Ecc 3:18 | KD | STEP | “Thus I said then in mine heart: (it happeneth) for the sake of the children of men that God might sift them, and that they might see that they are like the cattle, they in themselves.” Regarding על־דּב for the sake of = on account of as at , vid ., under , where it signifies after (κατά) the state of the matter. The infin. לבּ is not derived from בּוּר. - לּבוּר, , is only the metaplastic form of לבר or לברר - but only from בּרר, whose infin. may take the form בּר, after the form רד, to tread down, , שׁך, to bow, ; but nowhere else is this infin. form found connected with a suff.; קחם, Hos 11:3, would be in some measure to be compared, if it could be supposed that this = בּקחתּם, sumendo eos . The root בר proceeds, from the primary idea of cutting, on the one side to the idea of separating, winnowing, choosing out; and, on the other, to that of smoothing, polishing, purifying ( vid ., under ). Here, by the connection, the meaning of winnowing, i.e. , of separating the good from the bad, is intended, with which, however, as in לברר, , the meaning of making clear, making light, bringing forward into the light, easily connects itself (cf. Shabbath 138 a , 74 a ), of which the meaning to winnow (cf. להבר, ) is only a particular form; cf. Sanhedrin 7 b : “when a matter is clear, brwr, to thee (free from ambiguity) as the morning, speak it out; and if not, do not speak it.” In the expression לב האל, the word האל is, without doubt, the subject, according to Gesen. §133. 2. 3; Hitz. regards האל as genit., which, judged according to the Arab., is correct; it is true that for li-imti-ḥânihim allahi (with genit. of the subj.), also allahu (with nominat. of the subj.) may be used; but the former expression is the more regular and more common ( vid ., Ewald’s Gramm. Arab . §649), but not always equally decisive with reference to the Heb. usus loq . That God delays His righteous interference till the time appointed beforehand, is for the sake of the children of men, with the intention, viz., that God may sift them, i.e. , that, without breaking in upon the free development of their characters before the time, He may permit the distinction between the good and the bad to become manifest. Men, who are the obj. to לב, are the subject to לראותו to be supplied: et ut videant ; it is unnecessary, with the lxx, Syr., and Jerome, to read ולראות (= וּלהר): ut ostenderet . It is a question whether המּה is the expression of the copula: sunt ( sint ), or whether hēmmah lahěm is a closer definition, co-ordinate with shehem behēmah. The remark of Hitzig, that lahěm throws back the action on the subject, is not clear. Does he suppose that lahem belongs to liroth? That is here impossible. If we look away from lahem, the needlessly circumstantial expression הם ... שה can still be easily understood: hemmah takes up, as an echo, behemah, and completes the comparison (compare the battology in Hos 13:2). This play upon words musically accompanying the thought remains also, when, according to the accentuation שׁה בהם ה לה, we take hemmah along with lahem, and the former as well as the latter of these two words is then better understood. The ל in להם is not that of the pure dat. (Aben Ezra: They are like beasts to themselves, i.e. , in their own estimation), but that of reference, as at , “as for Ishmael;” cf. ; 2Ki 5:7; cf. אל, , etc. Men shall see that they are cattle (beasts), they in reference to themselves, i.e. , either they in reference to themselves mutually (Luther: among themselves), or: they in reference to themselves. To interpret the reference as that of mutual relation, would, in looking back to , commend itself, for the condemnation and oppression of the innocent under the appearance of justice is an act of human brutishness. But the reason assigned in does not accord with this reciprocal rendering of lahem. Thus lahem will be meant reflexively, but it is not on that account pleonastic (Knobel), nor does it ironically form a climax: ipsissimi = höchstselbst (Ewald, §315a); but “they in reference to themselves” is = they in and of themselves, i.e. , viewed as men (viewed naturally). If one disregards the idea of God’s interfering at a future time with the discordant human history, and, in general, if one loses sight of God, the distinction between the life of man and of beast disappears.

