Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

There now follows a group of eleven proverbs of the fool; only the first of the group has after it a proverb of different contents, but of similar form:

As snow in summer, and rain in harvest;

So honour befitteth not a fool.

If there is snow in high summer ( קיץ , to be glowing hot), it is contrary to nature; and if there is rain in harvest, it is (according to the alternations of the weather in Palestine) contrary to what is usually the case, and is a hindrance to the ingathering of the fruits of the field. Even so a fool and respect, or a place of honour, are incongruous things; honour will only injure him (as according to Proverbs 19:10, luxury); he will make unjust use of it, and draw false conclusions from it; it will strengthen him in his folly, and only increase it. נאוה (= נאוי ) is the adj. to the Pil. נאוה , Psalms 93:5 (plur. נאווּ ); נאוה , Proverbs 19:10, and נאוה , Proverbs 17:7, are also masc. and fem. of the adj., according to which, that which is said under Proverbs 19:10 is to be corrected. Symmachus and Theodotion have translated οὐκ ἔπρεψεν , and have therefore read נאוה . The root word is נאה (as שׁחה to שׁחוה ) = נוה , to aim at something ( vid., Hupfeld under Psalms 23:2).

return to '

This verse is formed quite in the same way as the preceding:

As the sparrow in its fluttering, as the swallow in its flying,

So the curse that is groundless: it cometh not.

This passage is one of those fifteen ( vid., under Psalms 100:3) in which the לא of the text is changed by the Kerı̂ into לו ; the Talm., Midrash, and Sohar refer this לּו partly to him who utters the curse himself, against whom also, if he is a judge, such inconsiderate cursing becomes an accusation by God; partly to him who is cursed, for they read from the proverb that the curse of a private person also ( הדיוט , ἰδιώτης ) is not wont to fall to the ground, and that therefore one ought to be on his guard against giving any occasion for it ( vid., Norzi). But Aben Ezra supposes that לא and לו interchange, as much as to say that the undeserved curse falls on him ( לו ) who curses, and does not fall ( לא ) on him who is cursed. The figures in 2a harmonize only with לא , according to which the lxx, the Syr., Targ., Venet., and Luther (against Jerome) translate, for the principal matter, that the sparrow and the swallow, although flying out (Proverbs 27:8), return home again to their nest (Ralbag), would be left out of view in the comparison by לו . This emphasizes the fluttering and flying, and is intended to affirm that a groundless curse is a פּרח בּאוּיר , aimless, i.e., a thing hovering in the air, that it fails and does not take effect. Most interpreters explain the two Lameds as declaring the destination: ut passer ( sc. natus est ) ad vagandum , as the sparrow, through necessity of nature, roves about... (Fleischer). But from Proverbs 25:3 it is evident that the Lamed in both cases declares the reference or the point of comparison: as the sparrow in respect to its fluttering about, etc. The names of the two birds are, according to Aben Ezra, like dreams without a meaning; but the Romanic exposition explains rightly צפּור by passereau , and דּרור by hirondelle , for צפור (Arab. 'uṣfuwr ), twitterer, designates at least preferably the sparrow, and דרור the swallow, from its flight shooting straight out, as it were radiating ( vid., under Psalms 84:4); the name of the sparrow, dûrı̂ (found in courtyards), which Wetstein, after Saadia, compares to דרור , is etymologically different.

(Note: It is true that the Gemara to Negaïm, Proverbs 14:1, explains the Mishnic צפרים דרור , “house-birds,” for it derives דרור from דור , to dwell.)

Regarding חנּם , vid., under Proverbs 24:28. Rightly the accentuation separates the words rendered, “so the curse undeserved” ( קללת , after Kimchi, Michlol 79b, קללת ), from those which follow; לא תבא is the explication of כן : thus hovering in the air is a groundless curse - it does not come ( בוא , like e.g., Joshua 21:43). After this proverb, which is formed like Proverbs 26:1, the series now returns to the “fool.”

return to '

3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass,

And a rod for the back of fools.

