Ecc 11:3 | KD | STEP | With this verse there is not now a transition, εἰς ἄλλο γένος (as when one understands Ecc 11:1. of beneficence); the thoughts down to move in the same track. “When the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth: and if a tree fall in the south, or in the north - the place where the tree falleth, there it lieth.” Man knows not - this is the reference of the verse backwards - what misfortune, as e.g. , hurricane, flood, scarcity, will come upon the earth; for all that is done follows fixed laws, and the binding together of cause and effect is removed beyond the influence of the will of man, and also in individual cases beyond his knowledge. The interpunction of 3 a : אם־ימּלאוּ העבים גּשׁם (not as by v. d. Hooght, Mendelss., and elsewhere העבים, but as the Venet. 1515, 21, Michael. העבים, for immediately before the tone syllable Mahpach is changed into Mercha ) appears on the first glance to be erroneous, and much rather it appears that the accentuation ought to be אם־ימלאו העבים גשם על־הארץ יריקו but on closer inspection גשׁם is rightly referred to the conditional antecedent, for “the clouds could be filled also with hail, and thus not pour down rain” (Hitz.). As in , the fut. stands in the protasis as well as in the apodosis. If A is done, then as a consequence B will be done; the old language would prefer the words והריקו ... נמלאו (כי) אם, Ewald, §355 b : as often as A happens, so always happens B. יריקוּ carries (without needing an external object to be supplied), as internally transitive, its object is itself: if the clouds above fill themselves with rain, they make an emptying, i.e. , they empty themselves downwards. Man cannot, if the previous condition is fixed, change the necessary consequences of it. The second conditioning clause: si ceciderit lignum ad austraum aut ad aquilonem, in quocunque loco cociderit ibi erit . Thus rightly Jerome. It might also be said: ואם־יפול עץ אם בדרום ואם בחפין, and if a tree falls, whether it be in the south or in the north; this sive ... sive would thus be a parenthetic parallel definition. Thus regarded, the protasis as it lies before us consists in itself, as the two veim in , of two correlated halves: “And if a tree falls on the south side, and (or) if it fall on the north side,” i.e. , whether it fall on the one or on the other. The Athnach , which more correctly belongs to יריקי, sets off in an expressive way the protasis over against the apodosis; that a new clause begins with veim yippol is unmistakeable; for the contrary, there was need for a chief disjunctive to בץ. Meqom is accus. loci for bimqom, as at ; Est 8:17. Sham is rightly not connected with the relat. clause (cf. ); the relation is the same as at Est 1:7. The fut. יהוּא is formed from הוה, whence , as at , and in the Mishna ( Aboth , vi. 1; Aboda zara , iii. 8) the part. הוה. As the jussive form יהי is formed from יהיה, so יהיה (יהוה) passes into יהוּ, which is here written יהוּא. Hitzig supposes that, according to the passage before us and , the word appears to have been written with א, in the sense of “to fall.” Certainly הוה has the root-signification of delabi , cadere , and derives from thence the meaning of accidere , exsistere , esse ( vid ., under ); in the Book of Job, however, הוה may have this meaning as an Arabism; in the usus loq . of the author of the Book of Koheleth it certainly was no longer so used. Rather it may be said that יהוּ had to be written with an א added to distinguish it from the abbreviated tetragramm, if the א, as in אבוּא, , and הל, , does not merely represent the long terminal vowel (cf. the German-Jewish דוא = thou, דיא = the, etc.). Moreover, יהוּא, as written, approaches the Mishnic inflection of the fut. of the verb הוה; the sing. there is יהא, תּהא, אהא, and the plur. יהוּ, according to which Rashi, Aben Ezra, and Kimchi interpret יהוּא here also as plur.; Luzzatto, §670, hesitates, but in his Commentary he takes it as sing., as the context requires: there will it (the tree) be, or in accordance with the more lively meaning of the verb הוה: there will it find itself, there it continues to lie. As it is an invariable law of nature according to which the clouds discharge the masses of water that have become too heavy for them, so it is an unchangeable law of nature that the tree that has fallen before the axe or the tempest follows the direction in which it is impelled. Thus the future forms itself according to laws beyond the control of the human will, and man also has no certain knowledge of the future; wherefore he does well to be composed as to the worst, and to adopt prudent preventive measures regarding it. This is the reference of looking backwards. But, on the other hand, from this incalculableness of the future-this is the reference of looking forwards-he ought not to vie up fresh venturesome activity, much rather he ought to abstain from useless and impeding calculations and scruples.

