{"collection":"Bible & Christianity","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/bib/cmt/kad/pro031.htm","path":"bib/cmt/kad/pro031.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/kad/pro031.htm","text":"Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsh, [1857-78]\nSuperscription:\n1 Words of Lemuel the king,\nThe utterance wherewith his mother warned him.\nSuch would be the superscription if the interpunction of the text as it lies before us were correct. But it is not possibly right. For, notwithstanding the assurance of Ewald, 277b, \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05da, nevertheless, as it would be here used, remains an impossibility. Certainly under circumstances an indeterminate apposition can follow a proper name. That on coins we read \u05de\u05ea\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4 \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc or \u05e0\u05e8\u05d5\u05df \u05e7\u05d9\u05e1\u05e8 is nothing strange; in this case we also use the words \"Nero, emperor,\" and that we altogether omit the article shows that the case is singular: the apposition wavers between the force of a generic and of a proper name. A similar case is the naming of the proper name with the general specification of the class to which this or that one bearing the name belongs in lists of persons, as e.g., Kg1 4:2-6, or in such expressions as, e.g., \"Damascus, a town,\" or \"Tel Hum, a castle,\" and the like; here we have the indefinite article, because the apposition is a simple declaration of the class.\n(Note: Thus it is also with the examples of indeterminate gentilicia, which Riehm makes valid for \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05da (for he translates \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc symbolically, which, however, syntactically makes no difference): \"As analogous to 'Lemuel, a king,' one may adduce 'Jeroboam, son of Nebat, an Ephrathite,' Kg1 11:26, instead of the usual form 'the Ephrathite;'\" and \u05d1\u05df\u05be\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9, Psa 7:1, for \u05d1\u05df \u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9; on the contrary, \u05db\u05d4\u05df, Kg1 4:5, does not belong to the subject, but is the pred.)\nBut would the expression, \"The poem of Oscar, a king,\" be proper as the title of a book? Proportionally more so than \"Oscar, king;\" but also that form of indeterminate apposition is contrary to the usus loq., especially with a king with whom the apposition is not a generic name, but a name of honour. We assume that \"Lemuel\" is a symbolical name, like \"Jareb\" in \"King Jareb,\" Hos 5:13; Hos 10:6; so we would expect the phrase to be \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc(\u05d4) rather than \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05da. The phrase \"Lemuel, king,\" here in the title of this section of the book, sounds like a double name, after the manner of \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 \u05de\u05dc\u05da in the book of Jeremiah. In the Greek version also the phrase \u039b\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 (Venet.) is not used as syntactically correct without having joined to the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 a dependent genitive such as \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0391\u03c1\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, while none of the old translators, except Jerome, take the words \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05dc\u05da together in the sense of Lamuelis regis. Thus \u05de\u05dc\u05da \u05de\u05e9\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0 are to be taken together, with Hitzig, Bertheau, Zckler, Mhlau, and Dchsel, against Ewald and Kamphausen; \u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05d0, whether it be a name of a tribe or a country, or of both at the same time, is the region ruled over by Lemuel, and since this proper name throws back the determination which it has in itself on \u05de\u05dc\u05da, the phrase is to be translated: \"Words of Lemuel the king of Massa\" (vid., under Pro 30:1). If Aquila renders this proper name by \u039b\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, Symmachus by \u1f38\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03ae\u03bb, Theodotion by \u03a1\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03ae\u03bb, the same arbitrariness prevails with reference to the initial and terminal sound of the word, as in the case of the words \u1f08\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc, \u0392\u03b5\u03b5\u03bb\u03b6\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb, \u0392\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c1. The name \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05dc sounds like the name of Simeon's first-born, \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05dc, Gen 46:10, written in Num 26:12 and Ch1 4:24 as \u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05dc; \u05d9\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc also appears, Ch1 4:35, as a Simeonite name, which Hitzig adduces in favour of his view that \u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05d0 was a North Arab. Simeonite colony. The interchange of the names \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc and \u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc is intelligible if it is supposed that \u05d9\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc (from \u05d9\u05de\u05d4 = \u05d9\u05de\u05d0) designates the sworn (sworn to) of God, and \u05e0\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc (from \u05e0\u05dd Mishnic = \u05e0\u05d0\u05dd)\n(Note: In the Midrash Koheleth to Pro 1:1, the name Lemuel (as a name of Solomon) is explained: he who has spoken to God in his heart.)\nthe expressed (addressed) of God; here the reference of \u05d9\u05de\u05d5 and \u05e0\u05de\u05d5 to verbal stems is at least possible, but a verb \u05dc\u05de\u05bc\u05d4 is found only in the Arab., and with significations inus. But there are two other derivations of the name: (1) The verb (Arab.) wa\u00e2la signifies to hasten (with the infin. of the onomatop. verbs waniyal, like ra\u1e25yal, walking, because motion, especially that which is tumultuous, proceeds with a noise), whence mawnil, the place to which one flees, retreat. Hence \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05dc or \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc, which is in this case to be assumed as the ground-form, might be formed from \u05d0\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc, God is a refuge, with the rejection of the \u05d0. This is the opinion of Fleischer, which Mhlau adopts and has established, p. 38-41; for he shows that the initial \u05d0 is not only often rejected where it is without the support of a full vocal, e.g., \u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc = \u05d0\u05e0\u05d7\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc, lalah = ilalah (Deus), but that this aphaeresis not seldom also occurs where the initial has a full vocal, e.g., \u05dc\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8 = \u05d0\u05dc\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8, la\u1e25maru = \u00e2llahmaru (ruber), la\u1e25s\u00e2 = \u00e2l-la\u1e25s\u00e2 (the name of a town); cf. also Blau in Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xxv. 580. But this view is thus acceptable and tenable; a derivation which spares us by a like certainty the supposition of such an abbreviation established only by the late Palestinian \u05dc\u05e2\u05d6\u05e8, \u039b\u03ac\u03b6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, might well desire the preference. (2) Fleischer himself suggests another derivation: \"The signification of the name is Deo consecratus, \u05dc\u05de\u05d5, poetic for \u05dc, as also in Pro 31:4 it is to be vocalized \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc after the Masora.\" The form \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc is certainly not less favourable to that first derivation than to this second; the is in both cases an obscuration of the original. But that \"Lemuel\" may be explained in this second way is shown by \"Lael,\" Num 3:24 (Olshausen, 277d).\n(Note: Simonis has also compared Aethiopic proper names, such as Zakrestos, Zaiasus. Zamikal, Zamariam.)\nIt is a beautiful sign for King Lemuel, and a verification of his name, that it is he himself by whom we receive the admonition with which his mother in her care counselled him when he attained to independent government. \u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8 connects itself with \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9, after we have connected \u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05d0 with \u05de\u05dc\u05da; it is accus. of the manner to \u05d9\u05e1\u05bc\u05e8\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc = \u05d9\u05e1\u05bc\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc; cf. \u05d4\u05d8\u05bc\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc, Pro 7:21, with \u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05dc\u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc, Pro 31:12 : wherewith (with which words) she earnestly and impressively admonished him. The Syr. translates: words of Muel, as if \u05dc were that of the author. \"Others as inconsistently: words to Lemuel - they are words which is himself ought to carry in his mouth as received from his mother\" (Fleischer).\nThe name \"Massa,\" is it here means effatum, would be proportionally more appropriate for these \"Words\" of Lemuel than for the \"Words\" of Agur, for the maternal counsels form an inwardly connected compact whole. They begin with a question which maternal love puts to itself with regard to the beloved son whom she would advise:\n2 What, my son? and what the son of my womb?\nAnd what, O son of my vows?!