{"collection":"Bible & Christianity","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/bib/cmt/kad/pro026.htm","path":"bib/cmt/kad/pro026.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/kad/pro026.htm","text":"Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsh, [1857-78]\nThere now follows a group of eleven proverbs of the fool; only the first of the group has after it a proverb of different contents, but of similar form:\nAs snow in summer, and rain in harvest;\nSo honour befitteth not a fool.\nIf there is snow in high summer (\u05e7\u05d9\u05e5, to be glowing hot), it is contrary to nature; and if there is rain in harvest, it is (according to the alternations of the weather in Palestine) contrary to what is usually the case, and is a hindrance to the ingathering of the fruits of the field. Even so a fool and respect, or a place of honour, are incongruous things; honour will only injure him (as according to Pro 19:10, luxury); he will make unjust use of it, and draw false conclusions from it; it will strengthen him in his folly, and only increase it. \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d4 (= \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9) is the adj. to the Pil. \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d4, Psa 93:5 (plur. \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d5\u05bc); \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d4, Pro 19:10, and \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d4, Pro 17:7, are also masc. and fem. of the adj., according to which, that which is said under Pro 19:10 is to be corrected. Symmachus and Theodotion have translated \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd, and have therefore read \u05e0\u05d0\u05d5\u05d4. The root word is \u05e0\u05d0\u05d4 (as \u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05d4 to \u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05d5\u05d4) = \u05e0\u05d5\u05d4, to aim at something (vid., Hupfeld under Psa 23:2).\nThis verse is formed quite in the same way as the preceding:\nAs the sparrow in its fluttering, as the swallow in its flying,\nSo the curse that is groundless: it cometh not.\nThis passage is one of those fifteen (vid., under Psa 100:3) in which the \u05dc\u05d0 of the text is changed by the Ker\u0131\u0302 into \u05dc\u05d5; the Talm., Midrash, and Sohar refer this \u05dc\u05bc\u05d5 partly to him who utters the curse himself, against whom also, if he is a judge, such inconsiderate cursing becomes an accusation by God; partly to him who is cursed, for they read from the proverb that the curse of a private person also (\u05d4\u05d3\u05d9\u05d5\u05d8, \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) is not wont to fall to the ground, and that therefore one ought to be on his guard against giving any occasion for it (vid., Norzi). But Aben Ezra supposes that \u05dc\u05d0 and \u05dc\u05d5 interchange, as much as to say that the undeserved curse falls on him (\u05dc\u05d5) who curses, and does not fall (\u05dc\u05d0) on him who is cursed. The figures in 2a harmonize only with \u05dc\u05d0, according to which the lxx, the Syr., Targ., Venet., and Luther (against Jerome) translate, for the principal matter, that the sparrow and the swallow, although flying out (Pro 27:8), return home again to their nest (Ralbag), would be left out of view in the comparison by \u05dc\u05d5. This emphasizes the fluttering and flying, and is intended to affirm that a groundless curse is a \u05e4\u05bc\u05e8\u05d7 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8, aimless, i.e., a thing hovering in the air, that it fails and does not take effect. Most interpreters explain the two Lameds as declaring the destination: ut passer (sc. natus est) ad vagandum, as the sparrow, through necessity of nature, roves about... (Fleischer). But from Pro 25:3 it is evident that the Lamed in both cases declares the reference or the point of comparison: as the sparrow in respect to its fluttering about, etc. The names of the two birds are, according to Aben Ezra, like dreams without a meaning; but the Romanic exposition explains rightly \u05e6\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8 by passereau, and \u05d3\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 by hirondelle, for \u05e6\u05e4\u05d5\u05e8 (Arab. 'u\u1e63fuwr), twitterer, designates at least preferably the sparrow, and \u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 the swallow, from its flight shooting straight out, as it were radiating (vid., under Psa 84:4); the name of the sparrow, d\u00fbr\u0131\u0302 (found in courtyards), which Wetstein, after Saadia, compares to \u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8, is etymologically different.\n(Note: It is true that the Gemara to Negam, Pro 14:1, explains the Mishnic \u05e6\u05e4\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8, \"house-birds,\" for it derives \u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 from \u05d3\u05d5\u05e8, to dwell.)\nRegarding \u05d7\u05e0\u05bc\u05dd, vid., under Pro 24:28. Rightly the accentuation separates the words rendered, \"so the curse undeserved\" (\u05e7\u05dc\u05dc\u05ea, after Kimchi, Michlol 79b, \u05e7\u05dc\u05dc\u05ea), from those which follow; \u05dc\u05d0 \u05ea\u05d1\u05d0 is the explication of \u05db\u05df: thus hovering in the air is a groundless curse - it does not come (\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0, like e.g., Jos 21:43). After this proverb, which is formed like Pro 26:1, the series now returns to the \"fool.\"\n3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass,\nAnd a rod for the back of fools.\nJ. D. Michaelis supposes that the order should be reversed: a bridle for the horse, a whip for the ass; but Arnoldi has here discovered the figure of speech merismus (cf. Pro 10:1); and Hitzig, in the manner of the division, the rhythmical reason of the combination (cf. \u05e9\u05c1\u05dd \u05d7\u05dd \u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05ea for \u05e9\u05c1\u05dd \u05d9\u05e4\u05ea \u05d5\u05d7\u05dd): whip and bridle belong to both, for one whips a horse (Neh 3:2) and also bridles him; one bridles an ass (Psa 32:9) and also whips him (Num 22:28.). As whip and bridle are both serviceable and necessary, so also serviceable and necessary is a rod, \u05dc\u05d2\u05d5 \u05db\u05bc\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd, Pro 10:13; Pro 19:29.\n4 Answer not the fool according to his folly,\nLest thou thyself also become like unto him.\nAfter, or according to his folly, is here equivalent to recognising the foolish supposition and the foolish object of his question, and thereupon considering it, as if, e.g., he asked why the ignorant man was happier than the man who had much knowledge, or how one may acquire the art of making gold; for \"a fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer.\" He who recognises such questions as justifiable, and thus sanctions them, places himself on an equality with the fool, and easily himself becomes one. The proverb that follows affirms apparently the direct contrary:\n5 Answer the fool according to his folly,\nLest he regard himself as wise.\n\u05e2\u05e0\u05d4\u05be\u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc (with Makkeph, and Gaja, and Chatef)\n(Note: Thus after Ben Asher; while, on the contrary, Ben Naphtali writes \u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc with Munach, vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 41.)\nhere stands opposed to \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05ea\u05e2\u05df \u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc. The Gospel of John, e.g., Joh 5:31, cf. Pro 8:31,\n(Note: Vid., my dissertation on three little-observed passages in the Gospel of John, and their practical lessons, in the Evang. luth. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nos. 37, 38.)\nis rich in such apparently contradictory sayings. The sic et non here lying before us is easily explained; after, or according to his folly, is this second time equivalent to, as is due to his folly: decidedly and firmly rejecting it, making short work with it (returning a sharp answer), and promptly replying in a way fitted, if possible, to make him ashamed. Thus one helps him, perhaps, to self-knowledge; while, in the contrary case, one gives assistance to his self-importance. The Talmud, Schabbath 30b, solves the contradiction by referring Pro 26:4 to worldly things, and Pro 26:5 to religious things; and it is true that, especially in the latter case, the answer is itself a duty toward the fool, and towards the truth. Otherwise the Midrash: one ought not to answer when one knows the fool as such, and to answer when he does not so know him; for in the first instance the wise man would dishonour himself by the answer, in the latter case he would give to him who asks the importance appertaining to a superior.\n6 He cutteth off the feet, he drinketh injury,\nWho transacteth business by a fool.