weighty in a shameless, impudent manner (cf. Ps. 12:9, where \u05d6\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea, vilitas, in a moral sense); but yet more repulsive is the contrast, when a man in whom one is justified in expecting nobility of mind, in accordance with his life-position and calling, degrades himself by uttering deceitful words. Regarding the \u05d0\u05e3 \u05db\u05bc\u05d9, concluding a minori ad majus, we have already spoken at Pro 11:31; Pro 15:11. R. Ismael, in Bereschith Rabba, at 44:8, reckons ten such conclusions a minori ad majus in the Scriptures, but there are just as many quanto magis. The right accentuation (e.g., in Cod. 1294) is here \u05d0\u05e3 \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05dc\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05d1, transformed from \u05d0\u05e3 \u05db\u05d9\u05be\u05dc\u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05d1, according to Accentuationssystem, xviii. 2.\n8 The gift of bribery appears a jewel to its receiver;\nWhitherso'er he turneth himself he acteth prudently.\nHow 8b is to be understood is shown by Sa1 14:47, cf. Jos 1:7; the quoque se vertit, prudenter rem agit, has accordingly in both sentences the person meant by \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5 as subject, not the gift (Hitzig), of which \u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc, \"it maketh prosperous,\" is not said, for \u05d4\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc means, used only of persons, prudent, and therefore successful, fortunate conduct. Such is said of him who has to give (Luther): he presses through with it whithersoever he turns. But the making of \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 the subj. does not accord with this: this means gift to one who has to give, appears to open doors and hearts, not merely as a golden key, it is truly such to him. Thus \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5, as at Pro 3:27, will be meant of him to whom the present is brought, or to whom a claim thereto is given. But \u05e9\u05c2\u05d7\u05d3 means here not the gift of seasonable liberality (Zckler), but, as always, the gift of bribery, i.e., a gift by which one seeks to purchase for himself (Pro 17:23) preference on the part of a judge, or to mitigate the displeasure of a high lord (Pro 21:14); here (for one does not let it depend merely on the faithfulness of another to his duty) it is that by which one seeks to secure an advantage to himself. The proverb expresses a fact of experience. The gift of bribery, to which, as to a well-known approved means, \u05d4\u05e9\u05bc\u05c2\u05d7\u05d3, refers, appears to him who receives and accepts it (Targ.) as a stone of pleasantness, a charming, precious stone, a jewel (Juwl from joie = gaudium); it determines and impels him to apply all his understanding, in order that he may reach the goal for which it shall be his reward. What he at first regarded as difficult, yea, impossible, that he now prudently carries out, and brings to a successful conclusion, wherever he turns himself, overcoming the seemingly insurmountable hindrances; for the enticement of the gift lifts him, as with a charm, above himself, for covetousness is a characteristic feature of human nature - pecuniae obediunt omnia (Ecc 10:19, Vulg.).\n9 He covereth transgressions who seeketh after love,\nAnd he who always brings back a matter separateth friends.\nThe pred. stands first in the simple clause with the order of the words not inverted. That \u05de\u05db\u05e1\u05d4 \u05e4\u05e9\u05c1\u05e2 is also to be interpreted here as pred. (cf. 19a) is shown by Pro 10:12, according to which love covereth all transgressions. We write \u05de\u05db\u05e1\u05bc\u05d4\u05be\u05e4\u05bc\u05e9\u05c2\u05e2 with Dag. forte conjunctivum of \u05e4 (as of \u05d1 in Eze 18:6), and Gaja with the Sheva, according to the Meth.-Setzung, 37; the punctuation \u05de\u05db\u05e1\u05bc\u05d4 \u05e4\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05e2 also occurs. What the expression \"to seek love\" here means, is to be judged, with Hitzig, after Zep 2:3; Co1 14:1. It is in no case equivalent to seek to gain the love of another, rather to seek to preserve the love of men towards one another, but it is to be understood not after 9b, but after Pro 10:12 : he seeks to prove love who does not strike on the great bell when his neighbour has sinned however grievously against him, does not in a scandal-loving manner make much ado about it, and takes care not thereby to widen the breach between men who stand near to one another, but endeavours by a reconciling, soothing, rectifying influence, to mitigate the evil, instead of making it worse. He, on the contrary, who repeats the matter (\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d4 with \u05d1 of the obj., to come back with something, as Pro 26:11), i.e., turns always back again to the unpleasant occurrence (Theodotion, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3; Symmachus, \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, as Sir. 7:14; 19:7), divides friends (vid., Pro 16:28), for he purposely fosters the strife, the disharmony, ill-will, and estrangement which the offence produced; while the noble man, who has love for his motive and his aim, by prudent silence contributes to bring the offence and the division which it occasioned into forgetfulness.\n10 One reproof maketh more impression on a wise man\nThan if one reckoned a hundred to the fool\nOne of the few proverbs which begin with a future, vid., Pro 12:26. It expresses what influence there is in one reproof with a wise man (\u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05df, Pro 8:9); \u05d2\u05bc\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4 is the reproof expressed by the post-bibl. \u05e0\u05d6\u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 .lbib, as the lowest grade of disciplinary punishment, admonitio, connected with warning. The verbal form \u05ea\u05d4\u05ea is the reading of the lxx and Syr. (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5) for they read \u05ea\u05d7\u05ea \u05d2\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d1 \u05de\u05d1\u05d9\u05df, derived from \u05d7\u05ea\u05ea, and thus \u05ea\u05bc\u05d7\u05ea (from Hiph. \u05d4\u05d7\u05ea); thus Luther: reproof alarms more the intelligent, but \u05d7\u05d7\u05ea with \u05d1 of the obj. is not Hebr.; on the contrary, the reading of the