Ecc 5:4-7 | KD | STEP | “When thou hast made a vow to God, delay not to fulfil it; for there is no pleasure in fools: that which thou hast vowed fulfil. Better that thou vowest not, than that thou vowest and fulfillest not. Let not thy mouth bring thy body into punishment; and say not before the messenger of God that it was precipitation: why shall God be angry at thy talk, and destroy the work of thy hands? For in many dreams and words there are also many vanities: much rather fear God!” If they abstained, after Shabbath 30 b , from treating the Book of Koheleth as apocryphal, because it begins with תורה דברי (cf. at ) and closes in the same way, and hence warrants the conclusion that that which lies between will also be תורה דברי, this is in a special manner true of the passage before us regarding the vow which, in thought and expression, is the echo of -24. Instead of kaashěr tiddor, we find there the words ki tiddor; instead of lelohim (= lěělohim, always only of the one true God), there we have lahovah ělohěcha; and instead of al-teahher, there lo teahher. There the reason is: “for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee;” here: for there is no pleasure in fools, i.e. , it is not possible that any one, not to speak of God, could have a particular inclination toward fools, who speak in vain, and make promises in which their heart is not, and which they do not keep. Whatever thou vowest, continues Koheleth, fulfil it; it is better (Ewald, §336 a ) that thou vowest not, than to vow and not to pay; for which the Tôra says: “If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee” ( ). נדר, which, according to the stem-word, denotes first the vow of consecration of setting apart (cogn. Arab. nadar, to separate, נזר, whence נזיר), the so-called אסר [ vid . Num 30:3], is here a vow in its widest sense; the author, however, may have had, as there, the law (cf. ), especially shalme něděr, in view, i.e. , such peace-offerings as the law does not enjoin, but which the offerer promises (cogn. with the shalme nedavah, i.e. , such as rest on free-will, but not on any obligation arising from a previous promise) from his own inclination, for the event that God may do this or that for him. The verb שׁלּם is not, however, related to this name for sacrifices, as חטּא is to חטּאת, but denotes the fulfilling or discharge as a performance fully accordant with duty. To the expression חטא ... היה (twice occurring in the passage of Deut. referred to above) there is added the warning: let not thy mouth bring thy body into sin. The verb nathan, with Lamed and the inf . following, signifies to allow, to permit, ; Jdg 1:34; Job 31:30. The inf . is with equal right translated: not to bring into punishment; for חטא - the syncop. Hiph . of which, according to an old, and, in the Pentateuch, favourite form, is לחטיא - signifies to sin, and also ( e.g. , ; cf. the play on the word, Hos 8:11) to expiate sin; sin-burdened and guilty, or liable to punishment, mean the same thing. Incorrectly, Ginsburg, Zöck., and others: “Do not suffer thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin;” for (1) the formula: “the flesh sins,” is not in accordance with the formation of O.T. ideas; the N.T., it is true, uses the expression σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, , but not ἁμαρτάνουσα, that which sins is not the flesh, but the will determined by the flesh, or by fleshly lust; (2) the mouth here is not merely that which leads to sin, but the person who sins through thoughtless haste, - who, by his haste, brings sin upon his flesh, for this suffers, for the breach of vow, by penalties inflicted by God; the mouth is, like the eye and the hand, a member of the ὃλον τὸ σῶμα (Mat 5:24.), which is here called בשׂר; the whole man in its sensitive nature (opp. לב, ; ; ) has to suffer chastisement on account of that which the mouth hath spoken. Gesen. compares this passage, correctly, with , for the meaning peccati reum facere ; is also similar. The further warning refers to the lessening of the sin of a rash vow unfulfilled as an unintentional, easily expiable offence: “and say not before the messenger of God that it was a שׁגגה, a sin of weakness.” Without doubt hammǎlāch is an official byname of a priest, and that such as was in common use at the time of the author. But as for the rest, it is not easy to make the matter of the warning clear. That it is not easy, may be concluded from this, that with Jewish interpreters it lies remote to think of a priest in the word hammǎlāch. By this word the Targ. understands the angel to whom the execution of the sentence of punishment shall be committed on the day of judgment; Aben Ezra: the angel who writes down all the words of a man; similarly Jerome, after his Jewish teacher. Under this passage Ginsburg has an entire excursus regarding the angels. The