\nHe cutteth off, i.e., his own feet, as we say: he breaks his neck, il se casse le cou; Lat. frangere brachium, crus, coxam; frangere navem (Fleischer). He thinks to supplement his own two legs by those of the messenger, but in reality he cuts them off; for not only is the commission not carried out, but it is even badly carried out, so that instead of being refreshed (Pro 13:17; Pro 25:13) by the quick, faithful execution of it, he has to swallow nothing but damage; cf. Job 34:7, where, however, drinking scorn is meant of another (lxx), not his own; on the contrary, \u05d7\u05de\u05e1 here refers to injury suffered (as if it were \u05d7\u05de\u05d3\u05d5, for the suff. of \u05d7\u05de\u05e1 is for the most part objective); cf. the similar figures Pro 10:26. So \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d7 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d9\u05d3, to accomplish anything by the mediation of another, cf. Exo 4:13; with \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8 (\u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd), Sa2 15:36. The reading \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05bc\u05d4 (Jerome, Luther, claudus) is unnecessary; since, as we saw, \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05bc\u05d4 ,was ew includes it in the sibi. The Syr. reads, after the lxx (the original text of which was \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6), \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4, for he errs, as also does the Targumist, in thinking that \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 can be used for \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05e5; but Hitzig adopts this reading, and renders: \"from the end of the legs he swallows injury who sends messages by a fool.\" The end of the legs are the feet, and the feet are those of the foolish messenger. The proverb in this form does not want in boldness, but the wisdom which Hitzig finds in its is certainly not mother-wit.\n(Note: The Venet. translates \u05e9\u05c1\u05ea\u05d4 by \u1f04\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, so \u05e9\u05c1\u05d8\u05d4 (the post-bibl. designation of a fool) - one of the many indications that this translator is a Jew, and as such is not confined in his knowledge of language only to the bibl. Hebrew.)\nBttcher, on his part, also with \u05de\u05e7\u05e6\u05d4, renders: \"from the end of his feet he drinks in that which is bitter...\" - that also is too artificial, and is unintelligible without the explanation of its discoverer. But that he who makes a fool his messenger becomes himself like unto one who cuts off his own legs, is a figure altogether excellent.\n7 The hanging down of the legs of a lame man;\nAnd a proverb in a fool's mouth.\nWith reference to the obscure \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc, the following views have been maintained: - (1) The form as punctuated appears directly as an imperative. Thus the lxx translate, the original text of which is here: \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd (conj. Lagarde's) \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, which the Syr. (with its imitator, the Targ.) has rendered positively: \"If thou canst give the power of (sound) going to the lame, then wilt thou also receive (prudent) words from the mouth of a fool.\" Since Kimchi, \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc has been regarded by many as the softening of the Imp. Piel \u05d3\u05bc\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc, according to which the Venet. translates: \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6; and Bertheau and Zckler explain: always take away his legs from the lame, since they are in reality useless to him, just as a proverb in the mouth of the fool is useless - something that without loss might be never there.\" But why did not the poet write \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05bc, or \u05d4\u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc, or \u05e7\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc, or the like? \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05d9, to carry away, to dispense with, is Syriac (Targ. Jer. I, under Deu 32:50), but not Hebrew. And how meaningless is this expression! A lame man would withstand a surgeon (as he would a murderer) who would amputate his legs; for lame legs are certainly better than none, especially since there is a great distinction between a lame man (\u05e4\u05bc\u05d3\u05bc\u05d7, from \u05e4\u05bc\u05e1\u05d7, luxare; cf. (Arab.) fasa\u1e25, laxare, vid., Schultens) who halts or goes on crutches (Sa2 3:29), and one who is maimed (paralytic), who needs to be carried. It comes to this, that by this rendering of 7a one must, as a consequence, with the lxx, regard \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc [and a proverb] as object. accus. parallel to \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd [legs]; but \"to draw a proverb from one's mouth\" is, after Pro 20:5, something quite different from to tear a proverb away from him, besides which, one cannot see how it is to be caught. Rather one would prefer: attollite crura claudi (ut incedat, et nihil promovebitis); but the \u05de\u05df of \u05de\u05e4\u05bc\u05e1\u05bc\u05d7 does not accord with this, and 7b does not connect itself with it. But the explanation: \"take away the legs from a lame man who has none, at least none to use, and a proverb in the mouth of fools, when there is none,\" is shattered against the \"leg-taking-away,\" which can only be used perhaps of frogs' legs. (2) Symmachus translates: \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6; and Chajg explains \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc as 3 pret. Kal, to which Kimchi adds the remark, that he appears to have found \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc, which indeed is noted by Norzi and J. H. Michaelis as a variant. But the Masoretic reading is \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc, and this, after Gesenius and Bttcher (who in this, without any reason, sees an Ephraimitic form of uttering the word), is a softened variation from \u05d3\u05bc\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc. Only it is a pity that this softening, while it is supported by alius = \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, folium = \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, faillir = fallere, and the like, has yet not a single Hebrew or Semitic example in its favour. (3) Therefore Ewald finds, \"all things considered,\" that it is best to read \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc, \"the legs are too loose for the lame man to use them.\" But, with Dietrich, we cannot concur in this, nor in the more appropriate translation: \"the legs of the lame hang down loose,\" to say nothing of the clearly impossible: \"high are the legs of the lame (one higher than the other),\" and that because this form \u05d2\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc for \u05d2\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc also occurs without pause, Psa 57:2; Psa 73:2; Psa 122:6; Isa 21:12; but although thus, as at Psa 36:9; Psa 68:32, at the beginning of a clause, yet always only in connection, never at the beginning of an address. (4) It has also been attempted to interpret \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc as abstr., e.g., Euchel: \"he learns from a cripple to dance, who seeks to learn proverbs from the mouth of a fool.\" \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd must mean the lifting up of the legs = springing and dancing. Accordingly Luther translates:\n\"As dancing to a cripple,\nSo does it become a fool to speak of wisdom.\"\nThe thought is agreeable, and according to fact; but these words to not mean dancing, but much rather, as the Arabic shows (vid., Schultens at Pro 20:5, and on the passage before us), a limping, waddling walk, like that of ducks, after the manner of a well-bucket dangling to and fro. And \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc, after the form \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05bc, would be an unheard-of Aramaism. For forms such as \u05e9\u05c2\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc, swimming, and \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc, security, Psa 30:7, on which C. B. Michaelis and others rest, cannot be compared, since they are modified from sachw, \u1e63alw, while in \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc the ending must be, and besides the Aramaic \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc must in st. constr. be \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea. Since none of these explanations are grammatically satisfactory, and besides \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc = \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc = \u05d3\u05bc\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc gives a parallel member which is heterogeneous and not conformable to the nature of an emblematical proverb, we read \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d9 after the forms \u05e6\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d9, \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d9 (cf. \u05d7\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7, Pro 6:10; Pro 24:33), and this signifies loose, hanging down, from \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05d4, to hang at length and loosely down, or transitively: to hang, particularly of the hanging down at length of the bucket-rope, and of the bucket itself, to draw water from the well. The \u05de\u05df is similar to that of Job 28:4, only that here the connecting of the hanging down, and of that from which it hangs down, is clear. Were we to express the purely nominally expressed emblematical proverb in the form of a comparative one, it would thus stand as Fleischer translates it: ut laxa et flaccida dependent (torpent) crura a claudo, sic sententia in ore stultorum (sc. torpet h. e. inutilis est). The fool can as little make use of an intelligent proverb, or moral maxim (dictum sententiosum), as a lame man can of his feet; the word, which in itself is full of thought, and excellent, becomes halting, lame, and loose in his mouth (Schultens: deformiter claudicat); it has, as spoken and applied by him, neither hand nor foot. Strangely, yet without missing the point, Jerome: quomodo pulcras frustra habet claudus tibias, sic indecens est in ore stultorum parabola. The lame man possibly has limbs that appear sound; but when he seeks to walk, they fail to do him service - so a bon-mot comes forth awkwardly when the fool seeks to make use of it. Hitzig's conjecture: as leaping of the legs on the part of a lame man..., Bttcher has already shown sufficient reasons for rejecting; leaping on the part of any one, for the leaping of any one, were a court style familiar to no poet.