‏ Ecclesiastes 11:3

With this verse there is not now a transition, εἰς ἄλλο γένος (as when one understands Ecc 11:1. of beneficence); the thoughts down to Ecc 11:6 move in the same track. “When the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth: and if a tree fall in the south, or in the north - the place where the tree falleth, there it lieth.” Man knows not - this is the reference of the verse backwards - what misfortune, as e.g., hurricane, flood, scarcity, will come upon the earth; for all that is done follows fixed laws, and the binding together of cause and effect is removed beyond the influence of the will of man, and also in individual cases beyond his knowledge. The interpunction of 3 a: אם־ימּלאוּ העבים גּשׁם (not as by v. d. Hooght, Mendelss., and elsewhere העבים, but as the Venet. 1515, 21, Michael. העבים, for immediately before the tone syllable Mahpach is changed into Mercha) appears on the first glance to be erroneous, and much rather it appears that the accentuation ought to be אם־ימלאו העבים גשם על־הארץ יריקו but on closer inspection גשׁם is rightly referred to the conditional antecedent, for “the clouds could be filled also with hail, and thus not pour down rain” (Hitz.). As in Ecc 4:10, the fut. stands in the protasis as well as in the apodosis. If A is done, then as a consequence B will be done; the old language would prefer the words והריקו ... נמלאו (כי) אם, Ewald, §355 b: as often as A happens, so always happens B. יריקוּ carries (without needing an external object to be supplied), as internally transitive, its object is itself: if the clouds above fill themselves with rain, they make an emptying, i.e., they empty themselves downwards. Man cannot, if the previous condition is fixed, change the necessary consequences of it.

The second conditioning clause: si ceciderit lignum ad austraum aut ad aquilonem, in quocunque loco cociderit ibi erit. Thus rightly Jerome. It might also be said: ואם־יפול עץ אם בדרום ואם בחפין, and if a tree falls, whether it be in the south or in the north; this sive ... sive would thus be a parenthetic parallel definition. Thus regarded, the protasis as it lies before us consists in itself, as the two veim in Amo 9:3, of two correlated halves: “And if a tree falls on the south side, and (or) if it fall on the north side,” i.e., whether it fall on the one or on the other. The Athnach, which more correctly belongs to יריקי, sets off in an expressive way the protasis over against the apodosis; that a new clause begins with veim yippol is unmistakeable; for the contrary, there was need for a chief disjunctive to בץ. Meqom is accus. loci for bimqom, as at Est 4:3; Est 8:17. Sham is rightly not connected with the relat. clause (cf. Eze 6:13); the relation is the same as at Est 1:7. The fut. יהוּא is formed from הוה, whence Ecc 2:22, as at Neh 6:6, and in the Mishna (Aboth, vi. 1; ^{▼▼Vid., Baer, Abodath Jisrael, p. 290.}Aboda zara, iii. 8) the part. הוה. As the jussive form יהי is formed from יהיה, so יהיה (יהוה) passes into יהוּ, which is here written יהוּא. Hitzig supposes that, according to the passage before us and Job 37:6, the word appears to have been written with א, in the sense of “to fall.” Certainly הוה has the root-signification of delabi, cadere, and derives from thence the meaning of accidere, exsistere, esse (vid., under Job 37:6); in the Book of Job, however, הוה may have this meaning as an Arabism; in the usus loq. of the author of the Book of Koheleth it certainly was no longer so used. Rather it may be said that יהוּ had to be written with an א added to distinguish it from the abbreviated tetragramm, if the א, as in אבוּא, Isa 28:12, and הל, Jos 10:24, does not merely represent the long terminal vowel (cf. the German-Jewish דוא = thou, דיא = the, etc.). ^{▼▼Otherwise Ewald, §192b: יהוּא, Aram. of הוּא (as בּוא) = הוא.}

Moreover, יהוּא, as written, approaches the Mishnic inflection of the fut. of the verb הוה; the sing. there is יהא, תּהא, אהא, and the plur. יהוּ, according to which Rashi, Aben Ezra, and Kimchi interpret יהוּא here also as plur.; Luzzatto, §670, hesitates, but in his Commentary he takes it as sing., as the context requires: there will it (the tree) be, or in accordance with the more lively meaning of the verb הוה: there will it find itself, there it continues to lie. As it is an invariable law of nature according to which the clouds discharge the masses of water that have become too heavy for them, so it is an unchangeable law of nature that the tree that has fallen before the axe or the tempest follows the direction in which it is impelled. Thus the future forms itself according to laws beyond the control of the human will, and man also has no certain knowledge of the future; wherefore he does well to be composed as to the worst, and to adopt prudent preventive measures regarding it. This is the reference of Ecc 11:3 looking backwards. But, on the other hand, from this incalculableness of the future-this is the reference of Ecc 11:3 looking forwards-he ought not to vie up fresh venturesome activity, much rather he ought to abstain from useless and impeding calculations and scruples.