Wisdom Against Entrapment: Surety, Sloth, Wicked Speech, and Adultery

Pro 6:6-8 As Elihu (Job 35:11) says that God has set the beasts as our teachers, so he sends the sluggard to the school of the ant ( Ameise ), so named (in Germ.) from its industry ( Emsigkeit ): 6 Go to the ant, sluggard; Consider her ways, and be wise! 7 She that hath no judge, Director, and ruler: 8 She prepareth in summer her food, Has gathered in harvest her store.

The Dechî written mostly under the לך separates the inseparable. The thought, Go to the ant, sluggard! permits no other distinction than in the vocative; but the Dechî of לך אל־נמלה is changed into Munach on account of the nature of the Athnach -word, which consists of only two syllables without the counter-tone. The ant has for its Hebrew-Arabic name נמלה, from the R.

נם (Isaiah, p. 687), which is first used of the sound, which expresses the idea of the low, dull, secret - thus of its active and yet unperceived motion; its Aramaic name in the Peshîto, ûmenaa', and in the Targ. שׁוּמשׁמנא (also Arab. sumsum, simsim, of little red ants), designates it after its quick activity, its busy running hither and thither ( vid . , Fleischer in Levy’s Chald.

Wörterb . ii. 578). She is a model of unwearied and well-planned labour. From the plur. דּרכיה it is to be concluded that the author observed their art in gathering in and laying up in store, carrying burdens, building their houses, and the like ( vid . , the passages in the Talmud and Midrash in the Hamburg Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud , 1868, p. 83f.)

To the ant the sluggard (עצל, Aram. and Arab. עטל, with the fundamental idea of weight and dulness) is sent, to learn from her to be ashamed, and to be taught wisdom.

Pro 6:6-8 As Elihu (Job 35:11) says that God has set the beasts as our teachers, so he sends the sluggard to the school of the ant ( Ameise ), so named (in Germ.) from its industry ( Emsigkeit ): 6 Go to the ant, sluggard; Consider her ways, and be wise! 7 She that hath no judge, Director, and ruler: 8 She prepareth in summer her food, Has gathered in harvest her store.

The Dechî written mostly under the לך separates the inseparable. The thought, Go to the ant, sluggard! permits no other distinction than in the vocative; but the Dechî of לך אל־נמלה is changed into Munach on account of the nature of the Athnach -word, which consists of only two syllables without the counter-tone. The ant has for its Hebrew-Arabic name נמלה, from the R.

נם (Isaiah, p. 687), which is first used of the sound, which expresses the idea of the low, dull, secret - thus of its active and yet unperceived motion; its Aramaic name in the Peshîto, ûmenaa', and in the Targ. שׁוּמשׁמנא (also Arab. sumsum, simsim, of little red ants), designates it after its quick activity, its busy running hither and thither ( vid . , Fleischer in Levy’s Chald.

Wörterb . ii. 578). She is a model of unwearied and well-planned labour. From the plur. דּרכיה it is to be concluded that the author observed their art in gathering in and laying up in store, carrying burdens, building their houses, and the like ( vid . , the passages in the Talmud and Midrash in the Hamburg Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud , 1868, p. 83f.)

To the ant the sluggard (עצל, Aram. and Arab. עטל, with the fundamental idea of weight and dulness) is sent, to learn from her to be ashamed, and to be taught wisdom.

Pro 6:6-8 As Elihu (Job 35:11) says that God has set the beasts as our teachers, so he sends the sluggard to the school of the ant ( Ameise ), so named (in Germ.) from its industry ( Emsigkeit ): 6 Go to the ant, sluggard; Consider her ways, and be wise! 7 She that hath no judge, Director, and ruler: 8 She prepareth in summer her food, Has gathered in harvest her store.

The Dechî written mostly under the לך separates the inseparable. The thought, Go to the ant, sluggard! permits no other distinction than in the vocative; but the Dechî of לך אל־נמלה is changed into Munach on account of the nature of the Athnach -word, which consists of only two syllables without the counter-tone. The ant has for its Hebrew-Arabic name נמלה, from the R.

נם (Isaiah, p. 687), which is first used of the sound, which expresses the idea of the low, dull, secret - thus of its active and yet unperceived motion; its Aramaic name in the Peshîto, ûmenaa', and in the Targ. שׁוּמשׁמנא (also Arab. sumsum, simsim, of little red ants), designates it after its quick activity, its busy running hither and thither ( vid . , Fleischer in Levy’s Chald.

Wörterb . ii. 578). She is a model of unwearied and well-planned labour. From the plur. דּרכיה it is to be concluded that the author observed their art in gathering in and laying up in store, carrying burdens, building their houses, and the like ( vid . , the passages in the Talmud and Midrash in the Hamburg Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud , 1868, p. 83f.)

To the ant the sluggard (עצל, Aram. and Arab. עטל, with the fundamental idea of weight and dulness) is sent, to learn from her to be ashamed, and to be taught wisdom.

Pro 6:9-11 After the poet has admonished the sluggard to take the ant as an example, he seeks also to rouse him out of his sleepiness and indolence: 9 How long, O sluggard, wilt thou lie? When wilt thou rise up from thy sleep? 10 “A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest! ” 11 So comes like a strong robber thy poverty, And thy want as an armed man.

Pro 6:9-10 The awakening cry, Pro 6:9, is not of the kind that Paul could have it in his mind, Eph 5:14. עצל has, as the vocative, Pasek after it, and is, on account of the Pasek , in correct editions accentuated not with Munach , but Mercha . The words, Pro 6:10, are not an ironical call (sleep only yet a little while, but in truth a long while), but per mimesin the reply of the sluggard with which he turns away the unwelcome disturber.

The plurals with מעט sound like self-delusion: yet a little, but a sufficient! To fold the hands, i. e. , to cross them over the breast, or put them into the bosom, denotes also, Ecc 4:5, the idler. חבּוּק, complicatio (cf. in Livy, compressis quod aiunt manibus sidere ; and Lucan, 2:292, compressas tenuisse manus ), for formed like שׁקּוּי, Pro 3:8, and the inf .

שׁכב like חסר, Pro 10:21, and שׁפל, Pro 16:19. The perf. consec . connects itself with the words heard from the mouth of the sluggard, which are as a hypothetical antecedent thereto: if thou so sayest, and always again sayest, then this is the consequence, that suddenly and inevitably poverty and want come upon thee. That מהלּך denotes the grassator , i. e. , vagabond (Arab.

dawwar, one who wanders much about), or the robber or foe (like the Arab. 'aduww, properly transgressor finium ), is not justified by the usage of the language; הלך signifies, 2Sa 12:4, the traveller, and מהלּך is one who rides quickly forward, not directly a κακὸς ὁδοιπόρος (lxx).

Pro 6:9-11 After the poet has admonished the sluggard to take the ant as an example, he seeks also to rouse him out of his sleepiness and indolence: 9 How long, O sluggard, wilt thou lie? When wilt thou rise up from thy sleep? 10 “A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest! ” 11 So comes like a strong robber thy poverty, And thy want as an armed man.

Pro 6:9-10 The awakening cry, Pro 6:9, is not of the kind that Paul could have it in his mind, Eph 5:14. עצל has, as the vocative, Pasek after it, and is, on account of the Pasek , in correct editions accentuated not with Munach , but Mercha . The words, Pro 6:10, are not an ironical call (sleep only yet a little while, but in truth a long while), but per mimesin the reply of the sluggard with which he turns away the unwelcome disturber.

The plurals with מעט sound like self-delusion: yet a little, but a sufficient! To fold the hands, i. e. , to cross them over the breast, or put them into the bosom, denotes also, Ecc 4:5, the idler. חבּוּק, complicatio (cf. in Livy, compressis quod aiunt manibus sidere ; and Lucan, 2:292, compressas tenuisse manus ), for formed like שׁקּוּי, Pro 3:8, and the inf .