lxx is in accordance with the usage of the language, and, besides, is suitable. It is, however, first to be seen whether the traditional text stands in need of this correction. As fut. Niph. \u05ea\u05bc\u05d7\u05ea, apart from the ult. accent. to be expected, gives no meaning. Also if one derives it from \u05d7\u05ea\u05d4, to snatch away, to take away, it gives no appropriate thought; besides, \u05d7\u05ea\u05d4 is construed with the object. accus., and the fut. Apoc., in itself strange here, must be pointed either \u05ea\u05bc\u05d4\u05ea or \u05ea\u05bc\u05d7\u05ea\u05bc (after \u05d9\u05d7\u05d3\u05bc) (Bttcher, Lehrb. ii. p. 413). Thus \u05d9\u05d7\u05ea, as at Job 21:13; Jer 21:13, will be fut. Kal of \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea = \u05d9\u05e0\u05d7\u05ea, Psa 38:3 (Theodotion, Targ., Kimchi). With this derivation, also, \u05ea\u05bc\u05d7\u05ea is to be expected; the reference in the Handwrterbuch to Gesen. Lehrgebude, 51, 1, Anm. 1, where, in an extremely inadequate way, the retrogression of the tone (\u05e0\u05e1\u05d5\u05d2 \u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05e8) is spoken of, is altogether inappropriate to this place; and Bttcher's explanation of the ult. tone from an intended expressiveness is ungrammatical; but why should not \u05ea\u05bc\u05d7\u05ea, from \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea, with its first syllable originating from contraction, and thus having the tone be Milel as well as Milra, especially here, where it stands at the head of the sentence? With \u05d1 connected with it, \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea means: to descend into anything, to penetrate; Hitzig appropriately compares altius in pectus descendit of Sallust, Jug. 11. Jerome rightly, according to the sense: plus proficit, and the Venet. \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 (read \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6) \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9. In 10b \u05de\u05db\u05bc\u05d4 (cf. Deu 25:3; Co2 11:24) is to be supplied to \u05de\u05d0\u05d4, not \u05e4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05dd (an hundred times, which may be denoted correctly by \u05de\u05d0\u05d4 as well as \u05de\u05d0\u05ea, Ecc 8:12). With the wise (says a Talmudic proverb) a sign does as much as with the fool a stick does. Zehner, in his Adagia sacra (1601), cites Curtius (vii. 4): Nobilis equus umbra quoque virgae regitur, ignavus ne calcari quidem concitari potest.\nFive proverbs of dangerous men against whom one has to be on his guard:\n11 The rebellious seeketh only after evil,\nAnd a cruel messenger is sent out against him.\nIt is a question what is subj. and what obj. in 11a. It lies nearest to look on \u05de\u05e8\u05d9 as subj., and this word (from \u05de\u05e8\u05d4, stringere, to make oneself exacting against any, to oppose, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd) is appropriate thereto; it occurs also at Eze 2:7 as abstr. pro concreto. That it is truly subj. appears from this, that \u05d1\u05bc\u05e7\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e8\u05e2, to seek after evil (cf. Pro 29:10; Kg1 20:7, etc.), is a connection of idea much more natural than \u05d1\u05bc\u05e7\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1 \u05de\u05e8\u05d9 to seek after rebellion. Thus \u05d0\u05da will be logically connected with \u05e8\u05e2, and the reading \u05d0\u05da \u05de\u05e8\u05d9 will be preferred to the reading \u05d0\u05da\u05be\u05de\u05e8\u05d9; \u05d0\u05da (corresponding to the Arab. \u00e2innama) belongs to those particles which are placed before the clause, without referring to the immediately following part of the sentence, for they are much more regarded as affecting the whole sentence (vid., Pro 13:10): the rebellious strives after nothing but only evil. Thus, as neut. obj. \u05e8\u05e2 is rendered by the Syr., Targ., Venet., and Luther; on the contrary, the older Greek translators and Jerome regard \u05e8\u05e2 as the personal subject. If now, in reference to rebellion, the discourse is of a \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d0\u05db\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9, we are not, with Hitzig, to think of the demon of wild passions unfettered in the person of the rebellious, for that is a style of thought and of expression that is modern, not biblical; but the old unpoetic yet simply true remark remains: Loquendi formula inde petita quod regis aut summi magistratus minister rebelli supplicium nunciat infligitque. \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da is n. officii, not naturae. Man as a messenger, and the spiritual being as messenger, are both called \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da. Therefore one may not understand \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d0\u05db\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9, with the lxx, Jerome, and Luther, directly and exclusively of an angel of punishment. If one thinks of Jahve as the Person against whom the rebellion is made, then the idea of a heavenly messenger lies near, according to Psa 35:5., Psa 78:49; but the proverb is so meant, that it is not the less true if an earthly king sends out against a rebellious multitude a messenger with an unlimited commission, or an officer against a single man dangerous to the state, with strict directions to arrest him at all hazards. \u05d0\u05db\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9 we had already at Pro 12:10; the root \u05e7\u05e9 \u05d7\u05e9 means, to be dry, hard, without feeling. The fut. does not denote what may be done (Bertheau, Zckler), which is contrary to the parallelism, the order of the words, and the style of the proverb, but what is done. And the relation of the clause is not, as Ewald interprets it, \"scarcely does the sedition seek out evil when an inexorable messenger is sent.\" Although this explanation is held by Ewald as \"unimprovable,\" yet it is incorrect, because \u05d0\u05da in this sense demands, e.g., Gen 27:3, the perf. (strengthened by the infin. intensivus). The relation of the clause is, also, not such as Bttcher has interpreted it: a wicked man tries only scorn though a stern messenger is sent against him, but not because such a messenger is called \u05d0\u05db\u05d6\u05e8\u05d9, against whom this \"trying of scorn\" helps nothing, so that it is not worth being spoken of; besides, \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05bc\u05d7 or \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05bc\u05d7 would have been used if this relation had been intended. We have in 11a and 11b, as also e.g., at Pro 26:24; Pro 28:1, two clauses standing in internal reciprocal relation, but syntactically simply co-ordinated; the force lies in this, that a messenger who recognises no mitigating circumstances, and offers no pardon, is sent out against such an one.