\nThe thrice repeated \u05de\u05d4 is completed by \u05ea\u05bc\u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d4 (cf. Khler under Mal 2:15), and that so that the question is put for the purpose of exciting attention: Consider well, my son, what thou wilt do as ruler, and listen attentively to my counsel (Fleischer). But the passionate repetition of \u05de\u05d4 would be only affectation if thus interpreted; the underlying thought must be of a subjective nature: what shall I say, \u05d0\u05d3\u05d1\u05bc\u05e8 (vid., under Isa 38:15), what advise thee to do? The question, which is at the same time a call, is like a deep sigh from the heart of the mother concerned for the welfare of her son, who would say to him what is beneficial, and say it in words which strike and remain fixed. He is indeed her dear son, the son whom she carries in her heart, the son for whom with vows of thanksgiving she prayed to God; and as he was given her by God, so to His care she commits him. The name \"Lemuel\" is, as we interpret it, like the anagram of the fulfilment of the vows of his mother. \u05d1\u05bc\u05e8\u05d9 bears the Aramaic shade in the Arameo-Arab. colouring of these proverbs from Massa; \u05d1\u05bc\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4\u05bc is common in the Aram., and particularly in the Talmudic, but it can scarcely be adduced in support of \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9. \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05d4 belongs to the 24, \u05de\u05d4, with \u05d7 or \u05e2 not following; vid., the Masora to Exo 32:1, and its correction by Norzi at Deu 29:23. We do not write \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05d4\u05be\u05d1\u05bc\u05e8; \u05de\u05d4, with Makkeph and with Metheg, exclude one another.\nThe first admonition is a warning against effeminating sensuality:\nGive not thy strength to women,\nNor thy ways to them that destroy kings.\nThe punctuation \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea sees in this form a syncopated inf. Hiph. = \u05dc\u05d4\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea (vid., at Pro 24:17), according to which we are to translate: viasque tuas ad perdendos reges (ne dirige), by which, as Fleischer formulates the twofold possibility, it may either be said: direct not thy effort to this result, to destroy neighbouring kings - viz. by wars of invasion (properly, to wipe them away from the table of existence, as the Arabs say) - or: do not that by which kings are overthrown; i.e., with special reference to Lemuel, act not so that thou thyself must thereby be brought to ruin. But the warning against vengeful, rapacious, and covetous propensity to war (thus Jerome, so that Venet. after Kimchi: \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2, C. B. Michaelis, and earlier, Gesenius) does not stand well as parallel with the warning against giving his bodily and mental strength to women, i.e., expending it on them. But another explanation: direct not thy ways to the destruction of kings, i.e., toward that which destroys kings (Elster); or, as Luther translates: go not in the way wherein kings destroy themselves - puts into the words a sense which the author cannot have had in view; for the individualizing expression would then be generalized in the most ambiguous way. Thus \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05df will be a name for women, parallel to \u05dc\u05e0\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd. So far the translation of the Targum: \u05dc\u05d1\u05e0\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05df, filiabus (\u05dc\u05d0\u05de\u05d4\u05ea?) regum, lies under a right supposition. But the designation is not thus general. Schultens explains catapultis regum after Eze 26:9; but, inasmuch as he takes this as a figure of those who lay siege to the hearts of men, he translates: expugnatricibus regum, for he regards \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea as the plur. of \u05de\u05d7\u05d4, a particip. noun, which he translates by deletor. The connecting form of the fem. plur. of this \u05de\u05d7\u05d4 might certainly be \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea (cf. \u05de\u05d6\u05d9, from \u05de\u05d6\u05d4), but \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05df ought to be changed into '\u05d5\u05d2\u05d5 '\u05dc\u05dd; for one will not appeal to anomalies, such as '\u05dc\u05dd, Pro 16:4; '\u05db\u05bc\u05d2, Isa 24:2; '\u05dc\u05dd, Lam 1:19; or '\u05d5\u05d2\u05d5 '\u05d4\u05ea, Kg1 14:24, to save the Pathach of \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea, which, as we saw, proceeds from an altogether different understanding of the word. But if '\u05dc\u05dd is to be changed into '\u05dc\u05dd, then one must go further, since for \u05de\u05d7\u05d4 not an active but a conditional meaning is to be assumed, and we must write \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea, in favour of which Fleischer as well as Gesenius decides: et ne committe consilia factaque tua iis quae reges perdunt, regum pestibus. Ewald also favours the change \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea, for he renders \u05de\u05d7\u05d4 as a denom. of \u05de\u05d7, marrow: those who enfeeble kings, in which Kamphausen follows him. Mhlau goes further; he gives the privative signification, to enfeeble, to the Piel \u05de\u05d7\u05d4 = makhakha (cf. Herzog's Real-Wrterb. xiv. 712), which is much more probable, and proposes \u05dc\u05de\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea: iis quae vires enervant regum. But we can appropriately, with Nldeke, adhere to \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea, deletricibus (perditricibus), for by this change the parallelism is satisfied; and that \u05de\u05d7\u05d4 may be used, with immediate reference to men, of entire and total destruction, is sufficiently established by such passages as Gen 6:7; Jdg 21:17, if any proof is at all needed for it. Regarding the lxx and those misled by it, who, by \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05df and \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05dd, 4a, think on the Aram. \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05df, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03af, vid., Mhlau, p. 53.\n(Note: Also Hitzig's Blinzlerinnen [women who ogle or leer = seductive courtesans] and Bttcher's Streichlerinnen [caressers, viz., of kings] are there rejected, as they deserve to be.)\nBut the Syr. has an idea worthy of the discourse, who translates epulis regum without our needing, with Mhlau, to charge him with dreaming of \u05dc\u05d7\u05dd in \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea. Perhaps that is true; but perhaps by \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea he thought of \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea (from \u05de\u05d4, the particip. adj. of \u05de\u05d7\u05d7): do not direct thy ways to rich food (morsels), such as kings love and can have. By this reading, 3b would mediate the transition to Pro 31:4; and that the mother refers to the immorality, the unseemliness, and the dangers of a large harem, only in one brief word (3a), cannot seem strange, much rather it may be regarded as a sign of delicacy. But so much the more badly does \u05d5\u05bc\u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9\u05da accord with \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea. Certainly one goes to a banquet, for one finds leisure for it; but of one who himself is a king, it is not said that he should not direct his ways to a king's dainties. But if \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea refers to the whole conduct of the king, the warning is, that he should not regulate his conduct in dependence on the love and the government of women. But whoever will place himself amid the revelry of lust, is wont to intoxicate himself with ardent spirits; and he who is thus intoxicated, is in danger of giving reins to the beast within him.\nHence there now follows a warning against drunkenness, not unmediated by the reading \u05dc\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea:\n4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel,\nNot for kings to drink wine,\nNot for rulers to ask for intoxicating drink;\n5 Lest he drink, and forget what is prescribed,\nAnd pervert the right of all the children of want.\nThe usual translation of 4a is: non decet reges... (as e.g., also Mhlau); but in this \u05d0\u05dc is not rightly rendered, which indeed is at times only an \u03bf\u1f50, spoken with close interest, but yet first of all, especially in such paraenetic connection as here, it is a dissuasive \u03bc\u03ae. But now \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05c1\u05ea\u05d5\u05ea or \u05dc\u05d0 \u05dc\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea, after Ch2 26:18; Mic 3:1, signifies: it is not the part of kings, it does not become them to drink, which may also be turned into a dissuasive form: let it not be the part of kings to drink, let them not have any business therewith, as if it belonged to their calling; according to which Fleischer renders: Absit a regibus, Lemuel, absit a regibus potare vinum. The clearer expression \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d0\u05dc, instead of \u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0\u05dc, is, after Bttcher, occasioned by this, that the name is here in the vocative; perhaps rather by this, that the meaning of the name: consecrated to God, belonging to God, must be placed in contrast to the descending to low, sensual lust. Both times we write \u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05bc\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05dd with the orthophonic Dagesh\n(Note: Vid., Luth. Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 413. It is the rule, according to which, with Ben-Asher, it is to be written \u05d1\u05bc\u05df\u05be\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05df.)\nin the \u05dc following \u05dc, and without the recompensative Dagesh, the want of which is in a certain measure covered by the Metheg (vid., Norzi). Regarding the inf. constr. \u05e9\u05c1\u05ea\u05d5 (cf. \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4, Pro 16:16), vid., Gesen. 