שׁכב like חסר, Pro 10:21, and שׁפל, Pro 16:19. The perf. consec . connects itself with the words heard from the mouth of the sluggard, which are as a hypothetical antecedent thereto: if thou so sayest, and always again sayest, then this is the consequence, that suddenly and inevitably poverty and want come upon thee. That מהלּך denotes the grassator , i. e. , vagabond (Arab.

dawwar, one who wanders much about), or the robber or foe (like the Arab. 'aduww, properly transgressor finium ), is not justified by the usage of the language; הלך signifies, 2Sa 12:4, the traveller, and מהלּך is one who rides quickly forward, not directly a κακὸς ὁδοιπόρος (lxx).

Pro 6:9-11 After the poet has admonished the sluggard to take the ant as an example, he seeks also to rouse him out of his sleepiness and indolence: 9 How long, O sluggard, wilt thou lie? When wilt thou rise up from thy sleep? 10 “A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest! ” 11 So comes like a strong robber thy poverty, And thy want as an armed man.

Pro 6:9-10 The awakening cry, Pro 6:9, is not of the kind that Paul could have it in his mind, Eph 5:14. עצל has, as the vocative, Pasek after it, and is, on account of the Pasek , in correct editions accentuated not with Munach , but Mercha . The words, Pro 6:10, are not an ironical call (sleep only yet a little while, but in truth a long while), but per mimesin the reply of the sluggard with which he turns away the unwelcome disturber.

The plurals with מעט sound like self-delusion: yet a little, but a sufficient! To fold the hands, i. e. , to cross them over the breast, or put them into the bosom, denotes also, Ecc 4:5, the idler. חבּוּק, complicatio (cf. in Livy, compressis quod aiunt manibus sidere ; and Lucan, 2:292, compressas tenuisse manus ), for formed like שׁקּוּי, Pro 3:8, and the inf .

שׁכב like חסר, Pro 10:21, and שׁפל, Pro 16:19. The perf. consec . connects itself with the words heard from the mouth of the sluggard, which are as a hypothetical antecedent thereto: if thou so sayest, and always again sayest, then this is the consequence, that suddenly and inevitably poverty and want come upon thee. That מהלּך denotes the grassator , i. e. , vagabond (Arab.

dawwar, one who wanders much about), or the robber or foe (like the Arab. 'aduww, properly transgressor finium ), is not justified by the usage of the language; הלך signifies, 2Sa 12:4, the traveller, and מהלּך is one who rides quickly forward, not directly a κακὸς ὁδοιπόρος (lxx).

Pro 6:12-15 There follows now a third brief series of instructions, which run to a conclusion with a deterring prospect similar to the foregoing. 12 A worthless man, a wicked man, Is he who practiseth falsehood with his mouth; 13 Who winketh with his eyes, scrapeth with his foot, Pointeth with his fingers. 14 Malice is in his heart, He deviseth evil at all times, He spreadeth strife.

15 Therefore suddenly his destruction shall come, Suddenly shall he be destroyed, and there is no remedy. It is a question, what is the subject and what the predicate in Pro 6:12. Thus much is clear, that upon him who is here described according to his deceitful conduct the sentence of condemnation shall fall. He who is so described is thus subject, and אדם בּליּעל is without doubt predicate.

But does the complex subject begin with אישׁ און? Thus e. g. , Hitzig: “A worthless man is the wicked man who.... ” But the interchange of עדם and אישׁ is a sign of parallel relation; and if 12b belonged attributively to אישׁ און, then since אישׁ האון is not used, it ought at least to have been continued by ההולך. The general moral categories, 12a, are thus predicates, as was indeed besides probable; the copious division of the subject demands also in point of style a more developed predicate.

Pro 16:27 is simpler in plan, and also logically different. There the expression is, as is usual, אישׁ בליעל. Since אדם און is not possible, the author uses instead בליעל. This word, composed of בּלי and יעל (from יעל, ועל, to be useful, to be good for), so fully serves as one word, that it even takes the article, 1Sa 25:25. It denotes worthlessness, generally in a chain of words in the genitive, but also the worthless, Job 34:18; and it is to be so taken here, for אדם does not form a constructivus , and never governs a genitive.

בליעל is thus a virtual adjective (as nequam in homo nequam ); the connection is like that of אדם רשׁע, Pro 11:7, and elsewhere, although more appositional than this pure attributive. Synonymous with בליעל is און (from an , to breathe), wickedness, i. e. , want of all moral character. Thus worthless and wicked is he who practises deceit with his mouth (cf. Pro 4:24), i.

e. , who makes language the means of untruthfulness and uncharitableness. עקּשׁוּת פּה is meant in a moral sense, but without excluding that distortion of the mouth which belongs to the mimicry of the malicious. It is the accus. of the object; for הלך is also bound in a moral sense with the accusative of that which one practises, i. e. , dealing with, exercises himself in, Pro 2:7; Pro 28:18, Isa 33:15.

Pro 6:12-15 There follows now a third brief series of instructions, which run to a conclusion with a deterring prospect similar to the foregoing. 12 A worthless man, a wicked man, Is he who practiseth falsehood with his mouth; 13 Who winketh with his eyes, scrapeth with his foot, Pointeth with his fingers. 14 Malice is in his heart, He deviseth evil at all times, He spreadeth strife.

15 Therefore suddenly his destruction shall come, Suddenly shall he be destroyed, and there is no remedy. It is a question, what is the subject and what the predicate in Pro 6:12. Thus much is clear, that upon him who is here described according to his deceitful conduct the sentence of condemnation shall fall. He who is so described is thus subject, and אדם בּליּעל is without doubt predicate.

But does the complex subject begin with אישׁ און? Thus e. g. , Hitzig: “A worthless man is the wicked man who.... ” But the interchange of עדם and אישׁ is a sign of parallel relation; and if 12b belonged attributively to אישׁ און, then since אישׁ האון is not used, it ought at least to have been continued by ההולך. The general moral categories, 12a, are thus predicates, as was indeed besides probable; the copious division of the subject demands also in point of style a more developed predicate.

Pro 16:27 is simpler in plan, and also logically different. There the expression is, as is usual, אישׁ בליעל. Since אדם און is not possible, the author uses instead בליעל. This word, composed of בּלי and יעל (from יעל, ועל, to be useful, to be good for), so fully serves as one word, that it even takes the article, 1Sa 25:25. It denotes worthlessness, generally in a chain of words in the genitive, but also the worthless, Job 34:18; and it is to be so taken here, for אדם does not form a constructivus , and never governs a genitive.

בליעל is thus a virtual adjective (as nequam in homo nequam ); the connection is like that of אדם רשׁע, Pro 11:7, and elsewhere, although more appositional than this pure attributive. Synonymous with בליעל is און (from an , to breathe), wickedness, i. e. , want of all moral character. Thus worthless and wicked is he who practises deceit with his mouth (cf. Pro 4:24), i.

e. , who makes language the means of untruthfulness and uncharitableness. עקּשׁוּת פּה is meant in a moral sense, but without excluding that distortion of the mouth which belongs to the mimicry of the malicious. It is the accus. of the object; for הלך is also bound in a moral sense with the accusative of that which one practises, i. e. , dealing with, exercises himself in, Pro 2:7; Pro 28:18, Isa 33:15.

Pro 6:12-15 There follows now a third brief series of instructions, which run to a conclusion with a deterring prospect similar to the foregoing. 12 A worthless man, a wicked man, Is he who practiseth falsehood with his mouth; 13 Who winketh with his eyes, scrapeth with his foot, Pointeth with his fingers. 14 Malice is in his heart, He deviseth evil at all times, He spreadeth strife.

15 Therefore suddenly his destruction shall come, Suddenly shall he be destroyed, and there is no remedy. It is a question, what is the subject and what the predicate in Pro 6:12. Thus much is clear, that upon him who is here described according to his deceitful conduct the sentence of condemnation shall fall. He who is so described is thus subject, and אדם בּליּעל is without doubt predicate.