\n12 Meet a bear robbed of one of her whelps,\nOnly not a fool in his folly.\nThe name of the bear, as that of the cow, Job 21:10; Psa 144:14, preserves its masculine form, even when used in reference to sexual relationship (Ewald, 174b); the ursa catulis orbata is proverbially a raging beast. How the abstract expression of the action \u05e4\u05bc\u05d2\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1 [to meet], here as e.g., Psa 17:5, with the subj. following, must sound as finite (occurrat, may always meet), follows from \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc = \u05d5\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e4\u05d2\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1 (non autem occurrat). \u05e4\u05bc\u05d2\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1 has on the last syllable Mehuppach, and Zinnorith on the preceding open syllable (according to the rule, Accentssystem, vi. 5d).\n(Note: In the Torath Emeth, p. 18, the word is irregularly represented as Milel - a closed syllable with Cholem can suffer no retrogression of the tone.)\n\u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc, in the state of his folly, i.e., when he is in a paroxysm of his anger, corresponds with the conditional noun-adjective \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc, for folly morbidly heightened is madness (cf. Hos 11:7; Psychol. p. 291f.).\n13 He that returneth evil for good,\nFrom his house evil shall not depart.\nIf ingratitude appertains to the sinful manifestations of ignoble selfishness, how much more sinful still is black ingratitude, which recompenses evil for good! (\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1, as Sa1 25:21, syn. \u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05dc, to requite, Pro 3:30; Pro 31:12; \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05bc\u05dd, to reimburse, Pro 20:22). Instead of \u05ea\u05de\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1, the Ker\u0131\u0302 reads \u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1; but that this verb, with a middle vowel, may be '\u05d9'\u05e2 as well as '\u05d5'\u05e2, Psa 55:2 shows.\n14 As one letteth out water is the beginning of a strife;\nBut cease thou from such strife ere it comes to showing teeth.\nThe meaning of this verb \u05e4\u05bc\u05d8\u05e8 is certain: it means to break forth; and transitively, like Arab. fa\u1e6dr, to bring forth from a cleft, to make to break forth, to let go free (Theodotion, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd; Jerome, dimittit; Venet. \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u03c2). The lxx, since it translates by \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9, thinks on the juristic signification, which occurs in the Chronicles: to make free, or to declare so; but here \u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8 \u05de\u05d9\u05dd (vid., regarding the Metheg at Pro 14:31) is, as Luther translates, one who tears away the dam from the waters. And \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05df is not accus. dependent on \u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8, to be supplied (Hitzig: he unfetters water who the beginning of strife, viz., unfetters); but the part. is used as at Pro 10:17 : one who unfetters the water is the beginning of strife, i.e., he is thus related to it as when one... This is an addition to the free use of the part. in the language of the Mishna, where one would expect the infin., e.g., \u05d1\u05bc\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8\u05e2 (= \u05d1\u05bc\u05d6\u05e8\u05e2), if one sows, \u05d1\u05bc\u05de\u05d6\u05d9\u05d3 (= \u05d1\u05bc\u05d6\u05d3\u05d5\u05df), of wantonness. It is thus unnecessary, with Ewald, to interpret \u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8 as neut., which lets water go = a water-outbreak; \u05e4\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8 is meant personally; it represents one who breaks through a water-dam, withdraws the restraint of the water, opens a sluice, and then emblematically the proverb says: thus conditioned is the beginning of a strife. Then follows the warning to let go such strife (\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1, with the article used in the more elevated style, not without emphasis), to break from it, to separate it from oneself ere it reach a dangerous height. This is expressed by \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4\u05ea\u05d2\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05e2, a verb occurring only here and at Pro 18:1; Pro 20:3, always in the Hithpa. The Targum (misunderstood by Gesenius after Buxtorf; vid., to the contrary, Levy, under the word \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9 II) translates it at Pro 18:1; Pro 20:3, as the Syr., by \"to mock,\" also Aquila, who has at Pro 20:3, \u1f10\u03be\u03c5\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and the lxx at Pro 18:1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and Jerome, who has this in all the three passages, render the Hithpa. in this sense, passively. In this passage before us, the Targ., as Hitzig gives it, translates, \"before it heats itself,\" but that is an error occasioned by Buxtorf; vid., on the contrary, Levy, under the word \u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05d0 (\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2); this translation, however, has a representative in Haja Gaon, who appeals for \u05d2\u05dc\u05e2, to glow, to Nidda viii. 2.\n(Note: Vid., Simon Nascher's Der Gaon Haja u. seine giest. Thtig. p. 15.)\nElsewhere the lxx, at Pro 20:3, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (where Jerome, with the amalgamation of the two significations, miscentur contumeliis); Kimchi and others gloss it by \u05d4\u05ea\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1, and, according to this, the Venet. translates, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c7\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd); Luther, \"before thou art mingled therein.