75, Anm. 2; and regarding the sequence of accents here necessary, \u05d0\u05dc \u05dc\u05bc\u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05c1\u05ea\u05d5\u05be\u05d9\u05d9\u05df (not Mercha, Dechi, Athnach, for Dechi would be here contrary to rule), vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 22 6, p. 43 7.\nIn 4b nothing is to be gained from the Cheth\u0131\u0302b \u05d0\u05d5. There is not a substantive \u05d0\u05d5, desire, the constr. of which would here have to be read, not \u05d0\u05d5 (Umbreit, Gesenius), but \u05d0\u05d5, after the form \u05e7\u05d5 (Maurer); and why did the author not write \u05ea\u05bc\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05e8? But the particle \u05d0\u05d5 does not here also fall in with the connection; for if \u05d0\u05d5 \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05e8 connect itself with \u05d9\u05d9\u05df (Hitzig, Ewald, and others), then it would drag disagreeably, and we would have here a spiritless classification of things unadvisable for kings. Bttcher therefore sees in this \u05d0\u05d5 the remains of the obliterated \u05e1\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0; a corrector must then have transformed the \u05d5\u05d0 which remained into \u05d0\u05d5. But before one ventures on such conjectures, the Ker\u0131\u0302 \u05d0\u05d9 [where?] must be tried. Is it the abbreviated \u05d0\u05d9\u05df (Herzog's Real-Wrterbuch, xiv. 712)? Certainly not, because \u05d5\u05bc\u05dc\u05e8\u05d5\u05d6\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05e8 would mean: and the princes, or rulers (vid., regarding \u05e8\u05d5\u05d6\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd at Pro 8:15), have no mead, which is inconsistent. But \u05d0\u05d9\u05df does not abbreviate itself into \u05d0\u05d9, but into \u05d0\u05d9. Not \u05d0\u05d9, but \u05d0\u05d9, is in Heb., as well as in Ethiop., the word with which negative adjectives such as \u05d0\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e7\u05d9, not innocent, Job 22:30, and in later Heb. also, negative sentences, such as \u05d0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e4\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8: it is not possible, are formed.\n(Note: The author of the Comm. \u05e2\u05d8\u05e8\u05ea \u05d6\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd to the \u05d0\u05e8\u05d7 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd, c. 6, Geiger and others would read \u05d0\u05d9, because \u05d0\u05d9 is abbreviated from \u05d0\u05d9\u05df. But why not from \u05d0\u05d9\u05df, Sa1 21:9? The traditional expression is \u05d0\u05d9; and Elias Levita in the Tishbi, as also Baer in the Siddur Abodath Jisrael, are right in defending it against that innovation.)\nTherefore Mhlau vocalizes \u05d0\u05d9, and thinks that the author used this word for \u05d0\u05dc, so as not to repeat this word for the third time. But how is that possible? \u05d0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05e8 signifies either: not mead, or: there is not mead; and both afford, for the passage before us, no meaning. Is, then, the Ker\u0131\u0302 \u05d0\u05d9 truly so unsuitable? Indeed, to explain: how came intoxicating drink to rulers! is inadmissible, since \u05d0\u05d9 always means only ubi (e.g., Gen 4:9); not, like the Ethiop. ait\u00ea, also quomodo. But the question ubi temetum, as a question of desire, fits the connection, whether the sentence means: non decet principibus dicere (Ahron b. Josef supplies \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05d0\u05de\u05e8\u05d5) ubi temetum, or: absit a principibus quaerere ubi temetum (Fleischer), which, from our view of 4a, we prefer. There is in reality nothing to be supplied; but as 4a says that the drinking of wine ought not to characterize kings, so 4b, that \"Where is mead?\" (i.e., this eager inquiry after mead) ought not to characterize rulers.\n(Note: The translation of Jerome, quia nullum secretum est ubi regnat ebrietas (as if the words were \u05dc\u05d9\u05ea \u05e8\u05d6\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9 \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05e8), corresponds to the proverb: \u05e0\u05db\u05e0\u05e1 \u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05e1\u05d5\u05d3 :b, when the wine goes in the secret comes out; or, which is the same thing: if one adds \u05d9\u05d9\u05df (= 70), \u05e1\u05d5\u05d3 (= 70) comes out.)\nWhy not? Pro 31:5 says. That the prince, being a slave to drink, may not forget the \u05de\u05d7\u05e7\u05bc\u05e7, i.e., that which has been made and has become \u05d7\u05e7, thus that which is lawfully right, and may not alter the righteous cause of the miserable, who cry against their oppressors, i.e., may not handle falsely the facts of the case, and give judgment contrary to them.\n\u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d3\u05d9\u05df (Aquila, Theodotion, Quinta, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd) is elsewhere equivalent to \u05d4\u05d8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05bc\u05d8 (\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea). \u05d1\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 are those who are, as it were, born to oppression and suffering. This mode of expression is a Semitism (Fleischer), but it here heightens the impression of the Arab. colouring. In \u05db\u05dc (Venet. \u1f61\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd) it is indicated that, not merely with reference to individual poor men, but in general to the whole class of the poorer people, suffering humanity, sympathy and a regard for truth on the part of a prince given to sensuality are easily thrown aside. Wine is better suited for those who are in a condition to be timeously helped over which, is a refreshment to them.\n6 Give strong drink to him that is perishing,\nAnd wine to those whose soul is in bitter woe;\n7 Let him drink and forget his poverty,\nAnd let him think of his misery no more.\nThe preparation of a potion for malefactors who were condemned to death was, on the ground of these words of the proverb, cared for by noble women in Jerusalem (\u05e0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd), Sanhedrin 43a; Jesus rejected it, because He wished, without becoming insensible to His sorrow, to pass away from the earthly life freely and in full consciousness, Mar 15:23. The transition from the plur. to the sing. of the subject is in Pro 31:7 less violent than in Pro 31:5, since in Pro 31:6 singular and plur. already interchange. We write \u05ea\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05be\u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05e8 with the counter-tone Metheg and Mercha. \u05d0\u05d5\u05d1\u05d3 designates, as at Job 29:13; Job 31:19, one who goes to meet destruction: it combines the present signification interiens, the fut. signif. interiturus, and the perf. perditus (hopelessly lost). \u05de\u05e8\u05d9 \u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05c1 (those whose minds are filled with sorrow) is also supported from the Book of Job; Job 3:20, cf. Pro 21:25, the language and thought and mode of writing of which notably rests on the Proverbs of Agur and Lemuel (vid., Mhlau, pp. 64-66). The Venet. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (not \u03c8\u03c5\u03be\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2) \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd. \u05e8\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1 (poverty) is not, however, found there, but only in the Book of Proverbs, in which this word-stem is more at home than elsewhere. Wine rejoices the heart of man, Psa 104:15, and at the same time raises it for the time above oppression and want, and out of anxious sorrow, wherefore it is soonest granted to them, and in sympathizing love ought to be presented to them by whom this its beneficent influence is to be wished for. The ruined man forgets his poverty, the deeply perplexed his burden of sorrow; the king, on the contrary, is in danger from this cause of forgetting what the law required at his hands, viz., in relation to those who need help, to whom especially his duty as a ruler refers.\n8 Open thy mouth for the dumb,\nFor the right of all the children of leaving;\n9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously,\nAnd do right to the poor and needy.\nHe is called dumb who suffers the infirmity of dumbness, as \u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 and \u05e4\u05bc\u05e1\u05bc\u05d7, Job 29:15, is he who suffers the infirmity of blindness or lameness, not here figuratively; at the same time, he who, on account of his youth, or on account of his ignorance, or from fear, cannot speak before the tribunal for himself (Fleischer). With \u05dc the dat. commodi (lxx after Lagarde, \u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3; Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3; the Venet. after Gebhardt, \u03b2\u03c9\u03b2\u1ff7) \u05d0\u05dc, of the object aimed at, interchanges, as e.g., Kg1 19:3; Kg2 7:7, \u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05e0\u05e4\u05e9\u05c1\u05dd, for the preservation of their life, or for the sake of their life, for it is seldom that it introduces the object so purely as here. And that an infin. such as \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3 should stand as a subst. occurs proportionally seldomer in Heb. (Isa 4:4; Psa 22:7; cf. with \u05d4 of the artic., Num 4:12; Psa 66:9) than it does in Arab. \u05d1\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3 in the same way as \u05d1\u05bc\u05e0\u05d9\u05be\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9, 5b, belongs to the Arab. complexion of this proverb, but without its being necessary to refer to the Arab. in order to fix the meaning of these two words. Hitzig explains after khalf, to come after, which further means \"to have the disadvantage,\" in which Zckler follows him; but this verb in Arab. does not mean \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd (\u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9), we must explain \"sons of him that remains behind,\" i.e., such as come not forward, but remain behind ('an) others. Mhlau goes further, and explains, with Schultens and Vaihinger: those destitute of defence, after (Arab.) khalafahu he is ranked next to him, and has become his representative - a use of the word foreign to the Heb. Still less is the rendering of Gesenius justified, \"children of inheritance\" = children left behind, after khallafa, to leave behind; and Luther, \"for the cause of all who are left behind,\" by the phrase (Arab.) khallfany'an 'awnih, he has placed me behind his help, denied it to me, for the Kal of the verb cannot mean to abandon, to leave. And that \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3 means the opposers of the truth, or of the poor, or the litigious person, the quarrelsome, is perfectly inadmissible, since the Kal \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3 cannot be equivalent to (Arab.) khilaf, the inf. of the 3rd conj., and besides, the gen. after \u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05df always denotes those in whose favour, not those against whom it is passed; the latter is also valid against Ralbag's \"sons of change,\" i.e., who say things different from what they think; and Ahron b. Josef's \"sons of changing,\" viz., the truth into lies. We must abide by the meaning of the Heb. \u05d7\u05dc\u05e3, \"to follow after, to change places, pass away.