lxx and Syr. translate “before God,” as if the words of the text were אל נגד, , or as if hammalach could of itself mean God, as presenting Himself in history. Supposing that hammalach is the official name of a man, and that of a priest, we appear to be under the necessity of imagining that he who is charged with the obligation of a vow turns to the priest with the desire that he would release him from it, and thus dissolve (bibl. הפיר, Mishnic התּיר) the vow. But there is no evidence that the priests had the power of releasing from vows. Individual cases in which a husband can dissolve the vow of his wife, and a father the vow of his daughter, are enumerated in Num 30; ; besides, in the traditional law, we find the sentence: “A vow, which one who makes it repents of, can be dissolved by a learned man (חכם), or, where none is present, by three laymen,” Bechoroth 36 b ; the matter cannot be settled by any middle person (שׁליח), but he who has taken the vow (הנודר) must appear personally, Jore deah c . 228, §16. Of the priest as such nothing is said here. Therefore the passage cannot at all be traditionally understood of an official dissolution of an oath. Where the Talm. applies it juristically, Shabbath 32 b , etc., Rashi explains hammalach by gizbar shěl-haqdesh, i.e. , treasurer of the revenues of the sanctuary; and in the Comm . to Koheleth he supposes that some one has publicly resolved on an act of charity (צדקה), i.e. , has determined it with himself, and that now the representative of the congregation (שׁליח) comes to demand it. But that is altogether fanciful. If we proceed on the idea that liphne hammalach is of the same meaning as liphne hakkohen, , ; Num 9:6; Num 27:2, etc., we have then to derive the figure from such passages relating to the law of sacrifice as Num 15:22-26, from which the words ki shegagah hi (Num 15:25) originate. We have to suppose that he who has made a vow, and has not kept it, comes to terms with God with an easier and less costly offering, since in the confession (ודּוּי) which he makes before the priest he explains that the vow was a shegagah, a declaration that inconsiderately escaped him. The author, in giving it to be understood that under these circumstances the offering of the sacrifice is just the direct contrary of a good work, calls to the conscience of the inconsiderate נודר: why should God be angry on account of thy voice with which thou dost excuse thy sins of omission, and destroy ( vid ., regarding חבּל under ) the work of thy hands ( vid ., under ), for He destroys what thou hast done, and causes to fail what thou purposest? The question with lammah resembles those in Ezr 4:22; Ezr 7:23, and is of the same kind as at Ecc 7:16.; it leads us to consider what a mad self-destruction that would be ( , cf. under ). The reason for the foregoing admonition now following places the inconsiderate vow under the general rubric of inconsiderate words. We cannot succeed in interpreting [7] (in so far as we do not supply, after the lxx and Syr. with the Targ.: ne credas; or better, with Ginsburg, היא = it is) without taking one of the vavs in the sense of “also.” That the Heb. vav , like the Greek καί, the Lat. et , may have this comparative or intensifying sense rising above that which is purely copulative, is seen from e.g. , Num 9:14, cf. also Jos 14:11. In many cases, it is true, we are not under the necessity of translating vav by “also;” but since the “and” here does not merely externally connect, but expresses correlation of things homogeneous, an “also” or a similar particle involuntarily substitutes itself for the “and,” e.g. , (Jerome): super Ismael quoque ; : filios quoque ; : et nec sic quidem credidistis ; : nam et in Horeb ; cf. ; ; ; 1Ki 2:22; 1Ki 11:26; , “I have also given to thee.” But there are also passages in which it cannot be otherwise translated than by “also.” We do not reckon among these , where we do not translate “also my neighbours,” and , where the words are to be translated, “and that in your nostrils.” On the contrary, is scarcely otherwise to be translated than “also when the poor maketh good his right,” like , “also in their death they are not divided.” In , in like manner, the two vavs are scarcely correlative, but we have, with Keil, to translate, “also in the second and third year.” And in Hos 8:6, והוּא, at least according to the punctuation, signifies “also it,” as Jerome translates: ex Israele et ipse est . According to the interpunction of the passage before us, וּד הר is the pred., and thus, with the Venet., is to be translated: “For in many dreams and vanities there are also many words.” We could at all events render the vav , as also at ; , as vav apod .; but וגו בּרב has not the character of a virtual antecedent, - the meaning of the expression remains as for the rest the same; but Hitzig’s objection is of