J. D. Michaelis supposes that the order should be reversed: a bridle for the horse, a whip for the ass; but Arnoldi has here discovered the figure of speech merismus (cf. Proverbs 10:1); and Hitzig, in the manner of the division, the rhythmical reason of the combination (cf. שׁם חם ויפת for שׁם יפת וחם ): whip and bridle belong to both, for one whips a horse (Nehemiah 3:2) and also bridles him; one bridles an ass (Psalms 32:9) and also whips him (Numbers 22:28.). As whip and bridle are both serviceable and necessary, so also serviceable and necessary is a rod, לגו כּסילים , Proverbs 10:13; Proverbs 19:29.

return to '

4 Answer not the fool according to his folly,

Lest thou thyself also become like unto him.

After, or according to his folly, is here equivalent to recognising the foolish supposition and the foolish object of his question, and thereupon considering it, as if, e.g., he asked why the ignorant man was happier than the man who had much knowledge, or how one may acquire the art of making gold; for “a fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer.” He who recognises such questions as justifiable, and thus sanctions them, places himself on an equality with the fool, and easily himself becomes one. The proverb that follows affirms apparently the direct contrary:

return to '

5 Answer the fool according to his folly,

Lest he regard himself as wise.

ענה־כסיל (with Makkeph, and Gaja, and Chatef)

(Note: Thus after Ben Asher; while, on the contrary, Ben Naphtali writes ענה כסיל with Munach, vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 41.)

here stands opposed to אל־תען כסיל . The Gospel of John, e.g., John 5:31, cf. Proverbs 8:31,

(Note: Vid., my dissertation on three little-observed passages in the Gospel of John, and their practical lessons, in the Evang. luth. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, Nos. 37, 38.)

is rich in such apparently contradictory sayings. The sic et non here lying before us is easily explained; after, or according to his folly, is this second time equivalent to, as is due to his folly: decidedly and firmly rejecting it, making short work with it (returning a sharp answer), and promptly replying in a way fitted, if possible, to make him ashamed. Thus one helps him, perhaps, to self-knowledge; while, in the contrary case, one gives assistance to his self-importance. The Talmud, Schabbath 30b, solves the contradiction by referring Proverbs 26:4 to worldly things, and Proverbs 26:5 to religious things; and it is true that, especially in the latter case, the answer is itself a duty toward the fool, and towards the truth. Otherwise the Midrash: one ought not to answer when one knows the fool as such, and to answer when he does not so know him; for in the first instance the wise man would dishonour himself by the answer, in the latter case he would give to him who asks the importance appertaining to a superior.

return to '

6 He cutteth off the feet, he drinketh injury,

Who transacteth business by a fool.

He cutteth off, i.e., his own feet, as we say: he breaks his neck, il se casse le cou ; Lat. frangere brachium, crus, coxam; frangere navem (Fleischer). He thinks to supplement his own two legs by those of the messenger, but in reality he cuts them off; for not only is the commission not carried out, but it is even badly carried out, so that instead of being refreshed (Proverbs 13:17; Proverbs 25:13) by the quick, faithful execution of it, he has to swallow nothing but damage; cf. Job 34:7, where, however, drinking scorn is meant of another (lxx), not his own; on the contrary, חמס here refers to injury suffered (as if it were חמדו , for the suff. of חמס is for the most part objective); cf. the similar figures Proverbs 10:26. So שׁלח בּיד , to accomplish anything by the mediation of another, cf. Exodus 4:13; with דבר ( דברים ), 2 Samuel 15:36. The reading מקצּה (Jerome, Luther, claudus ) is unnecessary; since, as we saw, מקצּה ,was ew includes it in the sibi. The Syr. reads, after the lxx (the original text of which was ἐκ τῶν ποδῶν ἑαυτοῦ ), מקצה , for he errs, as also does the Targumist, in thinking that מקצה can be used for מקצץ ; but Hitzig adopts this reading, and renders: “from the end of the legs he swallows injury who sends messages by a fool.” The end of the legs are the feet, and the feet are those of the foolish messenger. The proverb in this form does not want in boldness, but the wisdom which Hitzig finds in its is certainly not mother-wit.