But does the complex subject begin with אישׁ און? Thus e. g. , Hitzig: “A worthless man is the wicked man who.... ” But the interchange of עדם and אישׁ is a sign of parallel relation; and if 12b belonged attributively to אישׁ און, then since אישׁ האון is not used, it ought at least to have been continued by ההולך. The general moral categories, 12a, are thus predicates, as was indeed besides probable; the copious division of the subject demands also in point of style a more developed predicate.

Pro 16:27 is simpler in plan, and also logically different. There the expression is, as is usual, אישׁ בליעל. Since אדם און is not possible, the author uses instead בליעל. This word, composed of בּלי and יעל (from יעל, ועל, to be useful, to be good for), so fully serves as one word, that it even takes the article, 1Sa 25:25. It denotes worthlessness, generally in a chain of words in the genitive, but also the worthless, Job 34:18; and it is to be so taken here, for אדם does not form a constructivus , and never governs a genitive.

בליעל is thus a virtual adjective (as nequam in homo nequam ); the connection is like that of אדם רשׁע, Pro 11:7, and elsewhere, although more appositional than this pure attributive. Synonymous with בליעל is און (from an , to breathe), wickedness, i. e. , want of all moral character. Thus worthless and wicked is he who practises deceit with his mouth (cf. Pro 4:24), i.

e. , who makes language the means of untruthfulness and uncharitableness. עקּשׁוּת פּה is meant in a moral sense, but without excluding that distortion of the mouth which belongs to the mimicry of the malicious. It is the accus. of the object; for הלך is also bound in a moral sense with the accusative of that which one practises, i. e. , dealing with, exercises himself in, Pro 2:7; Pro 28:18, Isa 33:15.

Pro 6:12-15 There follows now a third brief series of instructions, which run to a conclusion with a deterring prospect similar to the foregoing. 12 A worthless man, a wicked man, Is he who practiseth falsehood with his mouth; 13 Who winketh with his eyes, scrapeth with his foot, Pointeth with his fingers. 14 Malice is in his heart, He deviseth evil at all times, He spreadeth strife.

15 Therefore suddenly his destruction shall come, Suddenly shall he be destroyed, and there is no remedy. It is a question, what is the subject and what the predicate in Pro 6:12. Thus much is clear, that upon him who is here described according to his deceitful conduct the sentence of condemnation shall fall. He who is so described is thus subject, and אדם בּליּעל is without doubt predicate.

But does the complex subject begin with אישׁ און? Thus e. g. , Hitzig: “A worthless man is the wicked man who.... ” But the interchange of עדם and אישׁ is a sign of parallel relation; and if 12b belonged attributively to אישׁ און, then since אישׁ האון is not used, it ought at least to have been continued by ההולך. The general moral categories, 12a, are thus predicates, as was indeed besides probable; the copious division of the subject demands also in point of style a more developed predicate.

Pro 16:27 is simpler in plan, and also logically different. There the expression is, as is usual, אישׁ בליעל. Since אדם און is not possible, the author uses instead בליעל. This word, composed of בּלי and יעל (from יעל, ועל, to be useful, to be good for), so fully serves as one word, that it even takes the article, 1Sa 25:25. It denotes worthlessness, generally in a chain of words in the genitive, but also the worthless, Job 34:18; and it is to be so taken here, for אדם does not form a constructivus , and never governs a genitive.

בליעל is thus a virtual adjective (as nequam in homo nequam ); the connection is like that of אדם רשׁע, Pro 11:7, and elsewhere, although more appositional than this pure attributive. Synonymous with בליעל is און (from an , to breathe), wickedness, i. e. , want of all moral character. Thus worthless and wicked is he who practises deceit with his mouth (cf. Pro 4:24), i.

e. , who makes language the means of untruthfulness and uncharitableness. עקּשׁוּת פּה is meant in a moral sense, but without excluding that distortion of the mouth which belongs to the mimicry of the malicious. It is the accus. of the object; for הלך is also bound in a moral sense with the accusative of that which one practises, i. e. , dealing with, exercises himself in, Pro 2:7; Pro 28:18, Isa 33:15.

Pro 6:16-19 What now follows is not a separate section (Hitzig), but the corroborative continuation of that which precedes. The last word (מדנים, strife) before the threatening of punishment, 14b, is also here the last. The thought that no vice is a greater abomination to God than the (in fact satanical) striving to set men at variance who love one another, clothes itself in the form of the numerical proverb which we have already considered, pp.

12, 13. From that place we transfer the translation of this example of a Midda : - 16 There are six things which Jahve hateth, And seven are an abhorrence to His soul: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 An heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil, Feet that hastily run to wickedness, 19 One that uttereth lies as a false witness, And he who soweth strife between brethren.

The sense is not, that the six things are hateful to God, and the seventh an abomination to Him besides (Löwenstein); the Midda -form in Amos 1:3-2:6, and in the proverb in Job 5:19, shows that the seven are to be numbered separately, and the seventh is the non plus ultra of all that is hated by God. We are not to translate: sex haecce odit , for המּה, הנּה, (הם, הן) points backwards and hitherwards, but not, as אלּה, forwards to that immediately following; in that case the words would be שׁשׁ אלה, or more correctly האלה שׁשׁ.

But also Hitzig’s explanation, “These six things (viz. , Pro 6:12-15) Jahve hateth,” is impossible; for (which is also against that haecce ) the substantive pronoun המה nuonorp , הנה (ההמה, ההנה) is never, like the Chald. המּון (המּו), employed as an accus. in the sense of אתהם, אתהן, it is always (except where it is the virtual gen. connected with a preposition) only the nom.

, whether of the subject or of the predicate; and where it is the nom. of the predicate, as Deu 20:15; Isa 51:19, substantival clauses precede in which הנה (המה) represents the substantive verb, or, more correctly, in which the logical copula resulting from the connection of the clause itself remains unexpressed. Accordingly, 'שׂנא ה is a relative clause, and is therefore so accentuated here, as at Pro 30:15 and elsewhere: sex ( sunt ) ea quae Deus odit, et septem ( sunt ) abominatio animae ejus .

Regarding the statement that the soul of God hates anything, vid . , at Isa 1:14. תועבות, an error in the writing occasioned by the numeral ( vid . , Pro 26:25), is properly corrected by the Kerı̂; the poet had certainly the singular in view, as Pro 3:32; Pro 11:1, when he wrote תועבת. The first three characteristics are related to each other as mental, verbal, actual, denoted by the members of the body by means of which these characteristics come to light.

The virtues are taken all together as a body (organism), and meekness is its head. Therefore there stands above all, as the sin of sins, the mentis elatae tumor , which expresses itself in elatum ( grande ) supercilium : עינים רמות, the feature of the רם, haughty (cf. Psa 18:28 with 2Sa 22:28), is the opposite of the feature of the שׁח עינים, Job 22:29; עין is in the O.

T. almost always ( vid . , Sol 4:9) fem. , and adjectives of course form no dual. The second of these characteristics is the lying tongue, and the third the murderous hands. דּם־נקי is innocent blood as distinguished from דּם הנּקי, the blood of the innocent, Deu 19:13.

Pro 6:16-19 What now follows is not a separate section (Hitzig), but the corroborative continuation of that which precedes. The last word (מדנים, strife) before the threatening of punishment, 14b, is also here the last. The thought that no vice is a greater abomination to God than the (in fact satanical) striving to set men at variance who love one another, clothes itself in the form of the numerical proverb which we have already considered, pp.

12, 13. From that place we transfer the translation of this example of a Midda : - 16 There are six things which Jahve hateth, And seven are an abhorrence to His soul: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 An heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil, Feet that hastily run to wickedness, 19 One that uttereth lies as a false witness, And he who soweth strife between brethren.

The sense is not, that the six things are hateful to God, and the seventh an abomination to Him besides (Löwenstein); the Midda -form in Amos 1:3-2:6, and in the proverb in Job 5:19, shows that the seven are to be numbered separately, and the seventh is the non plus ultra of all that is hated by God. We are not to translate: sex haecce odit , for המּה, הנּה, (הם, הן) points backwards and hitherwards, but not, as אלּה, forwards to that immediately following; in that case the words would be שׁשׁ אלה, or more correctly האלה שׁשׁ.