\" Accordingly, Fleischer understands by \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3, the going away, the dying, viz., of parents, and translates: eorum qui parentibus orbati sunt. In another way Rashi reaches the same sense: orphans deprived of their helper. But the connection \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d7\u05dc\u05e3 requires that we make those who are intended themselves the subject of \u05d7\u05dc\u05d5\u05e3. Rightly Ewald, Bertheau, Kamphausen, compare Isa 2:18 (and Psa 90:5., this with questionable right), and understand by the sons of disappearance those whose inherited lot, whose proper fate, is to disappear, to die, to perish (Symmachus: \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd; Jerome: omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt). It is not men in general as children of frailty that are meant (Kimchi, Meri, Immanuel, Euchel, and others), after which the Venet. \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (i.e., those who must exchange this life for another), but such as are on the brink of the abyss. \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 in \u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d8\u05be\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7 is not equivalent to \u05d1\u05bc\u05e6\u05d3\u05e7, but is the accus. of the object, as at Zac 8:16, decide justice, i.e., so that justice is the result of thy judicial act; cf. Knobel on Deu 1:16. \u05d5\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05df is imper., do right to the miserable and the poor; cf. Psa 54:3 with Jer 22:16; Jer 5:28. That is a king of a right sort, who directs his high function as a judge, so as to be an advocate [procurator] for the helpless of his people.\nA wife, such as she ought to be, is a rare treasure, a good excelling all earthly possession:\n10 \u05d0 A virtuous woman, who findeth her!\nShe stands far above pearls in worth.\nIn the connection \u05d0\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05dc and the like, the idea of bodily vigour is spiritualized to that of capacity, ability, and is generalized; in virtus the corresponding transition from manliness, and in the originally Romanic \"Bravheit,\" valour to ability, is completed; we have translated as at Pro 12:4, but also Luther, \"a virtuous woman,\" is suitable, since Tugend (virtue) has with Tchtigkeit [ability] the same root-word, and according to our linguistic [German] usage designates the property of moral goodness and propriety, while for those of former times, when they spoke of the tugend (tugent) of a woman, the word combined with it the idea of fine manners (cf. \u05d7\u05df, Pro 11:16) and culture (cf. \u05e9\u05c2\u05db\u05dc \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1, Pro 13:15). The question \u05de\u05d9 \u05d9\u05de\u05e6\u05d0, quis inveniat, which, Ecc 7:24, proceeds from the supposition of the impossibility of finding, conveys here only the idea of the difficulty of finding. In ancient Jerusalem, when one was married, they were wont to ask: \u05de\u05e6\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05d5\u05e6\u05d0, i.e., has he found? thus as is said at Pro 18:22, or at Ecc 7:26. A virtuous woman [braves Weib] is not found by every one, she is found by comparatively few. In 10b there is given to the thought which underlies the question a synonymous expression. Ewald, Elster, and Zckler incorrectly render the \u05d5 by \"although\" or \"and yet.\" Fleischer rightly: the second clause, if not in form yet in sense, runs parallel to the first. \u05de\u05db\u05e8 designates the price for which such a woman is sold, and thus is purchasable, not without reference to this, that in the Orient a wife is obtained by means of \u05de\u05d4\u05e8. \u05de\u05db\u05e8, synon. \u05de\u05d7\u05d9\u05e8, for which a wife of the right kind is gained, is \u05e8\u05d7\u05d5\u05e7, placed further, i.e., is more difficult to be obtained, than pearls (vid., regarding \"pearls\" at Pro 3:15), i.e., than the price for such precious things. The poet thereby means to say that such a wife is a more precious possession than all earthly things which are precious, and that he who finds such an one has to speak of his rare fortune.\nThe reason for this is now given:\n11 \u05d1 The heart of her husband doth trust her,\nAnd he shall not fail of grain.\nIf we interpret \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05dc, after Ecc 9:8, as subject, then we miss \u05dc\u05bc\u05d5; it will thus be object., and the husband subj. to \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d7\u05e1\u05bc\u05e8: nec lucro carebit, as e.g., Fleischer translates it, with the remark that \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05dc denotes properly the spoil which one takes from an enemy, but then also, like the Arab. \u1e0danymat, can mean profit and gain of all kinds (cf. Rdiger in Gesenius' Thes.). Thus also in our \"kriegen\" = to come into possession, the reference to war disappears. Hitzig understands by \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05dc, the continual prosperity of the man on account of his fortunate possession of such a wife; but in that case the poet should have said \u05e9\u05c2\u05de\u05d7\u05ea \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05dc; for \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05dc is gain, not the feeling that is therewith connected. There is here meant the gain, profit, which the housewife is the means of bringing in (cf. Psa 78:13). The heart of her husband (\u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05dc\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc) can be at rest, it can rest on her whom it loves - he goes after his calling, perhaps a calling which, though weighty and honourable, brings in little or nothing; but the wife keeps the family possessions scrupulously together, and increases them by her laborious and prudent management, so that there is not wanting to him gain, which he properly did not acquire, but which the confidence he is justified in reposing in his wife alone brings to him. She is to him a perpetual spring of nothing but good.\n12 \u05d2 She doeth good to him, and not evil,\nAll the days of her life;\nor, as Luther translates:\n\"Sie thut jm liebs und kein leids.\"\n[She does him good, and no harm.]\nShe is far from ever doing him evil, she does him only good all her life long; her love is not dependent on freaks, it rests on deep moral grounds, and hence derives its power and purity, which remain ever the same. \u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05dc signifies to accomplish, to perform. To the not assimilated form \u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05dc\u05ea\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc, cf. \u05d9\u05e1\u05bc\u05e8\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc, 1b.\nThe poet now describes how she disposes of things:\n13 \u05d3 She careth for wool and flax,\nAnd worketh these with her hands' pleasure.\nThe verb \u05d3\u05bc\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1 proceeds, as the Arab. shows,\n(Note: The inquirer is there called (Arab.) daras, as libros terens.)\nfrom the primary meaning terere; but to translate with reference thereto: tractat lanam et linum (lxx, Schultens, Dathe, Rosemller, Fleischer), is inadmissible. The Heb. \u05d3\u05e8\u05e9\u05c1 does not mean the external working at or manufacturing of a thing; but it means, even when it refers to this, the intention of the mind purposely directed thereto. Thus wool and flax come into view as the material of work which she cares to bring in; and \u05d5\u05ea\u05bc\u05e2\u05e9\u05c2 signifies the work itself, following the creation of the need of work. Hitzig translates the second line: she works at the business of her hands. Certainly \u05d1 after \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d4 may denote the sphere of activity, Exo 31:4; 1 Kings 5:30, etc.; but if \u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 had here the weakened signification business, \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, - which it gains in the same way as we say business, affair, of any object of care - the scarcely established meaning presents itself, that she shows herself active in that which she has made the business of her hands. How much more beautiful, on the contrary, is the thought: she is active with her hands' pleasure! \u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 is, as Schultens rightly explains, inclinatio flexa et propensa in aliquid, and pulchre manibus diligentissimis attribuitur lubentia cum oblectatione et per oblectationem sese animans. \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d4, without obj. accus., signifies often: to accomplish, e.g., Ps. 22:32; here it stands, in a sense, complete in itself, and without object. accus., as when it means \"handeln\" [agere], Pro 13:16, and particularly to act in the service of God = to offer sacrifice, Exo 10:25; it means here, and at Rut 2:19; Hab 2:4, to be active, as at Isa 19:15, to be effective; \u05d5\u05ea\u05bc\u05e2\u05e9\u05c2 is equivalent to \u05d5\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05c2 \u05d1\u05bc\u05de\u05bc\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05d4 or \u05d5\u05ea\u05e2\u05e9\u05c2 \u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05db\u05ea\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc (cf. under Pro 10:4). And pleasure and love for the work, \u05d7\u05e4\u05e5, can be attributed to the hands with the same right as at Psa 78:72, discretion. The disposition which animates a man, especially his inner relation to the work devolving upon him, communicates itself to his hands, which, according as he has joy or aversion in regard to his work, will be nimble or clumsy. The Syr. translates: \"and her hands are active after the pleasure of her heart;\" but \u05d1\u05d7\u05e4\u05e5 is not equivalent to \u05db\u05bc\u05d7\u05e4\u05e6\u05d4\u05bc; also \u05d1\u05bc\u05d7\u05e4\u05e5, in the sense of con amore (Bttcher), is not used.