(Note: The Venet. translates שׁתה by ἄνους , so שׁטה (the post-bibl. designation of a fool) - one of the many indications that this translator is a Jew, and as such is not confined in his knowledge of language only to the bibl. Hebrew.)

Böttcher, on his part, also with מקצה , renders: “from the end of his feet he drinks in that which is bitter...” - that also is too artificial, and is unintelligible without the explanation of its discoverer. But that he who makes a fool his messenger becomes himself like unto one who cuts off his own legs, is a figure altogether excellent.

return to '

7 The hanging down of the legs of a lame man;

And a proverb in a fool's mouth.

With reference to the obscure דּליוּ , the following views have been maintained: - (1) The form as punctuated appears directly as an imperative. Thus the lxx translate, the original text of which is here: ἀφελοῦ πορείαν κυλλῶν (conj. Lagarde's) καὶ παροιμίαν ἐκ στόματος ἀφρόνων , which the Syr. (with its imitator, the Targ.) has rendered positively: “If thou canst give the power of (sound) going to the lame, then wilt thou also receive (prudent) words from the mouth of a fool.” Since Kimchi, דּליוּ has been regarded by many as the softening of the Imp. Piel דּדּוּ , according to which the Venet. translates: ἐπάρατε κνήμας χωλοῦ ; and Bertheau and Zöckler explain: always take away his legs from the lame, since they are in reality useless to him, just as a proverb in the mouth of the fool is useless - something that without loss might be never there.” But why did not the poet write הרימוּ , or הסירוּ , or קחוּ , or the like? דּלּי , to carry away, to dispense with, is Syriac (Targ. Jer. I, under Deuteronomy 32:50), but not Hebrew. And how meaningless is this expression! A lame man would withstand a surgeon (as he would a murderer) who would amputate his legs; for lame legs are certainly better than none, especially since there is a great distinction between a lame man ( פּדּח , from פּסח , luxare ; cf. (Arab.) fasaḥ , laxare , vid., Schultens) who halts or goes on crutches (2 Samuel 3:29), and one who is maimed (paralytic), who needs to be carried. It comes to this, that by this rendering of 7a one must, as a consequence, with the lxx, regard וּמשׁל [and a proverb] as object. accus. parallel to שׁקים [legs]; but “to draw a proverb from one's mouth” is, after Proverbs 20:5, something quite different from to tear a proverb away from him, besides which, one cannot see how it is to be caught. Rather one would prefer: attollite crura claudi ( ut incedat, et nihil promovebitis ); but the מן of מפּסּח does not accord with this, and 7b does not connect itself with it. But the explanation: “take away the legs from a lame man who has none, at least none to use, and a proverb in the mouth of fools, when there is none,” is shattered against the “leg-taking-away,” which can only be used perhaps of frogs' legs. (2) Symmachus translates: ἐξέλιπον κνῆμαι ἀπὸ χωλοῦ ; and Chajûg explains דּליוּ as 3 pret. Kal, to which Kimchi adds the remark, that he appears to have found דּליוּ , which indeed is noted by Norzi and J. H. Michaelis as a variant. But the Masoretic reading is דּליוּ , and this, after Gesenius and Böttcher (who in this, without any reason, sees an Ephraimitic form of uttering the word), is a softened variation from דּדּוּ . Only it is a pity that this softening, while it is supported by alius = ἄλλος , folium = φύλλον , faillir = fallere , and the like, has yet not a single Hebrew or Semitic example in its favour. (3) Therefore Ewald finds, “all things considered,” that it is best to read דּליוּ , “the legs are too loose for the lame man to use them.” But, with Dietrich, we cannot concur in this, nor in the more appropriate translation: “the legs of the lame hang down loose,” to say nothing of the clearly impossible: “high are the legs of the lame (one higher than the other),” and that because this form גּליוּ for גּליוּ also occurs without pause, Psalms 57:2; Psalms 73:2; Psalms 122:6; Isaiah 21:12; but although thus, as at Psalms 36:9; Psalms 68:32, at the beginning of a clause, yet always only in connection, never at the beginning of an address. (4) It has also been attempted to interpret דּליוּ as abstr., e.g., Euchel: “he learns from a cripple to dance, who seeks to learn proverbs from the mouth of a fool.” דּליוּ שׁקים must mean the lifting up of the legs = springing and dancing. Accordingly Luther translates:

“As dancing to a cripple,

So does it become a fool to speak of wisdom.”

The thought is agreeable, and according to fact; but these words to not mean dancing, but much rather, as the Arabic shows ( vid., Schultens at Proverbs 20:5, and on the passage before us), a limping, waddling walk, like that of ducks, after the manner of a well-bucket dangling to and fro. And דּליוּ , after the form מלכוּ , would be an unheard-of Aramaism. For forms such as שׂחוּ , swimming, and שׁלוּ , security, Psalms 30:7, on which C. B. Michaelis and others rest, cannot be compared, since they are modified from sachw , ṣalw , while in דּליוּ the û ending must be, and besides the Aramaic דּליוּ must in st. constr. be דּליוּוּת . Since none of these explanations are grammatically satisfactory, and besides דּליוּ = דּללוּ = דּדּוּ gives a parallel member which is heterogeneous and not conformable to the nature of an emblematical proverb, we read דּלּוּי after the forms צפּוּי , שׁקּוּי (cf. חבּוּק , Proverbs 6:10; Proverbs 24:33), and this signifies loose, hanging down, from דּלה , to hang at length and loosely down, or transitively: to hang, particularly of the hanging down at length of the bucket-rope, and of the bucket itself, to draw water from the well. The מן is similar to that of Job 28:4, only that here the connecting of the hanging down, and of that from which it hangs down, is clear. Were we to express the purely nominally expressed emblematical proverb in the form of a comparative one, it would thus stand as Fleischer translates it: ut laxa et flaccida dependent ( torpent ) crura a claudo, sic sententia in ore stultorum ( sc. torpet h. e. inutilis est ). The fool can as little make use of an intelligent proverb, or moral maxim ( dictum sententiosum ), as a lame man can of his feet; the word, which in itself is full of thought, and excellent, becomes halting, lame, and loose in his mouth (Schultens: deformiter claudicat ); it has, as spoken and applied by him, neither hand nor foot. Strangely, yet without missing the point, Jerome: quomodo pulcras frustra habet claudus tibias, sic indecens est in ore stultorum parabola . The lame man possibly has limbs that appear sound; but when he seeks to walk, they fail to do him service - so a bon-mot comes forth awkwardly when the fool seeks to make use of it. Hitzig's conjecture: as leaping of the legs on the part of a lame man..., Böttcher has already shown sufficient reasons for rejecting; leaping on the part of any one, for the leaping of any one, were a court style familiar to no poet.

return to '

This proverb presents to us a new difficulty.

As one binds a stone in a sling,

So is he who giveth honour to a fool.