But also Hitzig’s explanation, “These six things (viz. , Pro 6:12-15) Jahve hateth,” is impossible; for (which is also against that haecce ) the substantive pronoun המה nuonorp , הנה (ההמה, ההנה) is never, like the Chald. המּון (המּו), employed as an accus. in the sense of אתהם, אתהן, it is always (except where it is the virtual gen. connected with a preposition) only the nom.

, whether of the subject or of the predicate; and where it is the nom. of the predicate, as Deu 20:15; Isa 51:19, substantival clauses precede in which הנה (המה) represents the substantive verb, or, more correctly, in which the logical copula resulting from the connection of the clause itself remains unexpressed. Accordingly, 'שׂנא ה is a relative clause, and is therefore so accentuated here, as at Pro 30:15 and elsewhere: sex ( sunt ) ea quae Deus odit, et septem ( sunt ) abominatio animae ejus .

Regarding the statement that the soul of God hates anything, vid . , at Isa 1:14. תועבות, an error in the writing occasioned by the numeral ( vid . , Pro 26:25), is properly corrected by the Kerı̂; the poet had certainly the singular in view, as Pro 3:32; Pro 11:1, when he wrote תועבת. The first three characteristics are related to each other as mental, verbal, actual, denoted by the members of the body by means of which these characteristics come to light.

The virtues are taken all together as a body (organism), and meekness is its head. Therefore there stands above all, as the sin of sins, the mentis elatae tumor , which expresses itself in elatum ( grande ) supercilium : עינים רמות, the feature of the רם, haughty (cf. Psa 18:28 with 2Sa 22:28), is the opposite of the feature of the שׁח עינים, Job 22:29; עין is in the O.

T. almost always ( vid . , Sol 4:9) fem. , and adjectives of course form no dual. The second of these characteristics is the lying tongue, and the third the murderous hands. דּם־נקי is innocent blood as distinguished from דּם הנּקי, the blood of the innocent, Deu 19:13.

Pro 6:16-19 What now follows is not a separate section (Hitzig), but the corroborative continuation of that which precedes. The last word (מדנים, strife) before the threatening of punishment, 14b, is also here the last. The thought that no vice is a greater abomination to God than the (in fact satanical) striving to set men at variance who love one another, clothes itself in the form of the numerical proverb which we have already considered, pp.

12, 13. From that place we transfer the translation of this example of a Midda : - 16 There are six things which Jahve hateth, And seven are an abhorrence to His soul: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 An heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil, Feet that hastily run to wickedness, 19 One that uttereth lies as a false witness, And he who soweth strife between brethren.

The sense is not, that the six things are hateful to God, and the seventh an abomination to Him besides (Löwenstein); the Midda -form in Amos 1:3-2:6, and in the proverb in Job 5:19, shows that the seven are to be numbered separately, and the seventh is the non plus ultra of all that is hated by God. We are not to translate: sex haecce odit , for המּה, הנּה, (הם, הן) points backwards and hitherwards, but not, as אלּה, forwards to that immediately following; in that case the words would be שׁשׁ אלה, or more correctly האלה שׁשׁ.

But also Hitzig’s explanation, “These six things (viz. , Pro 6:12-15) Jahve hateth,” is impossible; for (which is also against that haecce ) the substantive pronoun המה nuonorp , הנה (ההמה, ההנה) is never, like the Chald. המּון (המּו), employed as an accus. in the sense of אתהם, אתהן, it is always (except where it is the virtual gen. connected with a preposition) only the nom.

, whether of the subject or of the predicate; and where it is the nom. of the predicate, as Deu 20:15; Isa 51:19, substantival clauses precede in which הנה (המה) represents the substantive verb, or, more correctly, in which the logical copula resulting from the connection of the clause itself remains unexpressed. Accordingly, 'שׂנא ה is a relative clause, and is therefore so accentuated here, as at Pro 30:15 and elsewhere: sex ( sunt ) ea quae Deus odit, et septem ( sunt ) abominatio animae ejus .

Regarding the statement that the soul of God hates anything, vid . , at Isa 1:14. תועבות, an error in the writing occasioned by the numeral ( vid . , Pro 26:25), is properly corrected by the Kerı̂; the poet had certainly the singular in view, as Pro 3:32; Pro 11:1, when he wrote תועבת. The first three characteristics are related to each other as mental, verbal, actual, denoted by the members of the body by means of which these characteristics come to light.

The virtues are taken all together as a body (organism), and meekness is its head. Therefore there stands above all, as the sin of sins, the mentis elatae tumor , which expresses itself in elatum ( grande ) supercilium : עינים רמות, the feature of the רם, haughty (cf. Psa 18:28 with 2Sa 22:28), is the opposite of the feature of the שׁח עינים, Job 22:29; עין is in the O.

T. almost always ( vid . , Sol 4:9) fem. , and adjectives of course form no dual. The second of these characteristics is the lying tongue, and the third the murderous hands. דּם־נקי is innocent blood as distinguished from דּם הנּקי, the blood of the innocent, Deu 19:13.

Pro 6:16-19 What now follows is not a separate section (Hitzig), but the corroborative continuation of that which precedes. The last word (מדנים, strife) before the threatening of punishment, 14b, is also here the last. The thought that no vice is a greater abomination to God than the (in fact satanical) striving to set men at variance who love one another, clothes itself in the form of the numerical proverb which we have already considered, pp.

12, 13. From that place we transfer the translation of this example of a Midda : - 16 There are six things which Jahve hateth, And seven are an abhorrence to His soul: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 An heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil, Feet that hastily run to wickedness, 19 One that uttereth lies as a false witness, And he who soweth strife between brethren.

The sense is not, that the six things are hateful to God, and the seventh an abomination to Him besides (Löwenstein); the Midda -form in Amos 1:3-2:6, and in the proverb in Job 5:19, shows that the seven are to be numbered separately, and the seventh is the non plus ultra of all that is hated by God. We are not to translate: sex haecce odit , for המּה, הנּה, (הם, הן) points backwards and hitherwards, but not, as אלּה, forwards to that immediately following; in that case the words would be שׁשׁ אלה, or more correctly האלה שׁשׁ.

But also Hitzig’s explanation, “These six things (viz. , Pro 6:12-15) Jahve hateth,” is impossible; for (which is also against that haecce ) the substantive pronoun המה nuonorp , הנה (ההמה, ההנה) is never, like the Chald. המּון (המּו), employed as an accus. in the sense of אתהם, אתהן, it is always (except where it is the virtual gen. connected with a preposition) only the nom.

, whether of the subject or of the predicate; and where it is the nom. of the predicate, as Deu 20:15; Isa 51:19, substantival clauses precede in which הנה (המה) represents the substantive verb, or, more correctly, in which the logical copula resulting from the connection of the clause itself remains unexpressed. Accordingly, 'שׂנא ה is a relative clause, and is therefore so accentuated here, as at Pro 30:15 and elsewhere: sex ( sunt ) ea quae Deus odit, et septem ( sunt ) abominatio animae ejus .

Regarding the statement that the soul of God hates anything, vid . , at Isa 1:14. תועבות, an error in the writing occasioned by the numeral ( vid . , Pro 26:25), is properly corrected by the Kerı̂; the poet had certainly the singular in view, as Pro 3:32; Pro 11:1, when he wrote תועבת. The first three characteristics are related to each other as mental, verbal, actual, denoted by the members of the body by means of which these characteristics come to light.

The virtues are taken all together as a body (organism), and meekness is its head. Therefore there stands above all, as the sin of sins, the mentis elatae tumor , which expresses itself in elatum ( grande ) supercilium : עינים רמות, the feature of the רם, haughty (cf. Psa 18:28 with 2Sa 22:28), is the opposite of the feature of the שׁח עינים, Job 22:29; עין is in the O.

T. almost always ( vid . , Sol 4:9) fem. , and adjectives of course form no dual. The second of these characteristics is the lying tongue, and the third the murderous hands. דּם־נקי is innocent blood as distinguished from דּם הנּקי, the blood of the innocent, Deu 19:13.