force against it (as also against Ewald’s disposition of the words, like the of Symmachus, Jerome, and Luther: “for where there are many dreams, there are also vanities, and many words”), that it does not accord with the connection, which certainly in the first place requires a reason referable to inconsiderate talk, and that the second half is, in fact, erroneous, for between dreams and many words there exists no necessary inward mutual relation. Hitzig, as Knobel before him, seeks to help this, for he explains: “for in many dreams are also vanities, i.e. , things from which nothing comes, and (the like) in many words.” But not only is this assumed carrying forward of the ב doubtful, but the principal thing would be made a secondary matter, and would drag heavily. The relation in is different where vav is that of comparison, and that which is compared follows the comparison. Apparently the text (although the lxx had it before them, as it is before us) has undergone dislocation, and is thus to be arranged: כי ברב חלמת ודברים הרבה והבלים: for in many dreams and many words there are also vanities, i.e. , illusions by which one deceives himself and others. Thus also Bullock renders, but without assigning a reason for it. That dreams are named first, arises from a reference back to , according to which they are the images of what a man is externally and mentally busied and engaged with. But the principal stress lies on ודברים הרבה, to which also the too rash, inconsiderate vows belong. The pred. והבלים, however, connects itself with “vanity of vanities,” which is Koheleth’s final judgment regarding all that is earthly. The כי following connects itself with the thought lying in 6 a , that much talk, like being much given to dreams, ought to be avoided: it ought not to be; much rather ( imo , Symm. ἀλλά) fear God, Him before whom one should say nothing, but that which contains in it the whole heart.

‏ Ecclesiastes 5:4-7

Ecc 5:4-7 “When thou hast made a vow to God, delay not to fulfil it; for there is no pleasure in fools: that which thou hast vowed fulfil. Better that thou vowest not, than that thou vowest and fulfillest not. Let not thy mouth bring thy body into punishment; and say not before the messenger of God that it was precipitation: why shall God be angry at thy talk, and destroy the work of thy hands? For in many dreams and words there are also many vanities: much rather fear God!” If they abstained, after Shabbath 30 b, from treating the Book of Koheleth as apocryphal, because it begins with תורה דברי (cf. at Ecc 1:3) and closes in the same way, and hence warrants the conclusion that that which lies between will also be תורה דברי, this is in a special manner true of the passage before us regarding the vow which, in thought and expression, is the echo of Deu 23:22-24. Instead of kaashěr tiddor, we find there the words ki tiddor; instead of lelohim (= lěělohim, always only of the one true God), there we have lahovah ělohěcha; and instead of al-teahher, there lo teahher. There the reason is: “for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee;” here: for there is no pleasure in fools, i.e., it is not possible that any one, not to speak of God, could have a particular inclination toward fools, who speak in vain, and make promises in which their heart is not, and which they do not keep. Whatever thou vowest, continues Koheleth, fulfil it; it is better (Ewald, §336 a) that thou vowest not, than to vow and not to pay; for which the Tôra says: “If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee” (Deu 23:22). נדר, which, according to the stem-word, denotes first the vow of consecration of setting apart (cogn. Arab. nadar, to separate, נזר, whence נזיר), the so-called אסר [vid. Num 30:3], is here a vow in its widest sense; the author, however, may have had, as there, the law (cf. Ecc 5:2-4), especially shalme něděr, in view, i.e., such peace-offerings as the law does not enjoin, but which the offerer promises (cogn. with the shalme nedavah, i.e., such as rest on free-will, but not on any obligation arising from a previous promise) from his own inclination, for the event that God may do this or that for him. The verb שׁלּם is not, however, related to this name for sacrifices, as חטּא is to חטּאת, but denotes the fulfilling or discharge as a performance fully accordant with duty. To the expression חטא ... היה (twice occurring in the passage of Deut. referred to above) there is added the warning: let not thy mouth bring thy body into sin. The verb nathan, with Lamed and the inf. following, signifies to allow, to permit, Gen 20:6; Jdg 1:34; Job 31:30. The inf. is with equal right translated: not to bring into punishment; for חטא - the syncop. Hiph. of which, according to an old, and, in the Pentateuch, favourite form, is לחטיא - signifies to sin, and also (e.g., Gen 39:9; cf. the play