\nThe following proverb praises the extent of her housewifely transactions:\n14 \u05d4 She is like the ships of the merchant -\nBringeth her food from afar.\nShe is (lxx \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf) like merchant ships (\u05db\u05bc\u05d0\u05e0\u05d9\u05d5\u05ea, indeterminate, and thus to be read k\u014d\u01d2n\u0131\u0302joth), i.e., she has the art of such ships as sail away and bring wares from a distance, are equipped, sent out, and managed by an enterprising spirit; so the prudent, calculating look of the brave wife, directed towards the care and the advancement of her house, goes out beyond the nearest circle; she descries also distant opportunities of advantageous purchase and profitable exchange, and brings in from a distance what is necessary for the supply of her house, or, mediately, what yields this supply (\u05de\u05de\u05bc\u05e8\u05d7\u05e7, Cod. Jaman. \u05de\u05de\u05e8\u05d7\u05e7, cf. under Isa 10:6), for she finds that source of gain she has espied.\nWith this diligence in her duties she is not a long sleeper, who is not awakened till the sun is up; but\n15 \u05d5 She riseth up while it is yet night,\nAnd giveth food to her house,\nAnd the fixed portion to her maidens.\nThe fut. consec. express, if not a logical sequence of connection, yet a close inner binding together of the separate features of the character here described. Early, ere the morning dawns, such a housewife rises up, because she places care for her house above her own comfort; or rather, because this care is to her a satisfaction and a joy. Since now the poet means without doubt to say that she is up before the other inmates of the house, especially before the children, though not before the maids: we have not, in \u05d5\u05ea\u05bc\u05ea\u05bc\u05df, to think that the inmates of the house, all in the morning night-watch, stand round about her, and that each receives from her a portion for the approaching day; but that she herself, early, whilst yet the most are asleep, gives out or prepares the necessary portions of food for the day (cf. \u05d5\u05d9\u05bc\u05ea\u05bc\u05df, Isa 53:9). Regarding \u05d8\u05e8\u05e3, food, from \u05d8\u05e8\u05e3 (to tear in pieces, viz., with the teeth), and regarding \u05d7\u05e7, a portion decreed, vid., at Pro 30:8. It is true that \u05d7\u05e7 also means the appointed labour (pensum), and thus the day's work (\u05d3\u05bc\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd); but the parallelism brings it nearer to explain after Pro 30:8, as is done by Gesenius and Hitzig after Exo 5:14.\nThis industry - a pattern for the whole house - this punctuality in the management of household matters, secures to her success in the extension of her household wealth:\n16 \u05d6 She seeketh a field and getteth possession of it;\nOf the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.\nThe field which she considereth, towards which her wish and her effort are directed, is perhaps not one beyond those which she already possesses, but one which has hitherto been wanting to her family; for the poet has, after Pro 31:23, an inhabitant of a town in his eye, - a woman whose husband is not a landlord, but has a business in the city. The perf. \u05d6\u05de\u05de\u05d4 precedes and gives circumstantiality to the chief factum expressed by \u05d5\u05ea\u05bc\u05e7\u05bc\u05d7\u05d4. Regarding \u05d6\u05de\u05dd, vid., Pro 21:27. \"\u05dc\u05e7\u05d7 is the general expression for purchasing, as \u05e0\u05ea\u05df, 24b, for selling. Thus the Aram. and Arab. \u05d0\u05d7\u05d3, while, (Arab.) akhadh w'\u1e6da, Turk. alisch werisch (from elme\u1e33, to take, and wirmek, to give - viz. \u1e63\u00e2tun, in the way of selling; Lat. venum), post-bibl. \u05de\u05e9\u05bc\u05c2\u05d0 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05ea\u05bc\u05df or \u05de\u05e7\u05bc\u05d7 \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05de\u05db\u05bc\u05e8, denotes giving and taking = business in general\" (Fleischer). In 16b the Cheth\u0131\u0302b is, with Ewald and Bertheau, to be read \u05e0\u05d8\u05e2, and, with Hitzig, to be made dependent on \u05d5\u05ea\u05e7\u05d7\u05d4, as parallel obj.: \"of her hands' fruit (she gaineth) a planting of vines.\" But a planting of vines would be expressed by \u05de\u05d8\u05bc\u05e2 \u05db\u05e8\u05dd (Mic 1:6); and the Ker\u0131\u0302 \u05e0\u05d8\u05e2\u05d4 is more acceptable. The perf., as a fundamental verbal form, is here the expression of the abstract present: she plants a vineyard, for she purchases vines from the profit of her industry (Isa 7:23, cf. Pro 5:2).\nThe poet has this augmented household wealth in his eye, for he continues:\n17 \u05d7 She girdeth her loins with strength,\nAnd moveth vigorously her arms.\nStrength is as the girdle which she wraps around her body (Psa 93:1). We write \u05d7\u05d2\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d6; both words have Munach, and the \u05d1 of \u05d1\u05e2\u05d5\u05d6 is aspirated. Thus girded with strength, out of this fulness of strength she makes firm or steels her arms (cf. Psa 89:22). The produce of the field and vineyard extend far beyond the necessity of her house; thus a great portion is brought to sale, and the gain thence arising stimulates the industry and the diligence of the unwearied woman.\n18 \u05d8 She perceiveth that her gain is good;\nAnd her light goeth not out at night.\nThe perf. and fut. are related to each other as antecedent and consequent, so that 18a can also be rendered as an hypothetical antecedent. She comes to find (taste) how profitable her industry is by the experience resulting from the sale of its product: the corn, the grapes, and the wine are found to be good, and thus her gain (cf. Pro 3:14) is better, this opened new source of nourishment productive.\nThis spurs on her active industry to redoubled effort, and at times, when she is not fully occupied by the oversight of her fields and vineyard, she has another employment over which her light goes not out till far in the night. \u05d1\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 is, as at Lam 2:19, a needless Ker\u0131\u0302 for the poetic \u05d1\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05d9\u05dc (Isa 16:3). What other business it is to which she gives attention till in the night, is mentioned in the next verse.\n19 \u05d9 She putteth her hand to the rock Spinnrocken;\nAnd her fingers lay hold on the spindle.\nShe applies herself to the work of spinning, and performs it with skill. The phrase \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05bc\u05d7 \u05d9\u05d3 \u05d1\u05bc (\u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d7, Job 28:9) signifies to take up an object of work, and \u05ea\u05bc\u05de\u05da, with obj. accus. (cf. Amo 1:5), the handling of the instrument of work necessary thereto. \u05db\u05bc\u05e4\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd denotes the hands when the subject is skilful, successful work; we accordingly say \u05d9\u05d2\u05d9\u05e2 \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd, not \u05d9\u05d2\u05d9\u05e2 \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd; cf. Pro 31:13 and Pro 31:16, Psa 78:72. What \u05e4\u05bc\u05dc\u05da means is shown by the Arab. falakat, which, as distinguished from mighzal, i.e., fuseau (Lat. fusus), is explained by bout arrondi et conique au bas du fuseau, thus: the whorl, i.e., the ring or knob fastened on the spindle below, which gives it its necessary weight and regulates its movement, Lat. verticellus, post-bibl. \u05e4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7\u05d4 (which Bartenora glosses by the Ital. fusajuolo) or \u05e6\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, e.g., Kelim ix. 6, \u05db\u05d5\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e9\u05c1\u05d1\u05dc\u05e2 \u05d0\u05ea \u05d4\u05e6\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, a spindle which holds the whorl hidden (vid., Aruch under \u05db\u05e9, iii.). But the word then also signifies per synecdochen partis pro toto, the spindle, i.e., the cylindrical wood on which the thread winds itself when spinning (cf. Sa2 3:29, where it means the staff on which the infirm leans); Homer gives to Helen and the goddesses golden spindles (\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9). Accordingly it is not probable that \u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e8 also denotes the whorl, as Kimchi explains the word: \"\u05db\u05d9\u05e9\u05d5\u05e8 is that which one calls by the name verteil, viz., that which one fixes on the spindle (\u05e4\u05dc\u05da) above to regulate the spinning (\u05de\u05d8\u05d5\u05d4),\" according to which the Venet. renders \u05db\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e8 by \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, whorl, and \u05e4\u05dc\u05da by \u1f04\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, spindle. The old interpreters have not recognised that \u05db\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e8 denotes a thing belonging to the spinning apparatus; the lxx, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Syr., and Jerome see therein an ethical idea (from \u05db\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8, to be capable, able); but Luther, not misled thereby, translates with unusual excellence:\nShe stretches her hand to the rock,\nAnd her fingers grasp the spindle.