Pro 6:20-21 After these three smaller sections, the teacher of wisdom returns here to the theme of the eighth: Warning against sins of the flesh, whose power and prevalence among men is so immeasurably great, that their terrible consequences cannot sufficiently be held up before them, particularly before youth. 20 Keep, my son, the commandment of thy father, And reject not the instruction of thy mother.

21 Bind them to thy heart evermore, Fasten them about thy neck. The suff. -ēm refers to the good doctrine (cf. Pro 7:3) pointed out by מצוה and תּורה; the masc. stands, as is usual ( e. g. , Pro 1:16; Pro 5:2), instead of the fem. Regarding the figure, reminding us of the Tefillin and of Amuletes for perpetual representation, vid . , under Pro 3:3. Similarly of persons, Sol 8:6.

The verb ענד (only here and Job 31:36) signifies to bend, particularly to bend aside (Arab. 'ind, bending off, going aside; accus. as adv. , aside, apud ), and to bend up, to wind about, circumplicare .

Pro 6:20-21 After these three smaller sections, the teacher of wisdom returns here to the theme of the eighth: Warning against sins of the flesh, whose power and prevalence among men is so immeasurably great, that their terrible consequences cannot sufficiently be held up before them, particularly before youth. 20 Keep, my son, the commandment of thy father, And reject not the instruction of thy mother.

21 Bind them to thy heart evermore, Fasten them about thy neck. The suff. -ēm refers to the good doctrine (cf. Pro 7:3) pointed out by מצוה and תּורה; the masc. stands, as is usual ( e. g. , Pro 1:16; Pro 5:2), instead of the fem. Regarding the figure, reminding us of the Tefillin and of Amuletes for perpetual representation, vid . , under Pro 3:3. Similarly of persons, Sol 8:6.

The verb ענד (only here and Job 31:36) signifies to bend, particularly to bend aside (Arab. 'ind, bending off, going aside; accus. as adv. , aside, apud ), and to bend up, to wind about, circumplicare .

Pro 6:22 The representation of the good doctrine is now personified, and becomes identified with it. When thou walkest, it will guide thee; When thou liest down, it will keep watch over thee; And when thou wakest, it will talk with thee. The subject is the doctrine of wisdom, with which the representation of wisdom herself is identified. The futures are not expressive of a wish or of an admonition, but of a promise; the form of the third clause shows this.

Thus, and in the same succession as in the schema Deu 6:7, cf. Pro 11:19, are the three circumstances of the outward life distinguished: going, lying down, and rising up. The punctuation בּהתהלכך, found here and there, is Ben-Naphtali’s variant; Ben-Asher and also the Textus rec . reject the Metheg in this case, vid . , Baer’s Metheg - Setzung , §28. The verb נחה, with its Hiph .

in a strengthened Kal -signification, is more frequently found in the Psalms than in the Proverbs; the Arab. nh' shows that it properly signifies to direct ( dirigere ), to give direction, to move in a definite direction. שׁמר with על, to take into protection, we had already Pro 2:11; this author has favourite forms of expression, in the repetition of which he takes delight.

With lying down, sleeping is associated. והקיצות is, as Psa 139:18, the hypoth. perf . , according to Ewald, §357a: et ut expergefactus es, illa te compellabit . Bertheau incorrectly: she will make thee thoughtful. But apart from the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of this Hiph . in the language of the Bible, the personification demands a clearer figure.

שׂיח (שׂוּח) signifies mental speech and audible speech (Gen 24:63, poet. , in the Talmudic a common word); with ב, speaking concerning something ( fabulari de ), Psa 69:13; with the accus. , that which is said of a thing, Psa 145:5, or the address, briefly for שׂיח ל, Job 12:8 (as מגּן with accus. Pro 4:9 = מגן ל): when thou art awake, wisdom will forthwith enter into conversation with thee, and fill thy thoughts with right matter, and give to thy hands the right direction and consecration.

Pro 6:23 Since in היא the idea of wisdom and of wholesome doctrine lie in one another, the author can proceed with proof: For a lamp is the commandment, and instruction a light (Jerome et lex lux ); And a way of life, disciplinary reproofs. That תורה has here not the positive, specifically Israelitish sense, but the generalized sense of instruction in conformity with truth regarding the will of God and the duty of man, vid .

, p. 42. This instruction mediated by man, but of divine origin, is אור, light, which enlightens the man who submits to it; and the commandment, מצוה, which directs men in every case to do what is right, and forbids that which is wrong (including the prohibition Lev 4:2), is נר, a lamp which, kindled at that light, enlightens all the darkness of ignorance with reference to human conduct and its consequences.

אור and נר are related to each other as general and particular, primary and derivative. Löwenstein accentuates incorrectly תּורהו אור instead of תּורהו אור (as the Cod. 1294 and the 3 Erfurt Codd.) ; vid . , on the retrogression of the tone, not existing here, under Pro 3:15. The gen. מוּסר denotes the object or character of the admonition: not disciplinary in the external sense of the word, but rather moral, having in view discipline in the sense of education, i.

e. , moral edification and elevation. Such corrections are דּרך חיּים, the way to true life, direction how to obtain it.

Pro 6:24 The section thus closes: To keep thee from the vile woman, From the flattery of the strange tongue. Regarding the genitive connection אושׁת רע, a woman of a wicked character, vid . , under Pro 2:14; and regarding the adjectival connection לשׁון נכריה, under Pro 6:17; the strange tongue is the tongue (לשׁון) of the strange (foreign) woman ( vid . , p.

81), alluring with smooth words (Pro 2:16). Ewald, Bertheau: from her of a smooth tongue, the stranger, as Symm. , Theod. , ἀπὸ λειογλώσσου ξένης; but חלקת is a substantive (Gen 27:16), and as a fem. adject. form is without an example. Rather חלקת לשׁון is to be regarded as the first member and נכריה as the second of the st. constr. , for the former constitutes one idea, and לשון on this account remains unabbreviated; cf.

Psa 68:22; Isa 28:1; but (1) this syntactical phenomenon is yet problematical, vid . , Friedr. Philippi, Wesen und Ursprung des St. Constr . p. 17; and (2) the supposition of such an anomaly is here unnecessary.

Pro 6:25-26 The proaemium of these twelve proverbial discourses is now at an end. Wisdom herself begins striking the note of the Decalogue: 25 Long not for her beauty in thy heart, And let her not catch thee with her eyelids; 26 Because for a harlot one cometh down to a piece of bread, And a man’s wife lieth in wait for a precious soul. The warning 25a is in the spirit of the “thou shalt not covet,” Exo 20:17, and the ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτοῦ, Mat 5:28, of the Preacher on the Mount.

The Talmudic proverb הרהודי עבירה קשו מעבירה ( Joma 29a) means only that the imagination of the sinful act exhausts the body even more than the act itself. The warning, “let her not catch thee with her eyelids,” refers to her (the adulteress’s) coquettish ogling and amorous winking. In the reason added, beginning with כּי בעד־ (thus it is to be punctuated), there is the appositional connection אשּׁה זונה, Gesen.

§113; the idea of זונה goes over into 26b. “לחם כּכּר [ = כּרכּר, R. kr, to round, vid . , at Gen 49:5], properly a circle of bread, is a small round piece of bread, such as is still baked in Italy ( pagnotta ) and in the East (Arab. ḳurṣ), here an expression for the smallest piece” (Fl.) בּעד ( constr . of בּעד), as Job 2:4; Isa 32:14, is used in the sense of ὑπέρ, pro , and with עד there is connected the idea of the coming down to this low point.

Ewald, Bertheau explain after the lxx, τιμὴ γὰρ πόρνης ὅση καὶ ἑνὸς ἄρτου, γυνὴ δὲ ἀνδρῶν τιμίας ψυχὰς ἀγρεύει. But nothing is said here of price (reward); the parallelism is synonymous, not antithetic: he is doubly threatened with loss who enters upon such a course. The adulterer squanders his means (Pro 29:3) to impoverishment ( vid . , the mention of a loaf of bread in the description of poverty 1Sa 2:36), and a man’s wife (but at the same time seeking converse with another) makes a prey of a precious soul; for whoever consents to adulterous converse with her, loses not perhaps his means, but certainly freedom, purity, dignity of soul, yea, his own person.