\nThis proverb presents to us a new difficulty.\nAs one binds a stone in a sling,\nSo is he who giveth honour to a fool.\nThis translation is warranted by tradition, and is in accordance with the actual facts. A sling is elsewhere called \u05e7\u05dc\u05e2; but that \u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05d4 also in the passage before us signifies a sling (from \u05e8\u05d2\u05dd, to throw with stones = to stone or to throw stones = to sling, cf. Targ. Est 5:14 \u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05dd, of David's slinging stones against Goliath), is supported by the lxx, Syr., and Targ. on the one side, and the Jewish Glossists on the other (Rashi: fronde, Ital. frombola). Rightly the lxx renders \u05db\u05bc\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 as a verb: \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9; on the contrary, the Syr. and Targ. regard it as a substantive: as a piece of stone; but \u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 as a substantive does not mean a piece, as one would put into a sling to use as a weapon, but a grain, and thus a little piece, Sa2 17:13; cf. Amo 9:9. Erroneously Ewald: \"if one binds to the sling the stone which he yet seeks to throw, then all this throwing and aiming are in vain; so it is in vain to give to a fool honour which does not reach him.\" If one seeks to sling a stone, he must lay the lapis missilis so in the sling that it remains firm there, and goes forth only by the strong force of the slinging; this fitting in (of the stone), so that it does not of itself fall out, is expressed by \u05e6\u05e8\u05e8 \u05d1\u05bc (cf. Pro 30:4; Job 26:8). The giving is compared to the binding, the stones to the honour, and the sling to the fool: the fool is related to the honour which one confers on him, as the stone to the sling in which one lays it - the giving of honour is a slinging of honour. Otherwise (after Kimchi) the Venet. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9, i.e., as Fleischer translates: ut qui crumenam gemmarum plenam in acervum lapidum conjicit. Thus also Ralbag, Ahron b. Josef, and others, and lastly Zckler. The figure is in the form of an address, and \u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05d4 (from \u05e8\u05d2\u05dd, accumulare, congerere, vid., under Psa 67:1-7 :28) might certainly mean the heaping of stones. But \u05d0\u05d1\u05df is not used in the sense of \u05d0\u05d1\u05df \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d4 (precious stone); also one does not see why one precious stone is not enough as the figure of honour, and a whole heap is named; but in the third place, \u05db\u05bc\u05df \u05e0\u05d5\u05ea\u05df requires for \u05db\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 a verbal signification. Therefore Jerome translates: sicut qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mercurii; in this the echo of his Jewish teacher, for the Midrash thus explains literally: every one who gives honour to a fool is like one who throws a stone on a heap of stones consecrated to Mercury. Around the Hermes (\u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76), i.e., pillars with the head of Mercury (statuae mercuriales or viales), were heaps of stones (\u1f15\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2), to which the passer-by was wont to throw a stone; it was a mark of honour, and served at the same time to improve the way, whose patron was Mercurious (\u05de\u05e8\u05e7\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd). It is self-evident that this Graeco-Roman custom to which the Talm. makes frequent reference, cannot be supposed to have existed in the times of Solomon. Luther translates independently, and apparently rendering into German that in acervum Mercurii: that is as if one threw a precious stone on the \"Rabenstein,\" i.e., the heap of stones raised at the foot of the gallows. This heap of stones is more natural and suitable to the times of Solomon than the heap of stones dedicated to Mercury, if, like Gussetius, one understands \u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05de\u05d4 of a heap of stones, supra corpus lapidatum. But against this and similar interpretations it is enough to remark that \u05db\u05e6\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 cannot signify sicut qui mittit. Had such a meaning been intended, the word would have been \u05db\u05bc\u05d4\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d9\u05da or \u05db\u05bc\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d9\u05da. Still different is the rendering of Joseph Kimchi, Aben Ezra, and finally Lwenstein: as when one wraps up a stone in a piece of purple stuff. But \u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05df, purple, has nothing to do with the verb \u05e8\u05d2\u05dd; it is, as the Aramaic \u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05df shows, a compound word; the supposition of a denom. \u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05d4 thus proceeds from a false etymological supposition. And Hitzig's combination of \u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05de\u05d4 with (Arab.) munjam, handle and beam of a balance (he translates: as a stone on the beam of a balance, i.e., lies on it), is nothing but refined ingenuity, since we have no need at all of such an Arab. word for a satisfactory clearing up of \u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05de\u05d4. We abide by the rendering of the sling. Bttcher translates: a sling that scatters; perhaps \u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05de\u05d4 in reality denotes such a sling as throws many stones at once. Let that, however, be as it may: that he who confers a title of honour, a place of honour, and the like, on a fool, is like one who lays a stone in a sling, is a true and intelligibly formed thought: the fool makes the honour no honour; he is not capable of maintaining it; that which is conferred on him is uselessly wasted.\n9 A thorn goeth into the hand of a drunkard,\nAnd a proverb in a fool's mouth;\ni.e., if a proverb falls into a fool's mouth, it is as if a thorn entered into the hand of a drunken man; the one is as dangerous as the other, for fools misuse such a proverb, which, rightly used, instructs and improves, only to the wounding and grieving of another, as a drunken man makes use of the pointed instrument which he has possession of for coarse raillery, and as a welcome weapon of his strife. The lxx, Syr. (Targ.?), and Jerome interpret \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 in the sense of shooting up, i.e., of growing; Bttcher also, after Pro 24:31 and other passages, insists that the thorn which has shot up may be one that has not grown to perfection, and therefore not dangerous. But thorns grow not in the hand of any one; and one also does not perceive why the poet should speak of it as growing in the hand of a drunken man, which the use of the hand with it would only make worse. We have here \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9, i.e., it has come into my hand, commonly used in the Mishna, which is used where anything, according to intention, falls into one's hands, as well as where it comes accidentally and unsought for, e.g., Nazir 23a, \u05de\u05d9 \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05ea\u05db\u05d5\u05d5\u05df \u05dc\u05e2\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8 \u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d5\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5 \u05d1\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8 \u05d8\u05dc\u05d4, he who designs to obtain swine's flesh and (accidentally) obtains lamb's flesh. Thus rightly Heidenheim, Lwenstein, and the Venet.: \u1f04\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. \u05d7\u05d5\u05d7 signifies a thorn bush, Kg2 14:9,\n(Note: The plur. \u05d7\u05d5\u05d7\u05d9\u05dd, Sa1 13:6, signifies not thorn bushes, but rock-splitting; in Damascus, ch\u00f4cha means a little gate in the wing of a large door; vid., Wetstein's Nordarabien, p. 23.)