\nHe has in this no predecessors, except only the Targumists, whose \u05db\u05d5\u05bc\u05e0\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8\u05d0 (vid., Levy) appears also to denote the spinning-rock. The Syriac and Talmudic \u05db\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1, which is compared by Gesenius-Dietrich, is another word, and denotes, not the rock, but the spindle. Immanuel also, who explains \u05e4\u05dc\u05da as the \u05de\u05e2\u05d6\u05dc, i.e., the spindle, understands (as perhaps also Parchon) by \u05db\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e8 the rock. And why should not the rock (wocken = distaff), i.e., the stock to which the tuft of flax, hemp, or wool is fixed for the purpose of being spun, Lat. colus, not be named \u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e8, from \u05db\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8, to be upright as a stick, upright in height, or perhaps more correctly as \u05de\u05db\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05e8, i.e., as that which prepares or makes fit the flax for spinning? Also in \u05e6\u05d9\u05e0\u05e7, Jer 29:26, there are united the meanings of the close and the confining dungeon, and \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d4 = \u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dc\u05d5\u05df signifies\n(Note: Otherwise, but improbably, Schultens: colus a \u05db\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8 = katr kathr, necti in orbem, circumnecti in globum. In \u05e4\u05bc\u05dc\u05da, whence \u05e4\u05bc\u05dc\u05da, he rightly finds the primary meaning of circumvolutio sive gyratio.)\nthe place which yields rest. The spinning-wheel is a German invention of the 16th century, but the rock standing on the ground, or held also in the hands, the spindle and the whorl, are more ancient.\n(Note: A view of the ancient art of spinning is afforded by the figures of the 12th Dynasty (according to Lepsius, 2380-2167 b.c.) in the burial chamber of Beni Hassan (270 kilometres above Bulak, on the right bank of the Nile). M. J. Henry, in his work L'Egypte Pharaonique (Paris 1846), Bd. 2, p. 431, mentions that there are figures there which represent \"toutes les oprations de la fabrication des tissus depuis le filage jusqu au tissage.\" Then he continues: Lex fuseaux dont se servent les fileuses sont excatement semblables aux ntres, et on voit mme ces fileuses imprimer le mouvement de rotation ces fuseaux, en en froissant le bout inferieur entre leur main et leur cuisse.)\nWith the spindle \u05ea\u05de\u05da stands in fit relation, for it is twirled between the fingers, as Catullus says of Fate:\nLibratum tereti versabat pollice fusum.\n(Note: In the \"marriage of Peleus and Thetis,\" Catullus describes the work of the Fates: \"Their hands are ceaselessly active at their never-ending work; while the left holds the rock, surrounded with a soft fleece, the right assiduously draws the thread and forms it with raised fingers; then it swiftly turns the spindle, with the thumb stretched down, and swings it away in whirling circles.\" Then follows the refrain of the song of the Fates: Currite ducentes subtegmina, currite, fusi. - (After Hertzberg's Translation.))\nThat which impels the housewife to this labour is not selfishness, not a narrow-hearted limitation of her care to the circle of what is her own, but love, which reaches out far beyond this circle:\n20 \u05db She holdeth out her hand to the unfortunate,\nAnd stretcheth forth her hands to the needy.\nWith \u05db\u05bc\u05e4\u05bc\u05d9\u05d4, 19b, is connected the idea of artistic skilfulness; with \u05db\u05bc\u05e4\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc, here that of offering for counsel (vid., at Isa 2:6); with sympathy and readiness to help, she presents herself to those who are oppressed by the misfortunes of life as if for an alliance, as if saying: place confidence in me, I shall do whatever I can - there thou hast my hand! Hitzig erroneously thinks of the open hand with a gift lying in it: this ought to be named, for \u05db\u05e3 in itself is nothing else than the half-opened hand. Also in 20b we are not to think of alms. Here Hitzig rightly: she stretches out to him both of her hands, that he might grasp them, both of them, or whichever he may. She does not throw to him merely a gift from a distance, but above all she gives to him to experience her warm sympathy (cf. Eze 16:49). Here, as at 19a, \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d7\u05d4 is punctuated (with Dagesh) as Piel. The punctuation supposes that the author both times not unintentionally made use of the intensive form. This one verse (20) is complete in itself as a description of character; and the author has done well in choosing such strong expressions, for, without this sympathy with misery and poverty, she, so good and trustworthy and industrious, might indeed be pleasing to her husband, but not to God. One could almost wish that greater expansion had been given to this one feature in the picture.\nBut the poet goes on to describe her fruitful activity in the nearest sphere of her calling:\n21 \u05dc She is not afraid of the snow for her house;\nFor her whole house is clothed in scarlet.\nA fall of snow in the rainy season of winter is not rare in Palestine, the Hauran, and neighbouring countries, and is sometimes accompanied with freezing cold.\n(Note: Vid., regarding a fall of snow in Jerusalem, the journal Saat auf Hoffnung Jahrg. 3, Heft 3; and in the Hauran Comm. to Job 38:22.)\nShe sees approaching the cold time of the year without any fear for her house, even though the season bring intense cold; for her whole house, i.e., the whole of the members of her family, are \u05dc\u05d1\u05e9\u05c1 \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd. The connection is accusatival (Venet. \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03ac), as at Sa2 15:32; Eze 9:2-3. \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9, from \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d4, to shine, glance clear, or high red, and is with or without \u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05e2\u05ea the name of the colour of the Kermes worm, crimson or scarlet, perhaps to be distinguished from \u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05df, the red-purple shell colour, and \u05ea\u05bc\u05db\u05dc\u05ea, the blue. \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd are clothing or material coloured with such \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9 (bright red) (vid., at Isa 1:18). The explanation of the word by dibapha is inadmissible, because the doubled colouring, wherever it is mentioned, always refers to the purple, particularly that of Tyre (dibapha Tyria), not to the scarlet.\n(Note: Vid., Blmner's Die gewerbliche Thtigkeit der Vlder des klassischen Alterthums (1869), p. 21f.)\nBut why does the poet name scarlet-coloured clothing? On account of the contrast to the white snow, says Hitzig, he clothes the family in crimson. But this contrast would be a meaningless freak. Rather it is to be supposed that there is ascribed to the red material a power of retaining the heat, as there is to the white that of keeping off the heat; but evidence for this are wanting. Therefore Rosenmller, Vaihinger, and Bttcher approve of the translation duplicibus (Jerome, Luther) [= with double clothing], because they read, with the lxx, \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd.\n(Note: The lxx reads together \u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, and brings into Pro 31:21 (her husband remains without care for the members of the family if it does not snow \u03c7\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b7, as it is to be read for \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b7) and 22 the husband, who appears to the translator too much kept in the background.)\nBut, with right, the Syr., Targ. abide by \u05d6\u05d4\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea\u05d0, scarlet. The scarlet clothing is of wool, which as such preserves warmth, and, as high-coloured, appears at the same time dignified (Sa2 1:24).\nFrom the protecting, and at the same time ornamental clothing of the family, the poet proceeds to speak of the bed-places, and of the attire of the housewife:\n22 \u05de She prepareth for herself pillows;\nLinen and purple is her raiment.\nRegarding \u05de\u05e8\u05d1\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd (with \u05d1 raphatum), vid., at Pro 7:16. Thus, pillows or mattresses (Aquila, Theodotion, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; Jerome, stragulatam vestem; Luther, Decke = coverlets) to make the bed soft and to adorn it (Kimchi: \u05dc\u05d9\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea \u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d8\u05d5\u05ea, according to which Venet. \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1); Symmachus designates it as \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, i.e., \u03c4\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (tapetae, tapetia, carpets), which are hairy (shaggy) on both sides.\n(Note: Vid., Lumbroso, Recherches sur l'Economie politique de l'Egypte sous les Lagides (Turin, 1870), p. 111; des tapis de laine de premere qualit, pourpres, laineux des deux cts (\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9).)