צוּד comprehends - as צידון, fisher’s town [Zidon], Arab. ṣyâd, hunter and fisher, show - all kinds of hunting, but in Hebr. is used only of the hunting of wild beasts. The root-meaning (cf. צדיּה) is to spy, to seize.

Pro 6:25-26 The proaemium of these twelve proverbial discourses is now at an end. Wisdom herself begins striking the note of the Decalogue: 25 Long not for her beauty in thy heart, And let her not catch thee with her eyelids; 26 Because for a harlot one cometh down to a piece of bread, And a man’s wife lieth in wait for a precious soul. The warning 25a is in the spirit of the “thou shalt not covet,” Exo 20:17, and the ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτοῦ, Mat 5:28, of the Preacher on the Mount.

The Talmudic proverb הרהודי עבירה קשו מעבירה ( Joma 29a) means only that the imagination of the sinful act exhausts the body even more than the act itself. The warning, “let her not catch thee with her eyelids,” refers to her (the adulteress’s) coquettish ogling and amorous winking. In the reason added, beginning with כּי בעד־ (thus it is to be punctuated), there is the appositional connection אשּׁה זונה, Gesen.

§113; the idea of זונה goes over into 26b. “לחם כּכּר [ = כּרכּר, R. kr, to round, vid . , at Gen 49:5], properly a circle of bread, is a small round piece of bread, such as is still baked in Italy ( pagnotta ) and in the East (Arab. ḳurṣ), here an expression for the smallest piece” (Fl.) בּעד ( constr . of בּעד), as Job 2:4; Isa 32:14, is used in the sense of ὑπέρ, pro , and with עד there is connected the idea of the coming down to this low point.

Ewald, Bertheau explain after the lxx, τιμὴ γὰρ πόρνης ὅση καὶ ἑνὸς ἄρτου, γυνὴ δὲ ἀνδρῶν τιμίας ψυχὰς ἀγρεύει. But nothing is said here of price (reward); the parallelism is synonymous, not antithetic: he is doubly threatened with loss who enters upon such a course. The adulterer squanders his means (Pro 29:3) to impoverishment ( vid . , the mention of a loaf of bread in the description of poverty 1Sa 2:36), and a man’s wife (but at the same time seeking converse with another) makes a prey of a precious soul; for whoever consents to adulterous converse with her, loses not perhaps his means, but certainly freedom, purity, dignity of soul, yea, his own person.

צוּד comprehends - as צידון, fisher’s town [Zidon], Arab. ṣyâd, hunter and fisher, show - all kinds of hunting, but in Hebr. is used only of the hunting of wild beasts. The root-meaning (cf. צדיּה) is to spy, to seize.

Pro 6:27-29 The moral necessity of ruinous consequences which the sin of adultery draws after it, is illustrated by examples of natural cause and effect necessarily connected: 27 Can one take fire in his bosom And his clothes not be burned? 28 Or can any one walk over burning coals And his feet not be burned? 29 So he that goeth to his neighbour’s wife, No one remains unpunished that toucheth her.

We would say: Can any one, without being, etc. ; the former is the Semitic “extended (paratactic) construction. ” The first אישׁ has the conjunctive Shalsheleth . חתה signifies to seize and draw forth a brand or coal with the fire-tongs or shovel (מחתּה, the instrument for this); cf. Arab. khât, according to Lane, “he seized or snatched away a thing;” the form יחתּה is Kal , as יחנה ( vid .

, Köhler, De Tetragammate , 1867, p. 10). חיק (properly indentation) is here not the lap, but, as Isa 40:11, the bosom.

Pro 6:27-29 The moral necessity of ruinous consequences which the sin of adultery draws after it, is illustrated by examples of natural cause and effect necessarily connected: 27 Can one take fire in his bosom And his clothes not be burned? 28 Or can any one walk over burning coals And his feet not be burned? 29 So he that goeth to his neighbour’s wife, No one remains unpunished that toucheth her.

We would say: Can any one, without being, etc. ; the former is the Semitic “extended (paratactic) construction. ” The first אישׁ has the conjunctive Shalsheleth . חתה signifies to seize and draw forth a brand or coal with the fire-tongs or shovel (מחתּה, the instrument for this); cf. Arab. khât, according to Lane, “he seized or snatched away a thing;” the form יחתּה is Kal , as יחנה ( vid .

, Köhler, De Tetragammate , 1867, p. 10). חיק (properly indentation) is here not the lap, but, as Isa 40:11, the bosom.

Pro 6:27-29 The moral necessity of ruinous consequences which the sin of adultery draws after it, is illustrated by examples of natural cause and effect necessarily connected: 27 Can one take fire in his bosom And his clothes not be burned? 28 Or can any one walk over burning coals And his feet not be burned? 29 So he that goeth to his neighbour’s wife, No one remains unpunished that toucheth her.

We would say: Can any one, without being, etc. ; the former is the Semitic “extended (paratactic) construction. ” The first אישׁ has the conjunctive Shalsheleth . חתה signifies to seize and draw forth a brand or coal with the fire-tongs or shovel (מחתּה, the instrument for this); cf. Arab. khât, according to Lane, “he seized or snatched away a thing;” the form יחתּה is Kal , as יחנה ( vid .

, Köhler, De Tetragammate , 1867, p. 10). חיק (properly indentation) is here not the lap, but, as Isa 40:11, the bosom.

Pro 6:30-31 The thief and the adulterer are now placed in comparison with one another, in such a way that adultery is supposed to be a yet greater crime. 30 One does not treat the thief scornfully if he steals To satisfy his craving when he is hungry; 31 Being seized, he may restore sevenfold, Give up the whole wealth of his house. For the most part 30a is explained: even when this is the case, one does not pass it over in the thief as a bagatelle.

Ewald remarks: בּוּז ל stands here in its nearest signification of overlooking, whence first follows that of contemning. But this “nearest” signification is devised wholly in favour of this passage; - the interpretation, “they do not thus let the thief pass,” is set aside by Sol 8:1, Sol 8:7; for by 31b, cf. Sol 8:7, and 34a, cf. Sol 8:6, it is proved that from Pro 6:30 on, reminiscences from the Canticles, which belong to the literature of the Chokma , find their way into the Mashal language of the author.

Hitzig’s correct supposition, that בּוּז ל always signifies positive contemning, does not necessitate the interrogative interpretation: “Does not one despise the thief if...? ” Thus to be understood, the author ought to have written אף כי or גם כי. Michaelis rightly: furtum licet merito pro infami in republica habetur, tamen si cum adulterio comparatur, minus probrosum est .

Regarding נפשׁ in the sense of appetite, and even throat and stomach, vid . , Psychologie , p. 204. A second is, that the thief, if he is seized (but we regard ונמצא not as the hypoth. perf . , but as the part. deprehensus ), may make compensation for this crime. The fut. ישׁלּם thus to be understood as the potential lies near from this, that a sevenfold compensation of the thing stolen is unheard of in the Israelitish law; it knows only of a twofold, fourfold, fivefold restoration, Ex.

21:37; Exo 22:1-3, Exo 22:8 (cf. Saalschütz, Mos. Recht , p. 554ff.) This excess over that which the law rendered necessary leads into the region of free-will: he (the thief, by which we are now only to think of him whom bitter necessity has made such) may make compensation sevenfold, i. e. , superabundantly; he may give up the whole possessions ( vid . , on הון at Pro 1:13) of his house, so as not merely to satisfy the law, but to appease him against whom he has done wrong, and again to gain for himself an honoured name.

What is said in Pro 6:30 and Pro 6:31 is perfectly just. One does not contemn a man who is a thief through poverty, he is pitied; while the adulterer goes to ruin under all circumstances of contempt and scorn. And: theft may be made good, and that abundantly; but adultery and its consequences are irreparable.