\nas well as a thorn, Sol 2:2, but where not the thorns of the rose, and indeed no rose at all, is meant. Luther thinks of the rose with the thorn when he explains: \"When a drunkard carries and brandishes in his hand a thorn bush, he scratches more with it than allows the roses to be smelled - so a fool with the Scriptures, or a right saying, often does more harm than good.\" This paraphrase of Luther's interprets \u05e2\u05dc\u05d4 \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3 more correctly than his translation does; on the other hand, the latter more correctly is satisfied with a thorn twig (as a thorn twig which pierces into the hand of a drunken man); the roses are, however, assumed contrary to the text. This holds good also against Wessely's explanation: \"the Mashal is like a rose not without thorns, but in the mouth of a fool is like a thorn without a rose, as when a drunken man seeks to pluck roses and gains by his effort nothing but being pierced by thorns.\" The idea of roses is to be rejected, because at the time when this proverb was formed there were no roses in Palestine. The proverb certainly means that a right Mashal, i.e., an ingenious excellent maxim, is something more and better than a \u05d7\u05d5\u05d7 (the prick as of the Jewish thorn, Zizyphus vulgaris, or the Christus-thorn, the Ziz spina Christi); but in the mouth of a fool such a maxim becomes only a useless and a hurtful thing; for the fool so makes use of it, that he only embarrasses others and recklessly does injury to them. The lxx translates \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc by \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, and the Aram. by \u05e9\u05c1\u05d8\u05d9\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea\u05d0; how the latter reached this \"folly\" is not apparent; but the lxx vocalized \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc, according to which Hitzig, at the same time changing \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8 into \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8, translates: \"thorns shoot up by the hand of the hireling, and tyranny by the mouth of fools.\" Although a hired labourer, yet, on this account, he is not devoid of conscience; thus 9a so corrected has something in its favour: one ought, as far as possible, to do all with his own hand; but the thought in 9b is far-fetched, and if Hitzig explains that want of judgment in the state councils creates despotism, so, on the other hand, Pro 24:7 says that the fool cannot give counsel in the gate, and therefore he holds his mouth.\nAll that we have hitherto read is surpassed in obscurity by this proverb, which is here connected because of the resemblance of \u05d5\u05e9\u05db\u05e8 to \u05e9\u05db\u05d5\u05e8. We translate it thus, vocalizing differently only one word:\nMuch bringeth forth from itself all;\nBut the reward and the hirer of the fool pass away.\nThe lxx translates \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd (all the flesh of fools suffers much), \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f27 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, which is in Hebrew:\n\u05e8\u05d1 \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05bc\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8 \u05db\u05e1\u05d9\u05dc\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d1\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea\u05dd\nAn unfortunate attempt so to rectify the words that some meaning might be extracted from them. The first line of this translation has been adopted by the Syr. and Targ., omitting only the \u05db\u05dc, in which the self-condemnation of this deciphering lies (for \u05db\u05dc \u05d1\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8 means elsewhere, humanity, not the whole body of each individual); but they translate the second line as if the words were:\n\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05bc\u05e8 \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05dd\ni.e., and the drunken man sails over the sea (\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd is separated into \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05dd, as \u05d1\u05d1\u05e7\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, Amo 6:12, is to be separated into \u05d1\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05e7\u05e8 \u05d9\u05dd); but what does that mean? Does it mean that to a drunkard (but \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8, the drunken man, and not \u05e1\u05d1\u05d0, the drunkard, is used) nothing remains but to wander over the sea? or that the drunken man lets his imagination wander away over the sea, while he neglects the obligation that lies upon him? Symmachus and Theodotion, with the Midrash (Rashi) and Saadia (Kimchi), take \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8 in 10b = \u05e1\u05d2\u05e8 (like Isa 19:10, \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8 = embankment, cf. \u05e1\u05db\u05bc\u05e8\u05d9\u05df, Kelim, Pro 23:5); the former translates by \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, the latter by \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, yielding to the imagination that \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, like \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea, may be the plur. of \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4, anger. Jerome punctuates \u05e8\u05d1 as, Pro 25:8, \u05e8\u05d1, and interprets, as Symmachus and Theodotion, \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8 both times = \u05e1\u05d2\u05e8, translating: Judicium determinat causas, et qui imponit stulto silentium iras mitigat; but \u05e8\u05d1 does not mean judicium, nor \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc determinat, nor \u05db\u05dc causas. As Gussetius, so also Ralbag (in the first of his three explanations), Meri, Elia Wilna interpret the proverb as a declaration regarding quarrelsome persons: he causeth woe to all, and hireth fools, hireth transgressors, for his companions; but in that case we must read \u05e8\u05d1 for \u05e8\u05d1; \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc, bringing woe, would be either the Po. of \u05d7\u05dc\u05dc, to bore through, or Pilel of \u05d7\u05d9\u05dc (\u05d7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dc), to put into distress (as with pangs); but \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, transgressors = sinners, is contrary to the O.T. usus loq., Pro 22:3 (Pro 27:12) is falsely cited in its favour; besides, for \u05e8\u05d1 there should have been at least \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e8\u05d1 and why \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8\u05d5 is repeated remains inexplicable. Others take \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc\u05be\u05db\u05dc as the name of God, the creator of all men and things; and truly this is the nearest impression of these two words, for \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc is the usual designation for divine production, e.g., Psa 90:2. Accordingly Kimchi explains: The Lord is the creator of all, and He gives to fools and to transgressors their maintenance; but \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, transgressors, is Mishnic, not bibl.; and \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8 means to hire, but not to supply with food. The proverb is thus incapable of presenting a thought like Mat 5:45 (He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good). Others translate: \"The Lord is creator of all, and takes fools, takes idlers, into His service.\" Thus rendered, the proverb is offensive; wherefore Rashi, Moses Kimchi, Arama, and others regard the Mashal as in the mouth of fools, and thus they take Pro 26:9 and Pro 26:10 together as a tetrastich. Certainly this second collection of proverbs contains also tetrastiches; but Pro 26:9 and Pro 26:10 cannot be regarded as together forming a tetrastich, because \u05e8\u05d1 (which is valid against Kimchi also) cannot mean God the Lord: \u05e8\u05d1, Lord, is unheard of in bibl. Heb., and at least the word \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1 must be used for God. The Venet. on this account does not follow Kimchi, but translates, \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03c9\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 (ought to have been \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2); but who could this cunning man be? Perhaps the Venet. is to be understood, after Gecatilia (in Rashi): a great (rich) man performs all manner of things; but if he hires a fool, it is as if he hired the first best who pass along the way. But that \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc is used in the general sense of to execute, to perform, is without example, and improbable. Also the explanation: a ruler brings grief, i.e., severe oppression, upon all (Abulwald, Immanuel, Aben Ezra, who, in his smaller grammar, explains \u05e8\u05d1 = \u05e8\u05d1 after Isa 49:9; C. B. Michaelis: dolore