\" But all these explanations of the word: insultare, excandescere, and commisceri, are etymologically inadmissible. Bertheau's and Zckler's \"roll itself forth\" is connected at least with a meaning rightly belonging to the R. \u05d2\u05dc. But the Arab. shows, that not the meaning volvere, but that of retegere is to be adopted. Aruch\n(Note: Vid., p. 109, note.)\nfor Nidda viii. 2 refers to the Arab., where a wound is designated as \u05d9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d2\u05bc\u05dc\u05e2 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05e6\u05d9\u05d0 \u05d3\u05dd, i.e., as breaking up, as it were, when the crust of that which is nearly healed is broken off (Maimuni glosses the word by \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05e7\u05dc\u05e3, were uncrusted), and blood again comes forth. The meaning retegere requires here, however, another distinction. The explanation mentioned there by Aruch: before the strife becomes public to thee, i.e., approaches thee, is not sufficient. The verbal stem \u05d2\u05dc\u05e2 is the stronger power of \u05d2\u05dc\u05d4, and means laying bare; but here, not as there, in the Mishna of a wound covered with a crust. The Arab. jal' means to quarrel with another, properly to show him the teeth, the Pol or the tendency-stem from jali'a, to have the mouth standing open, so that one shows his teeth; and the Syr. gla\u1e63, with its offshoots and derivatives, has also this meaning of ringi, opening the mouth to show, i.e., to make bare the teeth. Schultens has established this explanation of the words, and Gesenius further establishes it in the Thesaurus, according to which Fleischer also remarks, \"\u05d2\u05dc\u05e2, of showing the teeth, the exposing of the teeth by the wide opening of the mouth, as happens in bitter quarrels.\" But \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 does not agree with this. Hitzig's translation, \"before the strife shows its teeth,\" is as modern as in Pro 17:11 is the passion of the unfettered demon, and Fleischer's prius vero quam exacerbetur rixa renders the Hithpa. in a sense unnecessarily generalized for Pro 18:1 and Pro 20:3. The accentuation, which separates \u05dc\u05d4\u05ea\u05d2\u05dc\u05e2 from \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 by Rebia Mugrash, is correct. One may translate, as Schultens, antequam dentes stringantur, or, since the Hithpa. has sometimes a reciprocal signification, e.g., Gen 42:1; Psa 41:8 : ere one reciprocally shows his teeth, Hitzig unjustly takes exception to the inversion \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 \u05e0\u05d8\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1. Why should not the object precede, as at Hos 12:1-14 :15, the \u05e0\u05d8\u05d5\u05e9, placed with emphasis at the end? The same inversion for a like reason occurs at Ecc 5:6.\n15 He that acquitteth the guilty and condemneth the righteous -\nAn abomination to Jahve are they both.\nThe proverb is against the partisan judge who is open to bribery, like Pro 24:24, cf. Isa 5:23, where, with reference to such, the announcement of punishment is emphatically made. \u05e8\u05e9\u05c1\u05e2 and \u05e6\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7, in a forensic sense, are equivalent to sons (reus) and insons. \u05d2\u05bc\u05dd (cf. the Arab. jmy'na, altogether, but particularly the Pers. ham and the Turkish dkhy standing wholly thus in the numeral) is here, as at Gen 27:45, equivalent to \u05d9\u05d7\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5, Jer 46:12 (in its unions = united). Whoever pronounces sentence of justification on the guilty, appears as if he must be judged more mildly than he who condemns the guiltless, but both the one and the other alike are an abhorrence to God.\nWe take Pro 17:16-21 together. This group beings with a proverb of the heartless, and ends with one of the perverse-hearted; and between these there are not wanting noticeable points of contact between the proverbs that follow one another.\n16 Why the ready money in the hand of the fool;\nTo get wisdom when he has yet no heart?\nThe question is made pointed by \u05d6\u05d4, thus not: why the ready money when...? Is it to obtain wisdom? - the whole is but one question, the reason of which is founded in \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df (thus to be accented with Mugrash going before).\n(Note: If we write \u05d5\u05dc\u05d1\u05be with Makkeph, then we have to accentuate \u05dc\u05e7\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 with Tarcha Munach, because the Silluk word in this writing has not two syllables before the tone. This sequence of accents if found in the Codd. Ven. 1521, 1615, Basel 1619, while most editions have \u05dc\u05e7\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d1\u05be\u05d0\u05d9\u05df, which is false. But according to MSS we have \u05d5\u05dc\u05d1 without Makkeph, and that is right according to the Makkeph rules of the metrical Accentuationssystem; vid., Torath Emeth, p. 40.)\nThe fool, perhaps, even makes some endeavours, for he goes to the school of the wise, to follow out their admonitions, \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 (Pro 4:5, etc.), and it costs him something (Pro 4:7), but all to no purpose, for he has no heart. By this it is not meant that knowledge, for which he pays his honorarium, remains, it may be, in his head, but goes not to his heart, and thus becomes an unfruitful theory; but the heart is equivalent to the understanding, in the sense in which the heart appears as the previous condition to the attainment of wisdom (Pro 18:15), and as something to be gained before all (Pro 15:32), viz., understanding, as the fitting intellectual and practical habitus to the reception, the appropriation, and realization of wisdom, the ability rightly to comprehend the fulness of the communicated knowledge, and to adopt it as an independent possession, that which the Greek called \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, as in that \"golden proverb\" of Democrates: \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, or as in Luk 24:25, where it is said that the Lord opened \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd of His disciples to understand the Scriptures. In the lxx a distich follows Pro 17:16, which is made up of 19b and 20b, and contains a varied translation of these two lines.