Pro 6:30-31 The thief and the adulterer are now placed in comparison with one another, in such a way that adultery is supposed to be a yet greater crime. 30 One does not treat the thief scornfully if he steals To satisfy his craving when he is hungry; 31 Being seized, he may restore sevenfold, Give up the whole wealth of his house. For the most part 30a is explained: even when this is the case, one does not pass it over in the thief as a bagatelle.

Ewald remarks: בּוּז ל stands here in its nearest signification of overlooking, whence first follows that of contemning. But this “nearest” signification is devised wholly in favour of this passage; - the interpretation, “they do not thus let the thief pass,” is set aside by Sol 8:1, Sol 8:7; for by 31b, cf. Sol 8:7, and 34a, cf. Sol 8:6, it is proved that from Pro 6:30 on, reminiscences from the Canticles, which belong to the literature of the Chokma , find their way into the Mashal language of the author.

Hitzig’s correct supposition, that בּוּז ל always signifies positive contemning, does not necessitate the interrogative interpretation: “Does not one despise the thief if...? ” Thus to be understood, the author ought to have written אף כי or גם כי. Michaelis rightly: furtum licet merito pro infami in republica habetur, tamen si cum adulterio comparatur, minus probrosum est .

Regarding נפשׁ in the sense of appetite, and even throat and stomach, vid . , Psychologie , p. 204. A second is, that the thief, if he is seized (but we regard ונמצא not as the hypoth. perf . , but as the part. deprehensus ), may make compensation for this crime. The fut. ישׁלּם thus to be understood as the potential lies near from this, that a sevenfold compensation of the thing stolen is unheard of in the Israelitish law; it knows only of a twofold, fourfold, fivefold restoration, Ex.

21:37; Exo 22:1-3, Exo 22:8 (cf. Saalschütz, Mos. Recht , p. 554ff.) This excess over that which the law rendered necessary leads into the region of free-will: he (the thief, by which we are now only to think of him whom bitter necessity has made such) may make compensation sevenfold, i. e. , superabundantly; he may give up the whole possessions ( vid . , on הון at Pro 1:13) of his house, so as not merely to satisfy the law, but to appease him against whom he has done wrong, and again to gain for himself an honoured name.

What is said in Pro 6:30 and Pro 6:31 is perfectly just. One does not contemn a man who is a thief through poverty, he is pitied; while the adulterer goes to ruin under all circumstances of contempt and scorn. And: theft may be made good, and that abundantly; but adultery and its consequences are irreparable.

Pro 6:32-33 Here there is a contrast stated to Pro 6:30 : 32 He who commits adultery ( adulterans mulierem ) is beside himself, A self-destroyer-who does this. 33 He gains stripes and disgrace, And his reproach is never quenched. נאף, which primarily seems to mean excedere , to indulge in excess, is, as also in the Decalogue, cf. Lev 20:10, transitive: ὁ μοιχεύων γυναῖκα.

Regarding being mad ( herzlos = heartless ) = amens ( excors, vecors ), vid . , Psychologie , p. 254. משׁחית נפשׁו is he who goes to ruin with wilful perversity. A self-murderer - i. e. , he intends to ruin his position and his prosperity in life - who does it, viz. , this, that he touches the wife of another. It is the worst and most inextinguishable dishonouring of oneself.

Singularly Behaji: who annihilates it (his soul), with reference to Deu 21:12. Eccl. 4:17, where עשׂה would be equivalent to בּטּל, καταργεῖν, which is untrue and impossible. נגע refers to the corporal punishment inflicted on the adulterer by the husband (Deu 17:8; Deu 21:5); Hitzig, who rejects Pro 6:32, refers it to the stripes which were given to the thief according to the law, but these would be called מכּה (מכּות).

The punctuation נגע־וקלון is to be exchanged for קלונו נגע (Löwenstein and other good editors). מצא has a more active signification than our “ finden ” (to find): consequitur , τυγχάνει.

Pro 6:32-33 Here there is a contrast stated to Pro 6:30 : 32 He who commits adultery ( adulterans mulierem ) is beside himself, A self-destroyer-who does this. 33 He gains stripes and disgrace, And his reproach is never quenched. נאף, which primarily seems to mean excedere , to indulge in excess, is, as also in the Decalogue, cf. Lev 20:10, transitive: ὁ μοιχεύων γυναῖκα.

Regarding being mad ( herzlos = heartless ) = amens ( excors, vecors ), vid . , Psychologie , p. 254. משׁחית נפשׁו is he who goes to ruin with wilful perversity. A self-murderer - i. e. , he intends to ruin his position and his prosperity in life - who does it, viz. , this, that he touches the wife of another. It is the worst and most inextinguishable dishonouring of oneself.

Singularly Behaji: who annihilates it (his soul), with reference to Deu 21:12. Eccl. 4:17, where עשׂה would be equivalent to בּטּל, καταργεῖν, which is untrue and impossible. נגע refers to the corporal punishment inflicted on the adulterer by the husband (Deu 17:8; Deu 21:5); Hitzig, who rejects Pro 6:32, refers it to the stripes which were given to the thief according to the law, but these would be called מכּה (מכּות).

The punctuation נגע־וקלון is to be exchanged for קלונו נגע (Löwenstein and other good editors). מצא has a more active signification than our “ finden ” (to find): consequitur , τυγχάνει.

Pro 6:34-35 One who has been stolen from is to be appeased, but not the injured husband. 34 For jealousy is the fury of a husband, And he spareth not in the day of vengeance. 35 He regardeth not any ransom, And is not contented though thou offerest to him gifts ever so great. The connection marks קנאה as the subject; for it respects carnal intercourse with another’s wife.

Jealousy is not usually חמה, the glow of anger (from יחם, as שׁנה from ישׁן), but חמת־גּבר (constr. as שׂנת), the glow of a man’s anger, who with the putting forth of all his manly strength will seek satisfaction to his wounded honour. גּבר, here significant for אישׁ, with the fundamental idea of strength, firmness; cf. Arab. jabr, to make fast, to put right again something broken in pieces, particularly a broken vessel, hence Algebra , properly the operation by which an incomplete magnitude is completed (Fl.)

The following ולא־יחמּל (with the orthophonic Dagesh , as Pro 6:25 יחמּד, and with Makkeph ) is connected with גבר, with definite reference to the man whom the faithless guest has made a cuckold. When the day comes in which the adultery brought to light demands and admits of vengeance, then, wounded in his right and in his honour, he knows no mercy; he pays no regard to any atonement or recompense by which the adulterer seeks to appease him and induce him not to inflict the punishment that is due: he does not consent, even though thou makest ever so great the gift whereby thou thinkest to gain him.

The phrase נשׂא פנים, πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, signifies elsewhere to receive the countenance, i. e. , the appearance and the impression of a man, i. e. , to let it impress one favourably; here it is used of the כּפר, i. e. , the means by which covering, i. e. , non-punishment, pardon of the crime, impunity of the guilty, is obtained. Regarding אבה, to consent to, vid .

, at Pro 1:10. שׂחד, Aram. שׂוּחד, is a gift, particularly bribery. That the language may again finally assume the form of an address, it beautifully rounds itself off.

Pro 6:34-35 One who has been stolen from is to be appeased, but not the injured husband. 34 For jealousy is the fury of a husband, And he spareth not in the day of vengeance. 35 He regardeth not any ransom, And is not contented though thou offerest to him gifts ever so great. The connection marks קנאה as the subject; for it respects carnal intercourse with another’s wife.

Jealousy is not usually חמה, the glow of anger (from יחם, as שׁנה from ישׁן), but חמת־גּבר (constr. as שׂנת), the glow of a man’s anger, who with the putting forth of all his manly strength will seek satisfaction to his wounded honour. גּבר, here significant for אישׁ, with the fundamental idea of strength, firmness; cf. Arab. jabr, to make fast, to put right again something broken in pieces, particularly a broken vessel, hence Algebra , properly the operation by which an incomplete magnitude is completed (Fl.)