afficit omnes), does not recommend itself; for \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc, whether it be from \u05d7\u05dc\u05dc, Isa 51:9 (to bore through), or from \u05d7\u05d9\u05dc, Psa 29:9 (to bring on the pangs of birth), is too strong a word for hurting; also the clause, thus generally understood, is fortunately untrue. Translated as by Euchel: \"the prominent persons destroy all; they keep fools in pay, and favour vagabonds,\" - it sounds as if it had been picked up in an assembly of democrats. On the other hand, the proverb, as translated by Luther:\nA good master maketh a thing right;\nBut he who hireth a bungler, by him it is spoiled,\nis worthy of the Book of Proverbs. The second line is here freely rendered, but it is also appropriate, if we abide closer by the words of the text, in this connection. Fleischer: Magister (artifex peritus) effingit omnia (i.e., bene perficit quaecunque ei committuntur); qui autem stultum conducit, conducit transeuntes (i.e., idem facit ac si homines ignotos et forte transeuntes ad opus gravius et difficilius conduceret). Thus also Gesenius, Bttcher, and others, who all, as Gecatilia above, explain \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, the first best. But we are reluctantly constrained to object to this thought, because \u05e8\u05d1 nowhere in bibl. Hebrew signifies a master; and the \u05d5 of the second \u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8 dno cannot bear that rendering, ac si. And if we leave it out, we nevertheless encounter a difficulty in \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc, which cannot be used of human production. Many Christian interpreters (Cocceius, Schultens, Schelling, Ewald, Bertheau, Stier, Zckler) give to \u05e8\u05d1 a meaning which is found in no Jewish interpreter, viz., sagittarius, from \u05e8\u05d1\u05d1 (\u05e8\u05d1\u05d1), Gen 49:23 (and perhaps Psa 18:15), after the forms \u05e6\u05e8, \u05e9\u05c2\u05e8, the plur. of which, \u05e8\u05d1\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd, is found at Job 16:13; Jer 50:29, but in a connection which removes all doubt from the meaning of the word. Here also \u05e8\u05d1 may be more closely defined by \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc; but how then does the proverb stand? \"an archer who wounds everything, and he who hires a fool, and hires passers-by\" (Ewald: street-runners), i.e., they are alike. But if the archer piercing everything is a comic Hercules furens, then, in order to discover the resemblance between the three, there is need of a portion of ingenuity, such as is only particularly assigned to the favoured. But it is also against the form and the usage of the word to interpret \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd simply of rogues and vagabonds. Several interpreters have supposed that \u05e8\u05d1 and \u05db\u05dc must stand in a certain interchangeable relation to each other. Thus, e.g., Ahron b. Josef: \"Much makes amazement to all, but especially one who hires a fool....\" But this \"especially\" (Before all) is an expression smuggled in. Agreeing with Umbreit and Hitzig, we translate line first; but in translating line second, we follow our own method:\nMuch bringeth all out of it;\ni.e., where there is much, then one has it in his power, if he begins right, to undertake everything. \u05e8\u05d1 has by \u05db\u05bc\u05dc the definition of a neuter, so as to designate not only many men, Exo 19:21, but also much ability in a pecuniary and facultative sense (cf. the subst. \u05e8\u05d1, Isa 63:7; Psa 145:7); and of the much which bringeth forth all out of itself, effects all by itself, \u05d7\u05d5\u05dc\u05dc with equal right might be used, as Pro 25:23, of the north wind. The antithesis 10b takes this form:\nBut the reward (read \u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8) and the master (who hires him for wages) of the fool pass away,\ni.e., perish; \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, as if \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8, is used of chaff, Isa 29:5; of stubble, Jer 13:24; of shadow, Psa 144:4. That which the fool gains passes away, for he squanders it; and he who took him into his service for wages is ruined along with him, for his work is only pernicious, not useful. Although he who possesses much, and has great ability, may be able to effect everything of himself, yet that is not the case when he makes use of the assistance therein of foolish men, who not only do not accomplish anything, but, on the contrary, destroy everything, and are only ruinous to him who, with good intention, associates them with himself in his work. That the word must be more accurately \u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8, instead of \u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8\u05d5\u05d5, one may not object, since \u05d5\u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05e8 is perfectly unambiguous, and is manifestly the object.\nThe series of proverbs regarding fools is continued:\nLike a dog which returneth to his vomit,\nIs a fool who cometh again with his folly.\n\u05e9\u05c1\u05d1 is like \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4, particip.; only if the punctuation were \u05db\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05dc\u05d1, ought \"which returneth to his vomit\" to be taken as a relative clause (vid., under Psa 38:14). Regarding \u05e2\u05dc as designating the terminus quo with verbs of motions, vid., Khler under Mal. 3:24. On \u05e7\u05d0 = \u05e7\u05d9\u05d0, cf. Pro 23:8. Luther rightly; as a dog devours again his vomit. The lxx translate: \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u1fc3 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd; the reference in Pe2 2:22 : \u03ba\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1, is thus not from the lxx; the Venet. is not connected with this N.T. citation, but with the lxx, if its accordance with it is not merely accidental. To devour again its vomit is common with the dog.\n(Note: Vid., Schulze's Die bibl. Sprichwrter der deutschen Sprache, p. 71f.)\nEven so, it is the manner of fools to return again in word and in deed to their past folly (vid., regarding \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d4 with \u05d1 of the object. Pro 17:9); as an Aram. popular saying has it: the fool always falls back upon his foolish conduct.\n(Note: Vid., Wahl's Das Sprichwort der heb.-aram. Literatur, p. 147; Duke's Rabbin. Blumenlese, p. 9.)\nHe must needs do so, for folly has become to him a second nature; but this \"must\" ceases when once a divine light shines forth upon him. The lxx has after Pro 26:11 a distich which is literally the same as Sir. 4:21.\n12 Seest thou a man who is wise in his own eyes?\nThe fool hath more hope than he.\nRegarding the perf. hypotheticum \u05e8\u05d0\u05d9\u05ea, vid., at Pro 22:29. Line second is repeated, Pro 29:20, unchanged. \u05de\u05de\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc, prae eo, is equivalent to the Mishnic \u05d9\u05d5\u05ea\u05e8 \u05de\u05de\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc, plus quam ei. As the conversion of a sinner, who does not regard himself as righteous, is more to be expected than that of a self-righteous man (Mat 9:12.), so the putting right of a fool, who is conscious that he is not wise (cf. Pro 24:7), is more likely to be effected than that of one deeming himself wise; for the greatest hindrance to any turning toward that which is better lies in the delusion that he does not need it.\n(Note: The Targum has 12b after Codd. \u05e4\u05bc\u05e7\u05d7 \u05e1\u05db\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d8\u05d1 \u05de\u05d2\u05bc\u05d9\u05d4\u05bc (= Syr. pekach, expedit, convenit, melius est), it is far better circumstanced regarding the fool than regarding him. Vid., Geiger's Zeitschr. vi. (1868), p. 154.)\nThus far the group of proverbs regarding fools.\nThere follows now a group of proverbs regarding the slothful:\n13 The slothful saith there is a lion without,\nA lion in the midst of the streets;\ncf. the original of this proverb, Pro 22:13. \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e2\u05dc, to say nothing of \u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05dc, is not the jackal; \u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05dc is the bibl. name for the lion. \u05d1\u05bc\u05d9\u05df is the more general expression for \u05d1\u05bc\u05e7\u05e8\u05d1, Isa 5:25; by the streets he thinks of the rows of houses that form them.\n14 The door turneth on its hinges,\nAnd the sluggard on his bed.\nThe comparison is clear. The door turns itself on its hinges, on which it hangs, in and out, without passing beyond the narrow space of its motion; so is the fool on his bed, where he turns himself from the one side to the other. He is called \u05e2\u05e6\u05dc, because he is fast glued to the place where he is (Arab. 'azila), and cannot be free (contrast of the active, cf. Arab. \u1e25afyf, moving nimbly, agilis). But the door offers itself as a comparison, because the diligent goes out by it to begin his work without (Pro 24:27; Psa 104:23), while the sluggard rolls himself about on his bed. The hook, the hinge, on which the door is moved, called \u05e6\u05d9\u05e8, from \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8, to turn,\n(Note: The Arab. verb signifies radically: to turn, like the Persian verbs kashatn and kardydan, and like our \"werden\" to grow, turn, accords with vertere (Fleischer).)