\n17 At all times the right friend shows himself loving;\nAnd as a brother is he born for adversity.\nBrother is more than friend, he stands to one nearer than a friend does, Psa 35:14; but the relation of a friend may deepen itself into a spiritual, moral brotherhood, Psa 18:24, and there is no name of friend that sounds dearer than \u05d0\u05d7\u05d9, Sa2 1:26. 17a and 17b are, according to this, related to each other climactically. The friend meant in 17a is a true friend. Of no other is it said that he loves \u05d1\u05bc\u05db\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05ea, i.e., makes his love manifest; and also the article in \u05d4\u05e8\u05e2 not only here gives to the word more body, but stamps it as an ideal-word: the friend who corresponds to the idea of such an one.\n(Note: The Arab. grammarians say that the article in this case stands, l'astfr\u00e2gh khs\u00e2nas \u00e2ljnas, as an exhaustive expression of all essential properties of the genus, i.e., to express the full ideal realization of the idea in that which is named.)\nThe inf. of the Hiph., in the sense \"to associate\" (Ewald), cannot therefore be \u05d4\u05e8\u05e2, because \u05e8\u05e2 is not derived from \u05e8\u05e2\u05e2, but from \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4. Thus there exists no contrast between 17a and 17b, so that the love of a friend is thought of, in contradistinction to that of a brother, as without permanency (Fl.); but 17b means that the true friend shows himself in the time of need, and that thus the friendship becomes closer, like that between brothers. The statements do not refer to two kinds of friends; this is seen from the circumstance that \u05d0\u05d7 has not the article, as \u05d4\u05e8\u05e2 has. It is not the subj. but pred., as \u05d0\u05d3\u05dd, Job 11:12 : sooner is a wild ass born or born again as a man. The meaning of \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05d3 there, as at Psa 87:5., borders on the notion of regenerari; here the idea is not essentially much less, for by the saying that the friend is born in the time of need, as a brother, is meant that he then for the first time shows himself as a friend, he receives the right status or baptism of such an one, and is, as it were, born into personal brotherly relationship to the sorely-tried friend. The translation comprobatur (Jerome) and erfunden [is found out] (Luther) obliterates the peculiar and thus intentional expression, for \u05e0\u05d5\u05dc\u05d3 is not at all a metaphor used for passing into the light - the two passages in Proverbs and in Job have not their parallel. \u05dc\u05e6\u05e8\u05d4 is not equivalent to \u05d1\u05bc\u05e6\u05e8\u05d4 (cf. Psa 9:10; Psa 10:1), for the interchange of the prep. in 17a and 17b would then be without any apparent reason. But Hitzig's translation also: as a brother he is born of adversity, is impossible, for \u05dc after \u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05dc and \u05d9\u05dc\u05bc\u05d3 always designates that for which the birth is an advantage, not that from which it proceeds. Thus \u05dc will be that of the purpose: for the purpose of the need, - not indeed to suffer (Job 5:7) on account of it, but to bear it in sympathy, and to help to bear it. Rightly Fleischer: frater autem ad aerumnam (sc. levandam et removendam) nascitur. The lxx gives this sense to the \u05dc: \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n18 A man void of understanding is he who striketh hands,\nWho becometh surety with his neighbour.\nCf. Pro 6:1-5, where the warning against suretyship is given at large, and the reasons for it are adduced. It is incorrect to translate (Gesen., Hitzig, and others) \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc, with the lxx, Jerome, the Syr., Targ., and Luther, \"for his neighbour;\" to become surety for any one is \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05dc, Pro 6:1, or, with the object. accus. Pro 11:15, another suitable prep. is \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05d3; but \u05dc\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 never means pro (\u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1), for at Sa1 1:16 it means \"to the person,\" and Sa2 3:31, \"before Abner's corpse (bier).\" \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc is thus here the person with whom the suretyship is entered into; he can be called the \u05e8\u05e2 of him who gives bail, so much the more as the reception of the bail supposes that both are well known to each other. Here also Fleischer rightly translates: apud alterum (sc. creditorem pro debitore).\n19 He loveth sin who loveth strife;\nHe who maketh high his doors seeketh destruction.\nA synthetic distich. Bttcher finds the reason of the pairing of these two lines in the relationship between a mouth and a door (cf. Mic 7:6, \u05e4\u05bc\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9 \u05e4\u05d9\u05da). Hitzig goes further, and supposes that 19b figuratively expresses what boastfulness brings upon itself. Against Geier, Schultens, and others, who understand \u05e4\u05bc\u05ea\u05d7\u05d5 directly of the mouth, he rightly remarks that \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4 is not heard of, and that \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc \u05e4\u05d4 taht dn would be used instead. But the two lines harmonize, without this interchangeable reference of os and ostium. Zanksucht [quarrelsomeness] and Prunksucht [ostentation] are related as the symptoms of selfishness. But both bear their sentence in themselves. He who has pleasure in quarrelling has pleasure in evil, for he commits himself to the way of great sinning, and draws others along with him; and he who cannot have the door of his house high enough and splendid enough, prepares thereby for himself, against his will, the destruction of his house. An old Hebrew proverb says, \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e2\u05d5\u05e1\u05e7 \u05d1\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05ea\u05de\u05e1\u05db\u05df, aedificandi nimis studiosus ad mendicitatem redigitur. Both parts of this verse refer to one and the same individual, for the insanum aedificandi studium goes only too often hand in hand with unjust and heartless litigation.\n20 He that is of a false heart findeth no good;\nAnd he that goeth astray with his tongue falleth into evil.