The following ולא־יחמּל (with the orthophonic Dagesh , as Pro 6:25 יחמּד, and with Makkeph ) is connected with גבר, with definite reference to the man whom the faithless guest has made a cuckold. When the day comes in which the adultery brought to light demands and admits of vengeance, then, wounded in his right and in his honour, he knows no mercy; he pays no regard to any atonement or recompense by which the adulterer seeks to appease him and induce him not to inflict the punishment that is due: he does not consent, even though thou makest ever so great the gift whereby thou thinkest to gain him.

The phrase נשׂא פנים, πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, signifies elsewhere to receive the countenance, i. e. , the appearance and the impression of a man, i. e. , to let it impress one favourably; here it is used of the כּפר, i. e. , the means by which covering, i. e. , non-punishment, pardon of the crime, impunity of the guilty, is obtained. Regarding אבה, to consent to, vid .

, at Pro 1:10. שׂחד, Aram. שׂוּחד, is a gift, particularly bribery. That the language may again finally assume the form of an address, it beautifully rounds itself off.

Pro 7:1-3 The introduction first counsels in general to a true appreciation of these well-considered life-rules of wisdom. 1 My son, keep my words, And treasure up my commandments with thee. 2 Keep my commandments, and thou shalt live; And my instruction as the apple of thine eye. 3 Wind them about thy fingers, Write them on the tablet of thy heart. The lxx has after Pro 7:1 another distich; but it here disturbs the connection.

Regarding צפן, vid . , at Pro 2:1; אתּך refers, as there, to the sphere of one’s own character, and that subjectively. Regarding the imper . וחיה, which must here be translated according to its sense as a conclusion, because it comes in between the objects governed by שׁמר, vid . , at Pro 4:4. There וחיה is punctuated with Silluk ; here, according to Kimchi ( Michlol 125a), with Segol - Athnach , וחיה, as in the Cod.

Erfurt. 2 and 3, and in the editions of Athias and Clodius, so that the word belongs to the class פתחין באתנח (with short instead of long vowel by the pausal accent): no reason for this is to be perceived, especially as (Pro 4:4) the Tsere (ê from aj) which is characteristic of the imper. remains unchanged. Regarding אישׁון העין, Arab. insân el-'ain, the little man of the eye, i.

e. , the apple of the eye, named from the miniature portrait of him who looks into it being reflected from it, vid . , at Psa 17:8; the ending ôn is here diminutive, like Syr. achuno, little brother, beruno, little son, and the like. On Pro 7:3, vid . , at Pro 6:21; Pro 3:3. The תפילין שׁל יד were wound seven times round the left arm and seven times round the middle finger.

The writing on the table of the heart may be regarded as referring to Deu 6:9 (the Mezuzoth).

Pro 7:1-3 The introduction first counsels in general to a true appreciation of these well-considered life-rules of wisdom. 1 My son, keep my words, And treasure up my commandments with thee. 2 Keep my commandments, and thou shalt live; And my instruction as the apple of thine eye. 3 Wind them about thy fingers, Write them on the tablet of thy heart. The lxx has after Pro 7:1 another distich; but it here disturbs the connection.

Regarding צפן, vid . , at Pro 2:1; אתּך refers, as there, to the sphere of one’s own character, and that subjectively. Regarding the imper . וחיה, which must here be translated according to its sense as a conclusion, because it comes in between the objects governed by שׁמר, vid . , at Pro 4:4. There וחיה is punctuated with Silluk ; here, according to Kimchi ( Michlol 125a), with Segol - Athnach , וחיה, as in the Cod.

Erfurt. 2 and 3, and in the editions of Athias and Clodius, so that the word belongs to the class פתחין באתנח (with short instead of long vowel by the pausal accent): no reason for this is to be perceived, especially as (Pro 4:4) the Tsere (ê from aj) which is characteristic of the imper. remains unchanged. Regarding אישׁון העין, Arab. insân el-'ain, the little man of the eye, i.

e. , the apple of the eye, named from the miniature portrait of him who looks into it being reflected from it, vid . , at Psa 17:8; the ending ôn is here diminutive, like Syr. achuno, little brother, beruno, little son, and the like. On Pro 7:3, vid . , at Pro 6:21; Pro 3:3. The תפילין שׁל יד were wound seven times round the left arm and seven times round the middle finger.

The writing on the table of the heart may be regarded as referring to Deu 6:9 (the Mezuzoth).

Pro 7:1-3 The introduction first counsels in general to a true appreciation of these well-considered life-rules of wisdom. 1 My son, keep my words, And treasure up my commandments with thee. 2 Keep my commandments, and thou shalt live; And my instruction as the apple of thine eye. 3 Wind them about thy fingers, Write them on the tablet of thy heart. The lxx has after Pro 7:1 another distich; but it here disturbs the connection.

Regarding צפן, vid . , at Pro 2:1; אתּך refers, as there, to the sphere of one’s own character, and that subjectively. Regarding the imper . וחיה, which must here be translated according to its sense as a conclusion, because it comes in between the objects governed by שׁמר, vid . , at Pro 4:4. There וחיה is punctuated with Silluk ; here, according to Kimchi ( Michlol 125a), with Segol - Athnach , וחיה, as in the Cod.

Erfurt. 2 and 3, and in the editions of Athias and Clodius, so that the word belongs to the class פתחין באתנח (with short instead of long vowel by the pausal accent): no reason for this is to be perceived, especially as (Pro 4:4) the Tsere (ê from aj) which is characteristic of the imper. remains unchanged. Regarding אישׁון העין, Arab. insân el-'ain, the little man of the eye, i.

e. , the apple of the eye, named from the miniature portrait of him who looks into it being reflected from it, vid . , at Psa 17:8; the ending ôn is here diminutive, like Syr. achuno, little brother, beruno, little son, and the like. On Pro 7:3, vid . , at Pro 6:21; Pro 3:3. The תפילין שׁל יד were wound seven times round the left arm and seven times round the middle finger.

The writing on the table of the heart may be regarded as referring to Deu 6:9 (the Mezuzoth).

Pro 7:4-5 The subject-matter of this earnest warning are the admonitions of the teacher of wisdom, and through him of Wisdom herself, who in contrast to the world and its lust is the worthiest object of love, and deserves to be loved with the purest, sincerest love: 4 Say to wisdom: “Thou art my sister! ” And call understanding “Friend;” 5 That they may keep thee from the strange woman, From the stranger who useth smooth words.

The childlike, sisterly, and friendly relationship serves also to picture forth and designate the intimate confidential relationship to natures and things which are not flesh and blood. If in Arabic the poor is called the brother of poverty, the trustworthy the brother of trustworthiness, and abu, um (אם), achu, ucht, are used in manifold ways as the expression for the interchangeable relation between two ideas; so (as also, notwithstanding Ewald, §273b, in many Hebr.

proper names) that has there become national, which here, as at Job 17:14; Job 30:29, mediated by the connection of the thoughts, only first appears as a poetic venture. The figurative words of Pro 7:4 not merely lead us to think of wisdom as a personal existence of a higher order, but by this representation it is itself brought so near, that אם easily substitutes itself, Pro 2:3, in the place of אם.

אחתי of Solomon’s address to the bride brought home is in its connection compared with Book of Wisdom 8:2. While the ôth of אחות by no means arises from abstr. ûth, but achôth is derived from achajath, מודע (as Rth 2:1, cf. מודעת, Pro 3:2), here by Mugrash מודע, properly means acquaintance, and then the person known, but not in the superficial sense in which this word and the Arab.

ma'arfat are used ( e. g. , in the Arabic phrase quoted by Fleischer, kanna aṣḥaab ṣarna m'aaraf - nous étions amis, nous en sommes plus que de simples connaissances ), but in the sense of familiar, confidential alliance. The infin . לשׁמרך does not need for its explanation some intermediate thought to be introduced: quod eo conducet tibi ut (Mich.) , but connects itself immediately as the purpose: bind wisdom to thyself and thyself to wisdom thus closely that thou mayest therewith guard thyself.

As for the rest, vid . , Pro 2:16; this verse repeats itself here with the variation of one word.