\nhas thus the name of \u05d4\u05e1\u05bc\u05d5\u05d1.\n15 The slothful has thrust his hand into the dish,\nIt is hard for him to bring it back to his mouth again.\nA variation of Pro 19:24; the fut. \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1\u05e0\u05bc\u05d4 there, is here explained by \u05e0\u05dc\u05d0\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d4\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4\u05bc.\n16 The sluggard is wise in his own eyes,\nMore than seven men who give an excellent answer.\nBetween slothfulness and conceit there exists no inward necessary mutual relation. The proverb means that the sluggard as such regards himself as wiser than seven, who all together answer well at any examination: much labour - he thinks with himself - only injures the health, blunts men for life and its joys, leads only to over-exertion; for the most prudent is, as a general rule, crack-brained. Bttcher's \"maulfaule\" [slow to speak] belongs to the German style of thinking; \u05e2\u05d8\u05dc \u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d0 in Syr. is not he who is slow to speak, but he who has a faltering tongue.\n(Note: The Aram. \u05e2\u05d8\u05dc is the Hebr. \u05e2\u05e6\u05dc, as \u05e2\u05d8\u05d0 = \u05e2\u05e6\u05d4; but in Arab. corresponds not to 'atal, but to 'azal.)\nSeven is the number of manifoldness in completed unfolding (Pro 9:1). Meri thinks, after Ezr 7:14, on the council of seven of the Asiatic ruler. But seven is a round number of plurality, Pro 26:25, Pro 24:16; Pro 6:31. Regarding \u05d8\u05e2\u05dd, vid., at Pro 11:22.\nA series of proverbs which recommend the love of peace, for they present caricatures of the opposite:\n17 He seizeth by the ears of a dog passing by,\nWho is excited by a strife which concerns him not.\nAccording to the accentuation in the text, the proverb is to be translated with Fleischer: Qualis est qui prehendit aures canis, talis est qui forte transiens ira abripitur propter rixam alienam (eique temere se immiscent). Since he is cautioned against unwarranted interference, the expression \u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d3\u05d9\u05df might have been used (Pro 14:10), according to which the Syr. translates; but \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 substantiates the originality of \u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\u05bc\u05e8 (vid., Pro 14:16; Pro 20:2). On the other hand, the placing together, without any connection of the two participles, is perplexing; why not \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05ea\u05e2\u05d1\u05bc\u05e8? For it is certainly not meant, that falling into a passion he passes by; but that passing by, he falls into a passion; for he stands to this object. The Targumist, feeling this also, renders \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 in the sense of being angry, but contrary to the usus loq. Wherefore the conjecture of Euchel and Abramsohn commends itself, that \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 belongs to \u05db\u05dc\u05d1 - the figure thereby becomes more distinct. To seize one's own dog by the ear is not dangerous, but it is not advisable to do this with a strange dog. Therefore \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 belongs as a necessary attribute to the dog. The dog accidentally passing by corresponds to the strife to which one stands in no relation (\u05e8\u05d9\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0\u05be\u05d5\u05dc, vid., regarding the Makkeph, Baer's Genesis, p. 85, not. 9). Whoever is excited to passion about a strife that does not belong to him, is like one who lays hold by the ears (the lxx arbitrarily: by the tail) of a dog that is passing by - to the one or to the other it happens right when he brings evil upon himself thereby.\nThese verses form a tetrastich:\n18 As a man who casteth brands,\nAnd arrows, and death;\n19 So is the man who deceiveth his neighbour,\nAnd saith: I only make sport.\nThe old translations of \u05de\u05ea\u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 are very diverse. Aquila has rendered it by \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; Symmachus: \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9; the Syr.: the vainglorious; the Targ.: \u05de\u05ea\u05bc\u05d7\u05ea (from \u05e0\u05d7\u05ea), a successor (spiritually); Jerome: noxius (injurious; for which Luther: secret). There is thus no traditional translation. Kimchi explains the word by \u05d4\u05e9\u05c1\u05ea\u05d2\u05e2 (Venet. \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce\u03c2); Aben Ezra by \u05d4\u05e9\u05c1\u05ea\u05d8\u05d4 (from \u05e9\u05c2\u05d8\u05d4), to behave thoughtlessly, foolishly; but both erroneously, confounding with it \u05d5\u05ea\u05bc\u05dc\u05d4\u05bc, Gen 47:13, which is formed from \u05dc\u05d4\u05d4 and not from \u05dc\u05d4\u05d4\u05bc, and is related to \u05dc\u05d0\u05d4, according to which \u05de\u05ea\u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 would designate him who exerts himself (Rashi, \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05d2\u05e2), or who is worn out (Saadia: who does not know what to do, and in weariness passes his time). The root \u05dc\u05d4\u05d4\u05bc (\u05dc\u05d4\u05bc), whence the reflex form \u05d4\u05ea\u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4\u05bc, like \u05d4\u05ea\u05de\u05d4\u05de\u05d4\u05bc, from \u05de\u05d4\u05d4\u05bc, \u05de\u05d4\u05bc) leads to another primary idea. The root \u05dc\u05d4\u05bc presents in (Arab.) \u00e2liha (vid., Fleischer in the Comm. zur Genesis, p. 57), waliha, and taliha, formed from the 8th form of this verb (aittalah), the fundamental meaning of internal and external unrest; these verbs are used of the effect of fear (shrinking back from fear), and, generally, the want of self-command; the Syr. otlahlah, to be terrified, obstupescere, confirms this primary conception, connecting itself with the R. \u05dc\u05d4\u05bc. Accordingly, he who shoots every possible death-bringing arrow, is thought of as one who is beside himself, one who is of confused mind, in which sense the passive forms of (Arab.) \u00e2lah and talah are actually used. Schultens' reference to (Arab.) l\u00e2h micare, according to which \u05db\u05de\u05ea\u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 must mean sicut ludicram micationem exercens (Bttcher: one who exerts himself; Malbim: one who scoffs, from \u05d4\u05ea\u05dc), is to be rejected, because \u05de\u05ea\u05dc\u05d4\u05dc\u05d4 must be the direct opposite of \u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05d7\u05e7; and Ewald's comparison of (Arab.) w\u00e2h and akhkh, to be entangled, distorted, l\u00e2h, to be veiled, confounds together heterogeneous words. Regarding \u05d6\u05e7\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd (from \u05d6\u05e0\u05e7), burning arrows, vid., under Isa 50:11. Death stands third, not as comprehensive (that which is deadly of every kind), but as a climax (yea, even death itself). The \u05db\u05bc\u05df of the principal sentence, correlate to \u05db\u05bc of the contiguous clause, has the Makkeph in our editions; but the laws of the metrical Makkeph require \u05db\u05bc\u05df \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 (with Munach), as it occurs e.g., in Cod. 1294. A man who gives vent to his malice against his neighbour, and then says: seest thou not that... (\u05d4\u05dc\u05d0, like Arab. \u00e2l\u00e2), i.e., I am only jesting, I have only a joke with thee: he exhibits himself as being mad, who in blind rage scatters about him deadly arrows.\nThere now follow proverbs regarding the nirg\u00e2n, the slanderer (vid., regarding the formation and import of this word at Pro 26:28):\n20 Where the wood faileth, the fire goeth out;\nAnd where no tale-bearer, discord cometh to silence.\nWood, as material for building or for burning, is called, with the plur. of its product, \u05e2\u05e6\u05d9\u05dd. Since \u05d0\u05e4\u05e1 is the absolute end of a thing, and thus expresses its no longer existing, so it was more appropriate to wood (Fleischer: consumtis lignis) than to the tale-bearer, of whom the proverb says the same thing as Pro 22:10 says of the mocker.\n21 Black coal to burning coal, and wood to fire;\nAnd a contentious man to stir up strife.\nThe Venet. translates \u05e4\u05bc\u05d7\u05dd by \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd, and \u05d2\u05bc\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea by \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03be; the former (from \u05e4\u05bc\u05d7\u05dd, Arab. fa\u1e25uma, to be deep black) is coal in itself; the latter (from \u05d2\u05bc\u05d7\u05dc, jaham, to set on fire, and intrans. to burn), coal in a glowing state (e.g., Pro 25:22; Eze 1:13). Black coal is suited to glowing coal, to nourish it; and wood to the fire, to sustain it; and a contentious man is suited for and serves this purpose, to kindle up strife. \u05d7\u05e8\u05e8 signifies to be hot, and the Pilpel \u05d7\u05e8\u05d7\u05e8, to heat, i.e., to make hot or hotter. The three - coal, wood, and the contentious man - are alike, in that they are a means to an end.