\nRegarding \u05e2\u05e7\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05be\u05dc\u05d1, vid., Pro 11:20. In the parallel member, \u05e0\u05d4\u05e4\u05bc\u05da \u05d1\u05bc\u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d5 is he who twists or winds (vid., at Pro 2:12) with his tongue, going about concealing and falsifying the truth. The phrase \u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05e4\u05bc\u05da (the connecting form before a word with a prep.) is syntactically possible, but the Masora designates the word, in contradistinction to \u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05e4\u05bc\u05da, pointed with Pathach, Lev 13:16, with \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea as unicum, thus requires \u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05e4\u05bc\u05da, as is also found in Codd. The contrast of \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 is here \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1, also neut., as Pro 13:21, cf. Pro 16:20, and \u05e8\u05e2, Pro 13:17.\nThe first three parts of the old Solomonic Book of Proverbs ((1) Prov 10-12; (2) 13:1-15:19; (3) 15:20-17:20) are now followed by the fourth part. We recognise it as striking the same keynote as Pro 10:1. In Pro 17:21 it resounds once more, here commencing a part; there, Pro 10:1, beginning the second group of proverbs. The first closes, as it begins, with a proverb of the fool.\n21 He that begetteth a fool, it is to his sorrow;\nAnd the father of a fool hath no joy.\nIt is admissible to supply \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d5, developing itself from \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3, before \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05bc\u05d2\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 (vid., regarding this passive formation, at Pro 10:1, cf. Pro 14:13), as at Isa 66:3, \u05de\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 (Fl.: in maerorem sibi genuit h. e. ideo videtur genuisse ut sibi maerorem crearet); but not less admissible is it to interpret \u05dc\u05ea\u05d5\u05d2\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d5 as a noun-clause corresponding to the \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05be\u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05de\u05d7 (thus to be written with Makkeph): it brings grief to him. According as one understands this as an expectation, or as a consequence, \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3, as at Pro 23:24, is rendered either qui gignit or qui genuit. With \u05e0\u05d1\u05dc, seldom occurring in the Book of Proverbs (only here and at Pro 17:7), \u05db\u05bc\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc, occurring not unfrequently, is interchanged. Schultens rightly defines the latter etymologically: marcidus h. e. qui ad virtutem, pietatem, vigorem omnem vitae spiritualis medullitus emarcuit; and the former: elumbis et mollitie segnitieve fractus, the intellectually heavy and sluggish (cf. Arab. kasal, laziness; kasl\u00e2n, the lazy).\n(Note: Nldeke's assertion (Art. Orion in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon) that the Arab. kasal corresponds to the Hebr. \u05db\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc proceeds from the twofold supposition, that the meaning to be lazy underlies the meaning to totter (vid., also Dietrich in Gesenius' Heb. Wrterbuch), and that the Hebr. \u05e1 must correspond with the Arab. \u0161. The former supposition is untenable, the latter is far removed (cf. e.g., \u05db\u05bc\u05e1\u05bc\u05d0 and kurs\u0131\u0302, \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 and sifr, \u05de\u05e1\u05db\u05bc\u05df and misk\u0131\u0302n). The verb \u05db\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc, Aram. \u05ea\u05bc\u05e7\u05dc, is unknown in the Arab.)\n22 A joyful heart bringeth good recovery;\nAnd a broken spirit drieth the bones.\nThe heart is the centre of the individual life, and the condition and the tone of the heart communicates itself to this life, even to its outermost circumference; the spirit is the power of self-consciousness which, according as it is lifted up or broken, also lifts up or breaks down the condition of the body (Psychol. p. 199), vid., the similar contrasted phrases \u05dc\u05d1 \u05e9\u05c2\u05de\u05d7 and \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7 \u05e0\u05db\u05d0\u05d4, Pro 15:13. The \u1f04\u03c0. \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3. \u05d2\u05bc\u05d4\u05d4 (here and there in Codd. incorrectly written \u05d2\u05bc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d4) has nothing to do with the Arab. jihat, which does not mean sight, but direction, and is formed from wjah (whence wajah, sight), like \u05e2\u05d3\u05d4, congregation, from \u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 (\u05d9\u05e2\u05d3). The Syr., Targ. (perhaps also Symmachus: \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03bd; Jerome: aetatem floridam facit; Luther: makes the life lstig [cheerful]) translate it by body; but for this \u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05d4 (\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05d9\u05bc\u05d4) is used, and that is a word of an entirely different root from \u05d2\u05bc\u05d4\u05d4. To what verb this refers is shown by Hos 5:13 : \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\u05be\u05d9\u05d2\u05d4\u05d4 \u05de\u05db\u05bc\u05dd \u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8, and healed not for you her ulcerous wound. \u05de\u05d6\u05d5\u05e8 is the compress, i.e., the bandage closing up the ulcer, then also the ulcer-wound itself; and \u05d2\u05bc\u05d4\u05d4 is the contrary of \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4, e.g., Jer 8:22; it means the removing of the bandage and the healing of the wound. This is confirmed by the Syr. gho, which in like manner is construed with min, and means to be delivered from something (vid., Bernstein's Lex. Syr. to Kirsch's Chrestomathie). The Aethiop. quadriliteral g\u00e2hg\u011bh, to hinder, to cause to cease, corresponds to the causative Syr. agahish. Accordingly \u05d2\u05bc\u05d4\u05d4 means to be in the condition of abatement, mitigation, healing; and \u05d2\u05bc\u05d4\u05d4 (as synonym of \u05db\u05bc\u05d4\u05d4, Neh 3:19, with which Parchon combines it), levamen, levatio, in the sense of bodily healing (lxx \u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6; Venet., after Kimchi, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd); and \u05d4\u05d9\u05d8\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d2\u05bc\u05d4\u05d4 (cf. Pro 15:2) denotes, to bring good improvement, to advance powerfully the recovery. Schultens compares the Arab. jahy, nitescere, disserenari, as Menahem has done \u05e0\u05e0\u05d4\u05bc, but this word is one of the few words which are explained exclusively from the Syriac (and Aethiop.). \u05d2\u05bc\u05e8\u05dd (here and at Pro 25:15) is the word interchanging with \u05e2\u05e6\u05dd, Pro 15:30; Pro 16:24.