Pro 22:16 | KD | STEP | Whosoever oppresseth the lowly, it is gain to him; Whosoever giveth to the rich, it is only loss. It is before all clear that להרבּות and למחסור, as at , למותר and למחסור, are contrasted words, and form the conclusions to the participles used, with the force of hypothetical antecedents. Jerome recognises this: qui calumniatur pauperem, ut augeat divitias suas, dabit ipse ditiori et egebit . So Rashi, who by עשׁיר thinks on heathen potentates. Proportionally better Euchel, referring עשׁק and נתן, not to one person, but to two classes of men: he who oppresses the poor to enrich himself, and is liberal toward the rich, falls under want. The antithetic distich thus becomes an integral one - the antithesis manifestly intended is not brought out. This may be said also against Bertheau, who too ingeniously explains: He who oppresses the poor to enrich himself gives to a rich man, i.e. , to himself, the enriched, only to want, i.e. , only to lose again that which he gained unrighteously. Ralbag is on the right track, for he suggests the explanation: he who oppresses the poor, does it to his gain, for he thereby impels him to a more energetic exercise of his strength; he who gives to the rich man does it to his own loss, because the rich man does not thank him for it, and still continues to look down on him. But if one refers לּו to the poor, then it lies nearer to interpret אך למחסור of the rich: he who gives presents to the rich only thereby promotes his sleepy indolence, and so much the more robs him of activity (Elster); for that which one gives to him is only swallowed up in the whirlpool of his extravagance (Zöckler). Thus Hitzig also explains, who remarks, under 17a: “Oppression produces reaction, awakens energy, and thus God on the whole overrules events” ( ). Similarly also Ewald, who thinks on a mercenary, unrighteous rich man: God finally lifts up the oppressed poor man; the rich man always becoming richer, on the contrary, is “punished for all his wickedness only more and more.” But with all these explanations there is too much read between the lines. Since אך למחדור ( ; ) refers back to the subject: himself to mere loss, so also will it be here; and the lxx, Symmachus, Jerome (cf. also the Syr. auget malum suum ) are right when they also refer לו, not to the poor man, but to the oppressor of the poor. We explain: he who extorts from the poor enriches himself thereby; but he who gives to the rich has nothing, and less than nothing, thereby - he robs himself, has no thanks, only brings himself by many gifts lower and lower down. In the first case at least, 17a, the result corresponds to the intention; but in this latter case, 17b, one gains only bitter disappointment. , forming the introduction to this appendix, are these Words of the Wise: 17 Incline thine ear and hear the words of the wise, And direct thine heart to my knowledge! 18 For it is pleasant if thou keep them in thine heart; Let them abide together on thy lips. 19 That thy trust may be placed in Jahve, I have taught thee to-day, even thee! 20 Have not I written unto thee choice proverbs, Containing counsels and knowledge, 21 To make thee to know the rule of the words of truth, That thou mightest bring back words which are truth to them that send thee? From to are the “Proverbs of Solomon,” and not “The Words of the Wise;” thus the above παραίνεσις is not an epilogue, but a prologue to the following proverbs. The perfects הודעתּיך and כתבתּי refer, not to the Solomonic proverbial discourses, but to the appendix following them; the preface commends the worth and intention of this appendix, and uses perfects because it was written after the forming of the collection. The author of this preface ( vid ., pp. 23, 36, vol. i.) is no other than the author of chap. 1-9. The הט (with Mehuppach , after Thorath Emeth , p. 27) reminds us of ; Pro 5:1. The phrase שׁית לב, animum advertere , occurs again in the second appendix, Pro 24:32. נעים is repeated at ; ; but נעם with נעם is common in the preface, chap. 1-9. כּי־נעים contains, as at ; , its subject in itself. כּי־תּשׁמרם is not this subject: this that thou preservest them, which would have required rather the infin. שׁמרם ( ) or לשׁמרם; but it supposes the case in which appears that which is amiable and praiseworthy: if thou preservest them in thy heart, i.e. , makest them thoughtfully become thy mental possession. The suffix ēm refers to the Words of the Wise, and mediately also to לדעתּי, for the author designates his practical wisdom דעתי, which is laid down in the following proverbs, which, although not composed by him, are yet penetrated by his subjectivity. Regarding בּטן, which, from meaning the inner parts of the body, is transferred to the inner parts of the mind, vid ., under Pro 20:27. The clause 18b, if not