\nOnly the lxx makes out of it \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, lined overcoats, for it brings over \u05e9\u05c1\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd. By \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05ea\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc it is not meant that she prepares such pillows for her own bed, but that she herself (i.e., for the wants of her house) prepares them. But she also clothes herself in costly attire. \u05e9\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1 (an Egyptian word, not, as Heb., derived from \u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1, cogn. \u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1, to be white) is the old name for linen, according to which the Aram. translates it by \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e5, the Greek by \u03b2\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, vid., Genesis, pp. 470, 557, to which the remark is to be added, that the linen [Byssus], according to a prevailing probability, was not a fine cotton cloth, but linen cloth. Luther translates \u05e9\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1, here and elsewhere, by weisse Seide [white silk] (\u03c3\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, i.e., from the land of the \u03a3\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, Rev 18:12); but the silk, is first mentioned by Ezekiel under the name of \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9; and the ancients call the country where silk-stuff (bombycina) was woven, uniformly Assyria. \u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05de\u05df (Aram. \u05d0\u05e8\u05d2\u05bc\u05d5\u05df, derived by Benfey, with great improbability, from the rare Sanscrit word r\u00e2gavant, red-coloured; much rather from \u05e8\u05d2\u05dd = \u05e8\u05e7\u05dd, as stuff of variegated colour) is red purple; the most valuable purple garments were brought from Tyre and Sidon.\nNow, first, the description turns back to the husband, of the woman who is commended, mentioned in the introduction:\n23 \u05e0 32 Well known in the gates is her husband,\nWhere he sitteth among the elders of the land.\nSuch a wife is, according to Pro 12:4, \u05e2\u05d8\u05e8\u05ea \u05d1\u05bc\u05e2\u05dc\u05bc\u05d4\u05bc, - she advances the estimation and the respect in which her husband is held. He has, in the gates where the affairs of the city are deliberated upon, a well-known, reputable name; for there he sits, along with the elders of the land, who are chosen into the council of the city as the chief place of the land, and has a weighty voice among them. The phrase wavers between \u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2 (lxx \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9; Venet. \u1f14\u03bb\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) and \u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2. The old Venetian edd. have in this place (like the Cod. Jaman.), and at Psa 9:17, \u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2; on the contrary, Psa 76:2; Ecc 6:10, \u05e0\u05d5\u05d3\u05e2, and that is correct; for the Masora, at this place and at Psa 76:2 (in the Biblia rabb), is disfigured.\nThe description, following the order of the letters, now directs attention to the profitable labour of the housewife:\n24 \u05e1 She prepareth body-linen and selleth it,\nAnd girdles doth she give to the Phoenicians.\nIt is a question whether \u05e1\u05d3\u05d9\u05df signifies \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd, cloth from Sindhu, the land of India (vid., at Isa 3:23); the Arab. sadn (sadl), to cause to hang down, to descend (for the purpose of covering or veiling), offers an appropriate verbal root. In the Talmud, \u05e1\u05d3\u05d9\u05df is the sleeping linen, the curtain, the embroidered cloth, but particularly a light smock-frock, as summer costume, which was worn on the bare body (cf. Mar 14:51.). Kimchi explains the word by night-shirt; the Edictum Diocletiani, xviii. 16, names \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, as the Papyrus Louvre, \u1f40\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1; and the connection in the Edict shows that linen attire (\u1f10\u03ba \u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5) is meant, although - as with \u05e9\u05c1\u05e9\u05c1, so also with \u05e1\u05d3\u05d9\u05df - with the ancients and the moderns, sometimes linen and sometimes cotton is spoken of without any distinction. Aethicus speaks of costly girdles, Cosmogr. 84, as fabricated at Jerusalem: baltea regalia ... ex Hierosolyma allata; Jerusalem and Scythopolis were in later times the chief places in Palestine for the art of weaving. In Galilee also, where excellent flax grew, the art of weaving was carried on; and the \u1f40\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, which, according to Clemens Alex. Paedag. ii. 10, p. 239, were exported \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, are at least in their material certainly synon. with \u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. Regarding \u05e0\u05ea\u05df, syn. \u05de\u05db\u05e8, opp. \u05dc\u05e7\u05d7, syn. \u05e0\u05e9\u05c2\u05d0 = \u05e7\u05e0\u05d4, vid., at 16a. There is no reason to interpret \u05db\u05bc\u05e0\u05e2\u05e0\u05d9 here, with the obliteration of the ethnographical meaning, in the general sense of \u05e1\u05d7\u05e8, trader, merchant; for purple, 22b, is a Phoenician manufacture, and thus, as an article of exchange, can be transferred to the possession of the industrious wife.\nThe description is now more inward:\n25 \u05e2 Strength and honour is her clothing;\nThus she laugheth at the future day.\nShe is clothed with \u05e2\u05d6, strength, i.e., power over the changes of temporal circumstances, which easily shatter and bring to ruin a household resting on less solid foundations; clothed with \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8, glory, i.e., elevation above that which is low, little, common, a state in which they remain who propose to themselves no high aim after which they strive with all their might: in other words, her raiment is just pride, true dignity, with which she looks confidently into the future, and is armed against all sorrow and care. The connection of ideas, \u05e2\u05d6 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8 (defectively written, on the contrary, at Psa 84:6, Masora, and only there written plene, and with Munach), instead of the frequent \u05d4\u05d5\u05d3 \u05d5\u05d4\u05d3\u05e8, occurs only here. The expression 25b is like Job 39:7, wherefore Hitzig rightly compares Job 24:14 to 25a. \u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05df, distinguished from \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea, and incorrectly interpreted (Rashi) of the day of death, is, as at Isa 30:8, the future, here that which one at a later period may enter upon.\nThe next verse presents one of the most beautiful features in the portrait:\n26 \u05e4 She openeth her mouth with wisdom,\nAnd amiable instruction is on her tongue.\nThe \u05d1 of \u05d1\u05bc\u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d4 is, as also at Psa 49:5; Psa 78:2, that of means: when she speaks, then it is wisdom pressing itself from her heart outward, by means of which she breaks the silence of her mouth. With \u05e2\u05dc, in the expression 26b, elsewhere \u05ea\u05bc\u05d4\u05ea interchanges: under the tongue, Psa 10:7, one has that which is ready to be spoken out, and on the tongue, Psa 15:3, that which is in the act of being spoken out. \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea\u05be\u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 is a genitive connection after the manner of t\u00f4rath \u05d0\u05de\u05ea, Mal 2:6. The gen. is not, as at Lev 6:2, in t\u00f4rath \u05d4\u05e2\u05dc\u05d4, the gen. of the object (thus e.g., Fleischer's institutio ad humanitatem), but the gen. of property, but not so that \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 denotes grace (Symmachus, \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2; Theodotion, \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), because for this meaning there is no example except Isa 40:6; and since \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 in the O.T. is the very same as in the N.T., love, which is the fulfilling of the law, Hos 6:6, cf. Kg1 20:31,\n(Note: Immanuel remarks that T\u00f4rath \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 probably refers to the T\u00f4ra, and \u05e9\u05c1\u05db\u05d5\u05d4\u05dc \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3, i.e., which is wholly love, which goes forth in love, to the Gesetz = statute.)\nit is supposed that the poet, since he writes \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3, and not \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05ea \u05d7\u05df, means to designate by \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 this property without which her love for her husband, her industry, her high sentiment, would be no virtues, viz., unselfish, sympathizing, gentle love. Instruction which bears on itself the stamp of such amiability, and is also gracious, i.e., awakening love, because going forth from love (according to which Luther, translating holdselige Lere = pleasing instructions, thus understands it) - such instruction she carries, as house-mother (Pro 1:8), in her mouth. Accordingly the lxx translate (vid., Lagarde regarding the mistakes of this text before us) \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, and Jerome lex clementiae. \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 is related to \u05d0\u05d4\u05d1\u05d4 as grace to love; it denotes love showing itself in kindness and gracefulness, particularly condescending love, proceeding from a compassionate sympathy with the sufferings and wants of men. Such graceful instruction she communicates now to this and now to that member of her household, for nothing that goes on in her house escapes her observation.\n27 \u05e6 She looketh well to the ways of her house,\nAnd eateth not the bread of idleness.