This translation is warranted by tradition, and is in accordance with the actual facts. A sling is elsewhere called קלע ; but that מרגּמה also in the passage before us signifies a sling (from רגם , to throw with stones = to stone or to throw stones = to sling, cf. Targ. Esther 5:14 רגּם , of David's slinging stones against Goliath), is supported by the lxx, Syr., and Targ. on the one side, and the Jewish Glossists on the other (Rashi: fronde , Ital. frombola). Rightly the lxx renders כּצרור as a verb: ὡς ἀποδεσμεύει ; on the contrary, the Syr. and Targ. regard it as a substantive: as a piece of stone; but צרור as a substantive does not mean a piece, as one would put into a sling to use as a weapon, but a grain, and thus a little piece, 2 Samuel 17:13; cf. Amos 9:9. Erroneously Ewald: “if one binds to the sling the stone which he yet seeks to throw, then all this throwing and aiming are in vain; so it is in vain to give to a fool honour which does not reach him.” If one seeks to sling a stone, he must lay the lapis missilis so in the sling that it remains firm there, and goes forth only by the strong force of the slinging; this fitting in (of the stone), so that it does not of itself fall out, is expressed by צרר בּ (cf. Proverbs 30:4; Job 26:8). The giving is compared to the binding, the stones to the honour, and the sling to the fool: the fool is related to the honour which one confers on him, as the stone to the sling in which one lays it - the giving of honour is a slinging of honour. Otherwise (after Kimchi) the Venet. ὡς συνδεσμὸς λίθου ἐν λιθάδι , i.e., as Fleischer translates: ut qui crumenam gemmarum plenam in acervum lapidum conjicit . Thus also Ralbag, Ahron b. Josef, and others, and lastly Zöckler. The figure is in the form of an address, and מרגּמה (from רגם , accumulare, congerere , vid., under Psalms 67:1-7:28) might certainly mean the heaping of stones. But אבן is not used in the sense of אבן יקרה (precious stone); also one does not see why one precious stone is not enough as the figure of honour, and a whole heap is named; but in the third place, כּן נותן requires for כצרור a verbal signification. Therefore Jerome translates: sicut qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mercurii ; in this the echo of his Jewish teacher, for the Midrash thus explains literally: every one who gives honour to a fool is like one who throws a stone on a heap of stones consecrated to Mercury. Around the Hermes ( ἑρμαὶ ), i.e., pillars with the head of Mercury ( statuae mercuriales or viales ), were heaps of stones ( ἕρμακες ), to which the passer-by was wont to throw a stone; it was a mark of honour, and served at the same time to improve the way, whose patron was Mercurious ( מרקולים ). It is self-evident that this Graeco-Roman custom to which the Talm. makes frequent reference, cannot be supposed to have existed in the times of Solomon. Luther translates independently, and apparently rendering into German that in acervum Mercurii : that is as if one threw a precious stone on the “ Rabenstein ,” i.e., the heap of stones raised at the foot of the gallows. This heap of stones is more natural and suitable to the times of Solomon than the heap of stones dedicated to Mercury, if, like Gussetius, one understands מרגמה of a heap of stones, supra corpus lapidatum . But against this and similar interpretations it is enough to remark that כצרור cannot signify sicut qui mittit . Had such a meaning been intended, the word would have been כּהשׁליך or כּמשׁליך . Still different is the rendering of Joseph Kimchi, Aben Ezra, and finally Löwenstein: as when one wraps up a stone in a piece of purple stuff. But ארגּמן , purple, has nothing to do with the verb רגם ; it is, as the Aramaic ארגּון shows, a compound word; the supposition of a denom. מרגּמה thus proceeds from a false etymological supposition. And Hitzig's combination of מרגמה with (Arab.) munjam , handle and beam of a balance (he translates: as a stone on the beam of a balance, i.e., lies on it), is nothing but refined ingenuity, since we have no need at all of such an Arab. word for a satisfactory clearing up of מרגמה . We abide by the rendering of the sling. Böttcher translates: a sling that scatters; perhaps מרגמה in reality denotes such a sling as throws many stones at once. Let that, however, be as it may: that he who confers a title of honour, a place of honour, and the like, on a fool, is like one who lays a stone in a sling, is a true and intelligibly formed thought: the fool makes the honour no honour; he is not capable of maintaining it; that which is conferred on him is uselessly wasted.

return to '