‏ Ecclesiastes 3:18

Ecc 3:18 “Thus I said then in mine heart: (it happeneth) for the sake of the children of men that God might sift them, and that they might see that they are like the cattle, they in themselves.” Regarding על־דּב for the sake of = on account of as at Ecc 8:2, vid., under Psa 110:4, where it signifies after (κατά) the state of the matter. The infin. לבּ is not derived from בּוּר. - לּבוּר, Ecc 9:1, is only the metaplastic form of לבר or לברר - but only from בּרר, whose infin. may take the form בּר, after the form רד, to tread down, Isa 45:1, שׁך, to bow, Jer 5:26; but nowhere else is this infin. form found connected with a suff.; קחם, Hos 11:3, would be in some measure to be compared, if it could be supposed that this = בּקחתּם, sumendo eos. The root בר proceeds, from the primary idea of cutting, on the one side to the idea of separating, winnowing, choosing out; and, on the other, to that of smoothing, polishing, purifying (vid., under Isa 49:2). Here, by the connection, the meaning of winnowing, i.e., of separating the good from the bad, is intended, with which, however, as in לברר, Dan 11:35, the meaning of making clear, making light, bringing forward into the light, easily connects itself (cf. Shabbath 138 a, 74 a), of which the meaning to winnow (cf. להבר, Jer 4:11) is only a particular form; ^{▼▼Not “to sift,” for not בּרר but רקּד, means “to sift” (properly, “to make to keep up,” “to agitate”); cf. Shebîith v. 9.} cf. Sanhedrin 7 b: “when a matter is clear, brwr, to thee (free from ambiguity) as the morning, speak it out; and if not, do not speak it.”

In the expression לב האל, the word האל is, without doubt, the subject, according to Gesen. §133. 2. 3; Hitz. regards האל as genit., which, judged according to the Arab., is correct; it is true that for li-imti-ḥânihim allahi (with genit. of the subj.), also allahu (with nominat. of the subj.) may be used; but the former expression is the more regular and more common (vid., Ewald’s Gramm. Arab. §649), but not always equally decisive with reference to the Heb. usus loq. That God delays His righteous interference till the time appointed beforehand, is for the sake of the children of men, with the intention, viz., that God may sift them, i.e., that, without breaking in upon the free development of their characters before the time, He may permit the distinction between the good and the bad to become manifest. Men, who are the obj. to לב, are the subject to לראותו to be supplied: et ut videant; it is unnecessary, with the lxx, Syr., and Jerome, to read ולראות (= וּלהר): ut ostenderet. It is a question whether המּה ^{▼▼המּה שׁהם בּהמה thus accented rightly in F. Cf. Michlol 216 a.} is the expression of the copula: sunt (sint), or whether hēmmah lahěm is a closer definition, co-ordinate with shehem behēmah. The remark of Hitzig, that lahěm throws back the action on the subject, is not clear. Does he suppose that lahem belongs to liroth? That is here impossible. If we look away from lahem, the needlessly circumstantial expression הם ... שה can still be easily understood: hemmah takes up, as an echo, behemah, and completes the comparison (compare the battology in Hos 13:2). This play upon words musically accompanying the thought remains also, when, according to the accentuation שׁה בהם ה לה, we take hemmah along with lahem, and the former as well as the latter of these two words is then better understood. The ל in להם is not that of the pure dat. (Aben Ezra: They are like beasts to themselves, i.e., in their own estimation), but that of reference, as at Gen 17:20, “as for Ishmael;” cf. Psa 3:3; 2Ki 5:7; cf. אל, 1Sa 1:27, etc. Men shall see that they are cattle (beasts), they in reference to themselves, i.e., either they in reference to themselves mutually (Luther: among themselves), or: they in reference to themselves. To interpret the reference as that of mutual relation, would, in looking back to Ecc 3:16, commend itself, for the condemnation and oppression of the innocent under the appearance of justice is an act of human brutishness. But the reason assigned in Ecc 3:19 does not accord with this reciprocal rendering of lahem. Thus lahem will be meant reflexively, but it is not on that account pleonastic (Knobel), nor does it ironically form a climax:ipsissimi = höchstselbst (Ewald, §315a); but “they in reference to themselves” is = they in and of themselves, i.e., viewed as men (viewed naturally). If one disregards the idea of God’s interfering at a future time with the discordant human history, and, in general, if one loses sight of God, the distinction between the life of man and of beast disappears.