on the word, Hos 8:11) to expiate sin; sin-burdened and guilty, or liable to punishment, mean the same thing. Incorrectly, Ginsburg, Zöck., and others: “Do not suffer thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin;” for (1) the formula: “the flesh sins,” is not in accordance with the formation of O.T. ideas; the N.T., it is true, uses the expression σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, Rom 8:3, but not ἁμαρτάνουσα, that which sins is not the flesh, but the will determined by the flesh, or by fleshly lust; (2) the mouth here is not merely that which leads to sin, but the person who sins through thoughtless haste, - who, by his haste, brings sin upon his flesh, for this suffers, for the breach of vow, by penalties inflicted by God; the mouth is, like the eye and the hand, a member of the ὃλον τὸ σῶμα (Mat 5:24.), which is here called בשׂר; the whole man in its sensitive nature (opp. לב, Ecc 2:3; Ecc 11:10; Pro 14:30) has to suffer chastisement on account of that which the mouth hath spoken. Gesen. compares this passage, correctly, with Deu 24:4, for the meaning peccati reum facere; Isa 29:21 is also similar.

The further warning refers to the lessening of the sin of a rash vow unfulfilled as an unintentional, easily expiable offence: “and say not before the messenger of God that it was a שׁגגה, a sin of weakness.” Without doubt hammǎlāch is an official byname of a priest, and that such as was in common use at the time of the author. But as for the rest, it is not easy to make the matter of the warning clear. That it is not easy, may be concluded from this, that with Jewish interpreters it lies remote to think of a priest in the word hammǎlāch. By this word the Targ. understands the angel to whom the execution of the sentence of punishment shall be committed on the day of judgment; Aben Ezra: the angel who writes down all the words of a man; similarly Jerome, after his Jewish teacher. Under this passage Ginsburg has an entire excursus regarding the angels. The lxx and Syr. translate “before God,” as if the words of the text were אל נגד, Psa 138:1, or as if hammalach could of itself mean God, as presenting Himself in history. Supposing that hammalach is the official name of a man, and that of a priest, we appear to be under the necessity of imagining that he who is charged with the obligation of a vow turns to the priest with the desire that he would release him from it, and thus dissolve (bibl. הפיר, Mishnic התּיר) the vow. But there is no evidence that the priests had the power of releasing from vows. Individual cases in which a husband can dissolve the vow of his wife, and a father the vow of his daughter, are enumerated in Num 30; ; besides, in the traditional law, we find the sentence: “A vow, which one who makes it repents of, can be dissolved by a learned man (חכם), or, where none is present, by three laymen,” Bechoroth 36 b; the matter cannot be settled by any middle person (שׁליח), but he who has taken the vow (הנודר) must appear personally, Jore deah c. 228, §16. Of the priest as such nothing is said here. Therefore the passage cannot at all be traditionally understood of an official dissolution of an oath. Where the Talm. applies it juristically, Shabbath 32 b, etc., Rashi explains hammalach by gizbar shěl-haqdesh, i.e., treasurer of the revenues of the sanctuary; and in the Comm. to Koheleth he supposes that some one has publicly resolved on an act of charity (צדקה), i.e., has determined it with himself, and that now the representative of the congregation (שׁליח) comes to demand it. But that is altogether fanciful. If we proceed on the idea that liphne hammalach is of the same meaning as liphne hakkohen, Lev 27:8, Lev 27:11; Num 9:6; Num 27:2, etc., we have then to derive the figure from such passages relating to the law of sacrifice as Num 15:22-26, from which the words ki shegagah hi (Num 15:25) originate. We have to suppose that he who has made a vow, and has not kept it, comes to terms with God with an easier and less costly offering, since in the confession (ודּוּי) which he makes before the priest he explains that the vow was a shegagah, a declaration that inconsiderately escaped him. The author, in giving it to be understood that under these circumstances the offering of the sacrifice is just the direct contrary of a good work, calls to the conscience of the inconsiderate נודר: why should God be angry on account of thy voice with which thou dost excuse thy sins of omission, and destroy (vid., regarding חבּל under Isa 10:27) the work of thy hands (vid., under Psa 90:17), for He destroys what thou hast done, and causes to fail what thou purposest? The question with lammah resembles those in Ezr 4:22; Ezr 7:23, and is of the same kind as at Ecc 7:16.; it leads us to consider what a mad self-destruction that would be (Jer 44:7, cf. under Isa 1:5).