\n23 Bribery from the bosom the godless receiveth,\nTo pervert the ways of justice.\nRegarding \u05e9\u05c2\u05d7\u05d3, vid., Pro 17:8. The idea of this word, as well as the clause containing the purpose, demand for the \u05e8\u05e9\u05c1\u05e2 a high judicial or administrative post. The bosom, \u05d7\u05e7 (\u05d7\u05d9\u05e7), is, as Pro 16:23, that of the clothing. From the bosom, \u05de\u05d7\u05e7, where it was kept concealed, the gift is brought forth, and is given into the bosom, \u05d1\u05bc\u05d7\u05e7, Pro 21:14, of him whose favour is to be obtained - an event taking place under four eyes, which purposely withdraws itself from the observation of any third person. Since this is done to give to the course of justice a direction contrary to rectitude, the giver of the bribe has not right on his side; and, under the circumstances, the favourable decision which he purchases may be at once the unrighteous sentence of a \u05e6\u05d3\u05d9\u05e7, accusing him, or accused by him, Pro 18:5.\n24 The understanding has his attention toward wisdom;\nBut the eyes of a fool are on the end of the earth.\nMany interpreters explain, as Euchel:\n\"The understanding finds wisdom everywhere;\nThe eyes of the fool seek it at the end of the world.\"\nEwald refers to Deu 30:11-14 as an unfolding of the same thought. But although it may be said of the fool (vid., on the contrary, Pro 15:14) that he seeks wisdom, only not at the right place, as at Pro 14:6, of the mocker that he seeks wisdom but in vain, yet here the order of the words, as well as the expression, lead us to another thought: before the eyes of the understanding \u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e4\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05e2, as Gen 33:18; Sa1 2:11, and frequently in the phrase '\u05d0\u05ea\u05be\u05e4\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d4, e.g., Sa1 1:22) wisdom lies as his aim, his object, the end after which he strives; on the contrary, the eyes of the fool, without keeping that one necessary thing in view, wander in alia omnia, and roam about what is far off, without having any fixed object. The fool is everywhere with his thoughts, except where he ought to be. Leaving out of view that which lies nearest, he loses himself in aliena. The understanding has an ever present theme of wisdom, which arrests his attention, and on which he concentrates himself; but the fool flutters about fantastically from one thing to another, and that which is to him precisely of least importance interests him the most.\nThe series of proverbs, v. 25-18:2, begins and closes in the same way as the preceding, and only Pro 17:26 stands by itself without apparent connection.\nThis verse begins connecting itself with Pro 17:21 :\nA grief to his father is a foolish son,\nAnd a bitter woe for her that bare him.\nThe \u1f05\u03c0. \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3. \u05de\u05de\u05e8 is formed from \u05de\u05e8\u05e8 (to be bitter, properly harsh), as \u05de\u05db\u05e1 from \u05db\u05bc\u05e1\u05e1. The Syr. and Targ. change the subst. into participles; some codd. also have \u05de\u05de\u05e8 (after the forms \u05de\u05d7\u05dc, \u05de\u05e1\u05d1, \u05de\u05e4\u05e8, \u05de\u05e8\u05e2), but as may be expected in 25a, \u05de\u05d1\u05e2\u05d9\u05e1. The dat. obj. instead of the accus. may be possible; the verse immediately following furnishes a sufficient example of this.\n26 Also to inflict punishment on the righteous is not good;\nThis, that one overthrows the noble on account of his rectitude.\nDoes the \u05d2\u05bc\u05dd [also] refer to a connection from which the proverb is separated? or is it tacitly supposed that there are many kinds of worthless men in the world, and that one from among them is brought forward? or is it meant, that to lay upon the righteous a pecuniary punishment is also not good? None of all these. The proverb must have a meaning complete in itself; and if pecuniary punishment and corporeal punishment were regarded as opposed to one another, 26b would then have begun with \u05d0\u05e3 \u05db\u05bc\u05d9 (quanto magis percutere ingenuos). Here it is with \u05d2\u05dd as at Pro 20:11, and as with \u05d0\u05da at 11a, and \u05e8\u05e7 at Pro 13:10 : according to the sense, it belongs not to the word next following, but to \u05dc\u05e6\u05bc\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7; and \u05e2\u05e0\u05e9\u05c1 (whence inf. \u05e2\u05e0\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1, as Pro 21:11, with the \u01ce in \u05e2, cf. also \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3, Pro 11:10, for \u05d0\u05d1\u05d3) means here not specially to inflict a pecuniary fine, but generally to punish, for, as in mulctare, the meaning is generalized, elsewhere with the accus., Deu 22:19, here to give to any one to undergo punishment. The ruler is the servant of God, who has to preserve rectitude, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 (Rom 13:14). It is not good when he makes his power to punish to be felt by the innocent as well as by the guilty.\nIn 26b, instead of \u05d4\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea, the proverb is continued with \u05dc\u05d4\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea; \u05dc\u05d0\u05be\u05d8\u05d5\u05d1, which is to be supplied, takes the inf. alone when it precedes, and the inf. with \u05dc when it follows, Pro 18:5; Pro 28:21; Pro 21:9 (but cf. Pro 21:19). \u05d4\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea is the usual word for punishment by scourging, Deu 25:1-3, cf. Co2 11:24, N.T. \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u03b4\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, Rabb. \u05de\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea, strokes, or \u05de\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea from \u05dc\u05e7\u05d4, vapulare, to receive stripes. \u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd are here those noble in disposition. The idea of \u05e0\u05d3\u05d9\u05d1 fluctuates between generosus in an outward and in a moral sense, wherefore \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8, or rather \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05be\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8, is added; for the old editions, correct MSS, and e.g., also Soncin. 