dependent on כי, would begin with ויכּנוּ. The absence of the copula and the antecedence of the verb bring the optative rendering nearer. Different is the syntactical relation of , where the infin. is continued in the fin. The fut. Niph . יכּנוּ, which, , meant to be rightly placed, rightly directed, here means: to stand erect, to have continuance, stabilem esse . In , the fact of instruction precedes the statement of its object, which is, that the disciple may place his confidence in Jahve, for he does that which is according to His will, and is subject to His rule. מבטחך, in Codd. and correct editions with Pathach ( vid ., Michlol 184b); the ח is as virtually doubled; vid ., under Pro 21:22. In 19b the accentuation הודעתיך היום is contrary to the syntax; Codd. and old editions have rightly הודעתיך היום, for אף־אתּה is, after Gesen. §121. 3, an emphatic repetition of “thee;” אף, like גּם, ; 1Ki 21:19. Hitzig knows of no contrast which justifies the emphasis. But the prominence thus effected is not always of the nature of contrast (cf. Zec 7:5, have ye truly fasted to me, i.e. , to serve me thereby), here it is strong individualizing; the te etiam te is equivalent to, thee as others, and thee in particular. Also that, as Hitzig remarks, there does not appear any reason for the emphasizing of “to-day,” is incorrect: היּום is of the same signification as at ; the reader of the following proverbs shall remember later, not merely in general, that he once on a time read them, but that he to-day, that he on this definite day, received the lessons of wisdom contained therein, and then, from that time forth, became responsible for his obedience or his disobedience. In 20a the Chethı̂b שלשום denotes no definite date; besides, this word occurs only always along with תּמול (עתמול). Umbreit, Ewald, Bertheau, however, accept this “formerly (lately),” and suppose that the author here refers to a “Book for Youths,” composed at an earlier period, without one seeing what this reference, which had a meaning only for his contemporaries, here denotes. The lxx reads כתבתּ, and finds in 20a, contrary to the syntax and the usus loq ., the exhortation that he who is addressed ought to write these good doctrines thrice (τρισσῶς) on the tablet of his heart; the Syr. and Targ. suppose the author to say that he wrote them three times; Jerome, that he wrote them threefold - both without any visible meaning, since threefold cannot be equivalent to manchfeltiglich (Luther) [= several times, in various ways]. Also the Kerı̂ שׁלשׁים, which without doubt is the authentic word, is interpreted in many unacceptable ways; Rashi and Elia Wilna, following a Midrash explanation, think on the lessons of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; Arama, on those which are referable to three classes of youth; Malbim (as if here the author of the whole Book of Proverbs, from 1 to 31, spake), on the supposed three chief parts of the Mishle ; Dächsel better, on chap. 1-9, as the product of the same author as this appendix. Schultens compares , and translates triplici filo nexa . Kimchi, Meîri, and others, are right, who gloss שׁלישׁים by דברים נכבדים, and compare נגידים, ; accordingly the Veneta , with the happy quid pro quo , by τρισμέγιστα. The lxx translates the military שׁלישׁ by τριστάτης; but this Greek word is itself obscure, and is explained by Hesychius (as well as by Suidas, and in the Etymologicum ) by Regii satellites qui ternas hastas manu tenebant , which is certainly false. Another Greek, whom Angellius quotes, says, under , that τριστάτης was the name given to the warriors who fought from a chariot, every three of whom had one war-chariot among them; and this appears, according to ; , to be really the primary meaning. In the period of David we meet with the word שׁלישׁים as the name of the heroes (the Gibbôrı̂m) who stood nearest the king. The shalish-men form the élite troops that stood highest in rank, at whose head stood two triads of heroes - Jashobeam at the head of the first trias, and thus of the shalish-men generally; Abishai at the head of the second trias, who held an honourable place among the shalish-men, but yet reached not to that first trias, 2Sa 23:8. (= 1Ch 11:11.). The name השּׁלישׁים ( Apoc . , השּׁלשׁי, and , , incorrectly השּׁלשׁים) occurs here with reference to the threefold division of this principal host; and in regard to the use of the word in the time of Pharaoh, as well as in the time of the kings, it may be granted that shalish denotes the Three-man ( triumvir ), and then generally a high military officer; so that שׁלשׁים here has the same relation to נגידים, , as ducalia to principalia . The name of the chief men (members of the chief troop) is transferred to the chief proverbs, as, Jam 2:8, that law which stands as a king at the head of all