The reason for the foregoing admonition now following places the inconsiderate vow under the general rubric of inconsiderate words. We cannot succeed in interpreting Ecc 5:6 [7] (in so far as we do not supply, after the lxx and Syr. with the Targ.: ne credas; or better, with Ginsburg, היא = it is) without taking one of the vavs in the sense of “also.” That the Heb. vav, like the Greek καί, the Lat. et, may have this comparative or intensifying sense rising above that which is purely copulative, is seen from e.g., Num 9:14, cf. also Jos 14:11. In many cases, it is true, we are not under the necessity of translating vav by “also;” but since the “and” here does not merely externally connect, but expresses correlation of things homogeneous, an “also” or a similar particle involuntarily substitutes itself for the “and,” e.g., Gen 17:20 (Jerome): super Ismael quoque; Exo 29:8 : filios quoque; Deu 1:32 : et nec sic quidem credidistis; Deu 9:8 : nam et in Horeb; cf. Jos 15:19; 1Sa 25:43; 2Sa 19:25; 1Ki 2:22; 1Ki 11:26; Isa 49:6, “I have also given to thee.” But there are also passages in which it cannot be otherwise translated than by “also.” We do not reckon among these Psa 31:12, where we do not translate “also my neighbours,” and Amo 4:10, where the words are to be translated, “and that in your nostrils.” On the contrary, Isa 32:7 is scarcely otherwise to be translated than “also when the poor maketh good his right,” like 2Sa 1:23, “also in their death they are not divided.” In 2Ch 27:5, in like manner, the two vavs are scarcely correlative, but we have, with Keil, to translate, “also in the second and third year.” And in Hos 8:6, והוּא, at least according to the punctuation, signifies “also it,” as Jerome translates: ex Israele et ipse est. According to the interpunction of the passage before us, וּד הר is the pred., and thus, with the Venet., is to be translated: “For in many dreams and vanities there are also many words.” We could at all events render the vav, as also at Ecc 10:11; Exo 16:6, as vav apod.; but וגו בּרב has not the character of a virtual antecedent, - the meaning of the expression remains as for the rest the same; but Hitzig’s objection is of force against it (as also against Ewald’s disposition of the words, like the of Symmachus, Jerome, and Luther: “for where there are many dreams, there are also vanities, and many words”), that it does not accord with the connection, which certainly in the first place requires a reason referable to inconsiderate talk, and that the second half is, in fact, erroneous, for between dreams and many words there exists no necessary inward mutual relation. Hitzig, as Knobel before him, seeks to help this, for he explains: “for in many dreams are also vanities, i.e., things from which nothing comes, and (the like) in many words.” But not only is this assumed carrying forward of the ב doubtful, but the principal thing would be made a secondary matter, and would drag heavily. The relation in Ecc 5:2 is different where vav is that of comparison, and that which is compared follows the comparison. Apparently the text (although the lxx had it before them, as it is before us) has undergone dislocation, and is thus to be arranged: כי ברב חלמת ודברים הרבה והבלים: for in many dreams and many words there are also vanities, i.e., illusions by which one deceives himself and others. Thus also Bullock renders, but without assigning a reason for it. That dreams are named first, arises from a reference back to Ecc 5:2, according to which they are the images of what a man is externally and mentally busied and engaged with. But the principal stress lies on ודברים הרבה, to which also the too rash, inconsiderate vows belong. The pred. והבלים, however, connects itself with “vanity of vanities,” which is Koheleth’s final judgment regarding all that is earthly. The כי following connects itself with the thought lying in 6 a, that much talk, like being much given to dreams, ought to be avoided: it ought not to be; much rather (imo, Symm. ἀλλά) fear God, Him before whom one should say nothing, but that which contains in it the whole heart.