1488, present \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9 (vid., Norzi). Hitzig incorrectly explains this, \"against what is due\" (\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8, as Pro 11:24); also Psa 94:20, \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05be\u05d7\u05e7 does not mean \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (Symmachus), but \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 (lxx and Theod.), on the ground of right = praetextu juris (Vatabl.). Thus \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05be\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8 means here neither against nor beyond what is due, but: on the ground of honourable conduct, making this (of course mistakenly) a lawful title to punishment; Aquila, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, cf. Mat 5:10, \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. Besides, for \u05e2\u05dc after \u05d4\u05db\u05bc\u05d4, the causal signification lies nearest Num 22:32, cf. Isa 1:5 (\u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05de\u05d4, on account of anything). If the power of punishment is abused to the punishing of the righteous, yea, even to the corporeal chastisement of the noble, and their straight, i.e., conscientious, firm, open conduct, is made a crime against them, that is not good - it is perversion of the idea of justice, and an iniquity which challenges the penal rectitude of the Most High (Ecc 5:7 [8]).\n27 He that keepeth his words to himself hath knowledge,\nAnd the cool of temper is a man of understanding.\nThe first line here is a variation of Pro 10:19. The phrase \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 \u05d3\u05bc\u05e2\u05ea (here and at Dan 1:4) means to possess knowledge (novisse); more frequently it is \u05d1\u05bc\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2, e.g., Pro 4:1, where \u05d9\u05d3\u05e2 has the inchoative sense of noscere. In 27b the Ker\u0131\u0302 is \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05be\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7. Jerome translates it pretiosi spiritus, the Venet. \u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1. Rashi glosses \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 here, as at Sa1 3:1, by \u05de\u05e0\u05d5\u05e2 (thus to be read after codd.), retentus spiritu; most interpreters remark that the spirit here comes into view as expressing itself in words. It is scarcely correct to say that \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d3\u05bc\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd could designate one who is sparing in his words, but \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05be\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7 is, according to the fundamental conception of the verb \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8, gravis spiritu (Schultens), of a dignified, composed spirit; it is a quiet seriousness proceeding from high conscientiousness, and maintaining itself in self-control, which is designated by this word. But the Cheth\u0131\u0302b \u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05be\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7 presents almost the same description of character. \u05e7\u05e8 from \u05e7\u05e8\u05e8 (of the same root as \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8) means to be firm, unmoveable, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, hence to be congealed, frozen, cold (cf. frigus with rigere, rigor), figuratively to be cold-blooded, passionless, quiet, composed (Fl.); cf. post-bibl. \u05e7\u05e8\u05ea \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7 (Arab. \u1e33urrat\u201bain), cooling = refreshing, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c8\u03c5\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 (Act 3:20).\n(Note: \"He has made my eye glowing\" (askhn, cf. \u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05d9\u05df) is in Arab. equivalent to \"he has deeply troubled me.\" The eye of the benevolent is b\u00e2rid, and in the Semitic manner of expression, with deep psychological significance, it is said that the tears of sorrow are hot, but those of joy cold.)\nWhether we read \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8 or \u05e7\u05e8, in any case we are not to translate rarus spiritu, which, apart from the impossibility of the expression, makes 27b almost a tautological repetition of the thought of 27a. The first line recommends bridling of the tongue, in contrast to inconsiderate and untimely talk; the second line recommends coldness, i.e., equanimity of spirit, in contrast to passionate heat.\nVer. 28 continues the same theme, the value of silence:\nEven a fool, when he keeps silence, is counted wise;\nWhen he shutteth his mouth, discreet.\nThe subj. as well as the pred. of the first line avail for the second. \u05d0\u05d8\u05dd, obturare, occludere, usually of the closing the ear, is here transferred to the mouth. The Hiph. \u05d4\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 means mutum agere (cf. Arab. khrs, mutum esse), from \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1, which, like \u03ba\u03c9\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2, passes from the meaning surdus to that of mutus (Fl.). The words of Job 13:5, and also those of Alexander: si tacuisses sapiens mansisses, are applicable to fools. An Arab. proverb says, \"silence is the covering of the stupid.\" In the epigrammatical hexameter,\n\u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd,\nthe word \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd has the very same syntactical position as these two participles.\n(Note: Cf. C. Schultze's Die bibl. Sprichwrter (1860), p. 60f.)","title":"Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch: Proverbs: Proverbs Chapter 17","type":"page"}