\n22 The words of the tale-bearer are like dainty morsels;\nAnd they glide down into the innermost parts.\nA repetition of Pro 18:8.\nThe proverbs next following treat of a cognate theme, hypocrisy (the art of dissembling), which, under a shining [gleissen] exterior,\n(Note: Vid., regarding gleisen (to give a deceitful appearance) and gleissen (to throw a dazzling appearance), Schmitthenner-Weigand's Deutsches Wrterbuch.)\nconceals hatred and destruction:\n23 Dross of silver spread over an earthen vessel -\nLips glowing with love and a base heart.\nDross of silver is the so-called gltte (French, litharge), a combination of lead and oxygen, which, in the old process of producing silver, was separated (Luther: silberschaum, i.e., the silver litharge; Lat. spuma argenti, having the appearance of foam). It is still used to glaze over potter's ware, which here (Greek, \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) is briefly called \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c2 for \u05db\u05bc\u05dc\u05d9 \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c2; for the vessel is better in appearance than the mere potsherd. The glossing of the earthenware is called \u05e6\u05e4\u05bc\u05d4 \u05e2\u05dc\u05be\u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c2, which is applicable to any kind of covering (\u05e6\u05e4\u05bc\u05d4, R. \u05e6\u05e3, to spread or lay out broad) of a less costly material with that which is more precious. 23a contains the figure, and 23b its subscription: \u05e9\u05c2\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05bc\u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05dc\u05d1 \u05e8\u05e2. Thus, with the taking away of the Makkeph after Codd., to be punctuated: burning lips, and therewith a base heart; burning, that is, with the fire of love (Meri, \u05d0\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d4\u05d7\u05e9\u05c1\u05e7), while yet the assurances of friendship, sealed by ardent kisses, serve only to mask a far different heart. The lxx translate \u05d3\u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd [burning] by \u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, and thus have read \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd [smooth], which Hitzig without reason prefers; burning lips (Jerome, incorrectly: tumentia; Luther, after Deu 32:33, \u05d7\u05de\u05ea: Gifftiger mund = a poisonous mouth) are just flattering, and at the same time hypocritical\n(Note: Schultens explains the labia flagrantia by volubiliter prompta et diserta. But one sees from the Arab. dhalu\u1e33a, to be loose, lightly and easily moved (vid., in Fleischer's Beitrgen zur arab. Sprachkunde the explanation of the designation of the liquid expressed with the point of the tongue by dhal\u1e33iytt, at Pro 1:26-27; cf. de Sacy's Grammar), and dal\u1e33, to draw out (of the sword from its scabbard), to rinse (of water), that the meaning of the Heb. \u05d3\u05dc\u05e7, to burn, from R. \u05d3\u05dc, refers to the idea of the flickering, tongue-like movement of the flame.)\nlips. Regarding \u05e9\u05c2\u05e4\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd as masc., vid., p. 85; \u05dc\u05d1 \u05e8\u05e2 means, at Pro 25:20, animus maestus; here, inimicus. The figure is excellent: one may regard a vessel with the silver gloss as silver, and it is still earthen; and that also which gives forth the silver glance is not silver, but only the refuse of silver. Both are suitable to the comparison: the lips only glitter, the heart is false (Heidenheim).\nPro 26:24 and Pro 26:25 form a tetrastich.\n24 With his lips the hater dissembleth,\nAnd in his heart he museth deceit.\n25 If he maketh his voice agreeable, believe him not,\nFor seven abominations are in his heart.\nAll the old translators (also the Venet. and Luther) give to \u05d9\u05d2\u05bc\u05db\u05e8 the meaning, to become known; but the Niph. as well as the Hithpa. (vid., at Pro 20:11; Gen 47:17) unites with this meaning also the meaning to make oneself known: to make oneself unknown, unrecognisable = (Arab.) tanakkr, e.g., by means of clothing, or by a changed expression of countenance.\n(Note: Vid., de Goeje's Fragmenta Hist. Arab. ii. (1871), p. 94. The verb \u05e0\u05db\u05e8, primarily to fix one's attention, sharply to contemplate anything, whence is derived the meanings of knowing and of not knowing, disowning. The account of the origin of these contrasted meanings, in Gesenius-Dietrich's Lexicon, is essentially correct; but the Arab. nakar there referred to means, not sharpness of mind, from nakar = \u05d4\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8, but from the negative signification prevailing in the Arab. alone, a property by which one makes himself worthy of being disowned: craftiness, cunning, and then also in bonam partem: sagacity.)\nThe contrast demands here this latter signification: labiis suis alium se simulat osor, intus in pectore autem reconditum habet dolum (Fleischer). This rendering of \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05de\u05d4 is more correct than Hitzig's (\"in his breast) he prepares treachery;\" for \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05e8\u05de\u05d4 is to be rendered after \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea \u05e2\u05e6\u05d5\u05ea, Psa 13:3 (vid., Hupfeld's and also our comm. on this passage), not after Jer 9:7; for one says \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea \u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd, to place snares, \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1, to lay an ambush, and the like, but not to place or to lay deceit. If such a dissembler makes his voice agreeable (Piel of \u05d7\u05e0\u05df only here, for the form Psa 9:14 is, as it is punctuated, Kal), trust not thyself to him (\u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05df, with \u05d1: to put firm trust in anything, vid., Genesis, p. 312)\n(Note: The fundamental idea of firmness in \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05df is always in the subject, not the object. The Arabic interpreters remark that \u00e2man with \u05d1 expresses recognition, and with \u05dc submission (vid., Lane's Lexicon under \u00e2man); but in Hebr. \u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05d9\u05df with \u05d1 fiducia fidei, with \u05dc assensus fidei; the relation is thus not altogether the same.)\nfor seven abominations, i.e., a whole host of abominable thoughts and designs, are in his heart; he is, if one may express it, after Mat 12:45, possessed inwardly of seven devils. The lxx makes a history of 24a: an enemy who, under complaints, makes all possible allowances, but in his heart \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. The history is only too true, but it has no place in the text.\n26 Hatred may conceal itself behind deceit:\nIts wickedness shall be exposed in the assembly.\nProverbs which begin with the fut. are rarely to be found, it is true; yet, as we have seen, Pro 12:26, they are sometimes to be met with in the collection. This is one of the few that are of such a character; for that the lxx and others translate \u1f41 \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, which gives for \u05e8\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 a more appropriate reference, does not require us to agree with Hitzig in reading \u05d4\u05db\u05bc\u05e1\u05d4 (Pro 12:16, Pro 12:23) - the two clauses rendered fut. stand in the same syntactical relation, as e.g., Job 20:24. Still less can the rendering of \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u05d5\u05df by \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, by the lxx, induce us to read with Hitzig \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05d5\u05df, especially since it is doubtful whether the Heb. words which floated before those translators (the lxx) have been fallen upon. \u05de\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d0\u05d5\u05df (beginning and ending with a formative syllable) is certainly a word of rare formation, to be compared only to \u05de\u05e1\u05d3\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05df, Jdg 3:23; but since the nearest-lying formation \u05de\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d0 signifies usury (from \u05e0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d0, to credit) (according to which Symmachus, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, to desire gain), it is obvious that the language preferred this double formation for the meaning deceiving, illusion, or, exactly: fraud. It may also be possible to refer it, like \u05de\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea (vid., under Psa 23:1-6 :18), to \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05d0 = \u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u05d4, to be confused, waste, as this is done by Parchon, Kimchi (Venet. \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u1fb3), Ralbag, and others; \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u05d5\u05df, in this sense of deepest concealment, certainly says not a little as the contrast of \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc [an assembly], but \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05dd [a desert] stood ready for the poet to be used in this sense; he might also have expressed himself as Job 30:3; Job 38:27. The selection of this rare word is better explained if it denotes the superlative of deceit - a course of conduct maliciously directed toward the deception of a neighbour. That is also the impression which the word has made on Jerome (fraudulenter), the Targ. (\u05d1\u05bc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05e1\u05ea\u05d0, in grinding), Luther (to do injury), and according to which it has already been explained, e.g., by C. B. Michaelis and Oetinger (\"with dissembled, deceitful nature\"). The punctuation of \u05ea\u05db\u05e1\u05d4, Codd. and editions present in three different forms. Buxtorf in his Concordance (also Frst), and the Basel Biblia Rabbinica, have the form \u05ea\u05bc\u05db\u05e1\u05bc\u05d4; but this is a mistake. Either \u05ea\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05e1\u05d4 (Niph.) \u05ea\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05e1\u05bc\u05d4 (Hithpa., with the same assimilation of the preformative \u05ea as in \u05d4\u05db\u05bc\u05d1\u05bc\u05e1, Lev 13:55; \u05e0\u05db\u05bc\u05e4\u05bc\u05e8, Deu 21:8) is to be read; Kimchi, in his Wrterbuch, gives \u05ea\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05e1\u05bc\u05d4, which is certainly better supported. A surer contrast of \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u05d5\u05df and \u05d1\u05e7\u05d4\u05dc remains in our interpretation; only we translate not as Ewald: \"hatred seeks to conceal itself by hypocrisy,\" but: in deceitful work. Also we refer \u05e8\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5, not to \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d0\u05d5\u05df, but to \u05e9\u05c2\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4, for hatred is thought of in connection with its personal representative. We see from 26b that hatred is meant which not only broods over evil, but also carries it into execution. Such hatred may conceal itself in cunningly-contrived deception, yet the wickedness of the hater in the end comes out from behind the mask with the light of publicity.\n27 He who diggeth a pit falleth therein;\nAnd he that rolleth up a stone, upon himself it rolleth back.\nThe thought that destruction prepared for others recoils upon its contriver, has found its expression everywhere among men in divers forms of proverbial sayings; in the form which it here receives, 27a has its oldest original in Psa 7:16, whence it is repeated here and in Ecc 10:8, and Sir. 27:26. Regarding \u05db\u05bc\u05e8\u05d4, vid., at Pro 16:27. \u05d1\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc here has the sense of in eam ipsam; expressed in French, the proverb is: celui qui creuse la fosse, y tombera; in Italian: chi cava la fossa, cader in essa. The second line of this proverb accords with Psa 7:17 (vid., Hupfeld and Riehm on this passage). It is natural to think of the rolling as a rolling upwards; cf. Sir. 27:25, \u1f41 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9, i.e., throws it on his own head. \u05d5\u05d2\u05dc\u05dc \u05d0\u05d1\u05df is to be syntactically judged of like Pro 18:13.\n28 The lying tongue hateth those whom it bruiseth;\nAnd a flattering mouth causeth ruin.\nThe lxx, Jerome, the Targ., and Syr. render \u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05d5 in the sense of non amat veritatem; they appear by \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05d5 to have thought of the Aram. \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05d0, that which is pure; and thus they gain nothing else but an undeniable plain thought. Many Jewish interpreters gloss: \u05de\u05d5\u05db\u05d9\u05d7\u05d9\u05d5, also after the Aram.: \u05d3\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5 = \u05de\u05d3\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5; but the Aram. \u05d3\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05d9 does not mean pure in the sense of being right, therefore Elia Wilna understands him who desires to justify himself, and this violent derivation from the Aram. thus does not lead to the end. Luther, translating: \"a false tongue hates those who punish it,\" explains, as also Gesenius, conterentes = castigantes ipsam; but \u05d3\u05bc\u05da signifies, according to the usage of the language before us, \"bruised\" (vid., Psa 9:10), not: bruising; and the thought that the liar hates him who listens to him, leads ad absurdum; but that he does not love him who bruises (punishes) him, is self-evident. Kimchi sees in \u05d3\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5 another form of \u05d3\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05d0; and Meri, Jona Gerundi in his ethical work (\u05e9\u05c1\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 = The gates of Repentance), and others, accordingly render \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05d5 in the sense of \u05e2\u05e0\u05d5 (\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5): the lying tongue hates - as Lwenstein translates - the humble [pious]; also that for \u05d3\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5, by the omission of \u05d5, \u05d3\u05db\u05bc\u05d9 = \u05d6\u05db\u05bc\u05d9 may be read, is supposable; but this does not harmonize with the second half of the proverb, according to which \u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05df \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 must be the subject, and \u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05d5 must express some kind of evil which proceeds from such a tongue. Ewald: \"the lying tongue hates its master (\u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5),\" but that is not in accordance with the Heb. style; the word in that case should have been \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05d5. Hitzig countenances this \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5, with the remark that the tongue is here personified; but personified, the tongue certainly means him who has it (Psa 120:3). Bttcher's conjecture \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d3\u05db\u05d9\u05d5, \"confounds their talk,\" is certainly a curiosity. Spoken of the sea, those words would mean, \"it changes its surge.\" But is it then at all necessary to uncover first the meaning of 28a? Rashi, Arama, and others refer \u05d3\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05d5 to \u05d3\u05bc\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd = \u05e0\u05d3\u05db\u05bc\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd (\u05de\u05d3\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd). Thus also perhaps the Venet., which translates \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 (not: \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2. C. B. Michaelis: Lingua falsitatis odio habet contritos suos, h. e. eos quos falsitate ac mendacio laedit contritosque facit. Hitzig objects that it is more correct to say: conterit perosos sibi. And certainly this lay nearer, on which account Fleischer remarks: in 28a there is to be supposed a poetic transposition of the ideas (Hypallage): homo qui lingua ad calumnias abutitur conterit eos quos odit. The poet makes \u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05e0\u05d0 the main conception, because it does not come to him so readily to say that the lying tongue bruises those against whom it is directed, as that it is hatred, which is active in this. To say this was by no means superfluous. There are men who find pleasure in repeating and magnifying scandalously that which is depreciatory and disadvantageous to their neighbour unsubstantiated, without being at all conscious of any particular ill-will or personal enmity against him; but this proverb says that such untruthful tongue-thrashing proceeds always from a transgression of the commandment, \"Thou shalt not hate thy brother,\" Lev 19:17, and not merely from the want of love, but from a state of mind which is the direct opposite of love (vid., Pro 10:18). Ewald finds it incongruous that 28a speaks of that which others have to suffer from the lying tongue, whereas the whole connection of this proverb requires that the tongue should here be regarded as bringing ruin upon its owner himself. But of the destruction which the wicked tongue prepares for others many proverbs also speak, e.g., Pro 12:13, cf. Pro 17:4, \u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea; and 28b does not mention that the smooth tongue (written \u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05d4\u05be\u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 with Makkeph) brings injury upon itself (an idea which must be otherwise expressed; cf. Pro 14:32), but that it brings injury and ruin on those who have pleasure in its flatteries (\u05d7\u05dc\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea, Psa 12:3; Isa 30:10), and are befooled thereby: os blandiloquum (blanditiis dolum tegens) ad casum impellit, sc. alios (Fleischer).","title":"Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch: Proverbs: Proverbs Chapter 26","type":"page"}