\nAlthough there exists an inner relation between 27a and Pro 31:26, yet 27a is scarcely to be thought of (Hitzig) as appos. to the suffix in \u05dc\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4\u05bc. Participles with or without determination occur in descriptions frequently as predicates of the subject standing in the discourse of the same force as abstr. present declarations, e.g., Isa 40:22., Psa 104:13. \u05e6\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05bc\u05d4 is connected with the accus. of the object of the intended warning, like Pro 15:3, and is compared according to the form with \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05bc\u05d4, Pro 7:11. \u05d4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d1\u05d4 signifies elsewhere things necessary for a journey, Job 6:19, and in the plur. magnificus it denotes show (pompa), Hab 3:6 : but originally the walk, conduct, Nah 2:6; and here in the plur. walks = comings and goings, but not these separately, but in general, the modi procedendi (lxx \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9). The Cheth\u0131\u0302b has \u05d4\u05d9\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05ea, probably an error in writing, but possibly also the plur. of \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d4, thus found in the post-bibl. Heb. (after the form \u05e6\u05d3\u05e7\u05d5\u05ea), custom, viz., appointed traditional law, but also like the Aram. \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d0 (emph. \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05ea\u05d0), usage, manner, common practice. Hitzig estimates this Cheth\u0131\u0302b, understood Talmudically, as removing the section into a late period; but this Talmudical signification is not at all appropriate (Hitzig translates, with an incorrect rendering of \u05e6\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4, \"for she sees after the ordering of the house\"), and besides the Aram. \u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d0, e.g., Targ. Pro 16:9, in the first line, signifies only the walk or the manner and way of going, and this gives with the Ker\u0131\u0302 essentially the same signification. Luther well: Sie schawet wie es in jrem Hause zugeht [= she looks how it goes in her house]. Her eyes are turned everywhere; she is at one time here, at another there, to look after all with her own eyes; she does not suffer the day's work, according to the instructions given, to be left undone, while she folds her own hands on her bosom; but she works, keeping an oversight on all sides, and does not eat the bread of idleness (\u05e2\u05e6\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea = \u05e2\u05e6\u05dc\u05d4, Pro 19:15), but bread well deserved, for \u03b5\u1f34 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u03b9\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9, Th2 3:10.\nNow begins the finale of this song in praise of the virtuous woman:\n28 \u05e7 Her sons rise up and bless her,\nHer husband (riseth up) and praiseth her.\nThe Piel \u05d0\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05e8 in such a connection is denom. of \u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8 (\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05e8\u05d9). Her children rise up (\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd, like e.g., Jer 26:17, but here, perhaps, with the associated idea of reverential honour) and bless her, that she has on her part brought the house and them to such prosperity, such a position of respect, and to a state where love (\u05d7\u05e1\u05d3) reigns, and her husband rises up and sings her praise.\n29 \u05e8 \"Many are the daughters who have done bravely,\nBut thou hast surpassed them all together.\"\nWe have already often remarked, last time under Pro 29:6, that \u05e8\u05d1, not indeed in its sing., but in its plur. \u05e8\u05d1\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd and \u05e8\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05ea, can precede, after the manner of a numeral, as attribute; but this syntactical licence, Pro 28:12, by no means appears, and needs to be assumed as little here as at Pro 8:26, although there is no reason that can be adduced against it. \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d4 \u05d7\u05d9\u05dc signifies here not the gaining of riches (the lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, Luther, Gesenius, Bttcher, and others), which here, where the encomium comes to its height, would give to it a mercenary mammon-worship note - it indeed has this signification only when connected with \u05dc of the person: Sibi opes acquirere, Deu 6:17; Eze 28:4 - but: bravery, energy, and, as the reference to \u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05ea \u05d7\u05d9\u05dc demands, moral activity, capacity for activity, in accordance with one's calling, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd, by which the Venet. translates it. \u05d1\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05ea is, as in the primary passages, Gen 30:13; Sol 6:9, a more delicate, finer name of women than \u05e0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd: many daughters there have always been who have unfolded ability, but thou my spouse hast raised thyself above them all, i.e., thou art excellent and incomparable. Instead of \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea, there is to be written, after Chajug, Aben Ezra (Zachoth 7a), and Jekuthiel under Gen 16:11, \u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05ea; the Spanish Nakdanim thus distinguish the forms \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea, thou hast found, and \u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05ea, she has found. \u05db\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05e0\u05d4, for \u05db\u05bc\u05dc\u05bc\u05df, Gen 42:36.\nWhat now follows is not a continuation of the husband's words of praise (Ewald, Elster, Lwenstein), but an epiphonema auctoris (Schultens); the poet confirms the praise of the husband by referring it to the general ground of its reason:\n30 \u05e9 Grace is deceit; and beauty, vanity -\nA wife that feareth Jahve, she shall be praised.\nGrace is deceit, because he who estimates the works of a wife merely by the loveliness of her external appearance, is deceived by it; and beauty is vanity, vanitas, because it is nothing that remains, nothing that is real, but is subject to the law of all material things - transitoriness. The true value of a wife is measured only by that which is enduring, according to the moral background of its external appearance; according to the piety which makes itself manifest when the beauty of bodily form has faded away, in a beauty which is attractive.\n(Note: Vid., the application of Pro 31:30 in Taanith 26b: \"Young man,\" say the maidens, \"lift up thine eyes and behold that which thou choosest for thyself! Direct thine eyes not to beauty (\u05e0\u05d5\u05d9), direct thine eyes to the family (\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05d7\u05d4); pleasantness is a deception, etc.\")\n\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea (with Makkeph following),\n(Note: The writing \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05be is that of Ben Asher, \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea that of Ben Naphtali; Norzi, from a misunderstanding, claims \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05ea\u05be (with Gaja) as Ben Asher's manner of writing.)\nis here the connective form of \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 (fem. of \u05d9\u05e8\u05d0). The Hithpa. \u05ea\u05ea\u05d4\u05dc\u05bc\u05dc is here manifestly (Pro 27:2) not reflexive, but representative of the passive (cf. Pro 12:8, and the frequently occurring \u05de\u05d4\u05dc\u05bc\u05dc, laudatus = laudandus), nowhere occurring except in the passage before us. In itself the fut. may also mean: she will be praised = is worthy of praise, but the jussive rendering (Luther: Let her be praised) is recommended by the verse which follows:\n31 \u05ea Give to her of the fruit of her hands;\nAnd let her works praise her in the gates!\nThe fruit of her hands is the good which, by her conduct, she has brought to maturity - the blessing which she has secured for others, but, according to the promise (Isa 3:10), has also secured for her own enjoyment. The first line proceeds on the idea that, on account of this blessing, she herself shall rejoice. \u05ea\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc\u05be\u05dc\u05d4\u05bc (with Gaja, after Metheg-Setzung, 37) is not equivalent to give to her honour because of...; for in that case, instead of the ambiguous \u05de\u05df, another preposition - such e.g., as \u05e2\u05dc - would have been used; and so \u05ea\u05bc\u05e0\u05d5\u05bc, of itself, cannot be equivalent to \u05ea\u05bc\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc (sing the praise of), as Ziegler would read, after Jdg 11:40. It must stand with \u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3, or instead of \u05de\u05e4\u05bc\u05e8\u05d9 an accus. obj. is to be thought of, as at Psa 68:35; Deu 32:3, which the necessity of the case brings with it - the giving, as a return in the echo of the song of praise. Immanuel is right in explaining \u05ea\u05e0\u05d5\u05be\u05dc\u05d4 by \u05ea\u05d2\u05de\u05dc\u05d5 \u05dc\u05d4 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 or \u05e2\u05e9\u05c2\u05d5 \u05e2\u05ea\u05d4 \u05d7\u05e1\u05d3 \u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d5\u05d3, cf. Psa 28:4. The \u05de\u05df, as is not otherwise to be expected, after \u05ea\u05e0\u05d5 is partitive: give to her something of the fruit of her hands, i.e., recompense it to her, render it thankfully, by which not exclusively a requital in the form of honourable recognition, but yet this specially, is to be thought of. Her best praise is her works themselves. In the gates, i.e., in the place where the representatives of the people come together, and where the people are assembled, her works praise her; and the poet desires that this may be right worthily done, full of certainty that she merits it, and that they honour themselves who seek to praise the works of such a woman, which carry in themselves their own commendation.","title":"Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament by Carl Friedric...","type":"page"}