the others is called the “royal law;” or, as Plato names the chief powers of the soul, μέρη ἡγεμόνες. As in this Platonic word-form, so shalishim here, like negidim there, is understood neut. cf. under , and ריקים, ; ישׁרים, Pro 16:13. The ב of בּמעצות (occurring at also) Fleischer rightly explains as the ב of uniting or accompanying: chief proverbs which contain good counsels and solid knowledge. In the statement of the object in , we interpret that which follows להודיעך not permutat.: ut te docerem recta, verba vera (Fleischer); but קשׁט (ground-form to קשׁט, ) is the bearer of the threefold idea: rectitudinem , or, better, regulam verborum veritatis . The (Arab.) verb ḳasiṭa means to be straight, stiff, inflexible (synon. צדק, to be hard, tight, proportionately direct); and the name ḳisṭ denotes not only the right conduct, the right measure ( quantitas justa ), but also the balance, and thus the rule or the norm. In 21b, אמרים אמת (as e.g. , Zec 1:13; vid ., Philippi, Status Constr . p. 86f.) is equivalent to אמרי אמת; the author has this second time intentionally chosen the appositional relation of connection: words which are truth; the idea of truth presents itself in this form of expression more prominently. Impossible, because contrary to the usus loq ., is the translation: ut respondeas verba vera iis qui ad te mittunt (Schultens, Fleischer), because שׁלח, with the accus. following, never means “to send any one.” Without doubt השׁיב and שׁלח stand in correlation to each other: he who lets himself be instructed must be supposed to be in circumstances to bring home, to those that sent him out to learn, doctrines which are truth, and thus to approve himself. The subject spoken of here is not a right answer or a true report brought back to one giving a commission; and it lies beyond the purpose and power of the following proverbs to afford a universal means whereby persons sent out are made skilful. The שׁלחים [senders] are here the parents or guardians who send him who is to be instructed to the school of the teacher of wisdom (Hitzig). Yet it appears strange that he who is the learner is just here not addressed as “my son,” which would go to the support of the expression, “to send to school,” which is elsewhere unused in Old Hebrew, and the שׁלחי of another are elsewhere called those who make him their mandatar , ; ; 2Sa 24:13. The reference to the parents would also be excluded if, with Norzi and other editors, לשׁלחך were to be read instead of לשׁלחיך (the Venet . 1521, and most editions). Therefore the phrase לשׁעליך, which is preferred by Ewald, recommends itself, according to which the lxx translates, τοῖς προβαλλομένοις σοι, which the Syro-Hexap. renders by להנון דאחדין לך אוחדתא yb, i.e. , to those who lay problems before thee ( vid ., Lagarde). The teacher of wisdom seeks to qualify him who reads the following proverbs, and permits himself to be influenced by them, to give the right answer to those who question him and go to him for counsel, and thus to become himself a teacher of wisdom.

‏ Proverbs 22:16

Pro 22:16 16 Whosoever oppresseth the lowly, it is gain to him; Whosoever giveth to the rich, it is only loss.

It is before all clear that להרבּות and למחסור, as at Pro 21:5, למותר and למחסור, are contrasted words, and form the conclusions to the participles used, with the force of hypothetical antecedents. Jerome recognises this: qui calumniatur pauperem, ut augeat divitias suas, dabit ipse ditiori et egebit. So Rashi, who by עשׁיר thinks on heathen potentates. Proportionally better Euchel, referring עשׁק and נתן, not to one person, but to two classes of men: he who oppresses the poor to enrich himself, and is liberal toward the rich, falls under want. The antithetic distich thus becomes an integral one - the antithesis manifestly intended is not brought out. This may be said also against Bertheau, who too ingeniously explains: He who oppresses the poor to enrich himself gives to a rich man, i.e., to himself, the enriched, only to want, i.e., only to lose again that which he gained unrighteously. Ralbag is on the right track, for he suggests the explanation: he who oppresses the poor, does it to his gain, for he thereby impels him to a more energetic exercise of his strength; he who gives to the rich man does it to his own loss, because the rich man does not thank him for it, and still continues to look down on him. But if one refers לּו to the poor, then it lies nearer to interpret אך למחסור of the rich: he who gives presents to the rich only thereby promotes his sleepy indolence, and so much the more robs him of activity (Elster); for that which one gives to him is only swallowed up in the whirlpool of his extravagance (Zöckler). Thus Hitzig also explains, who remarks, under 17a: “Oppression produces reaction, awakens energy, and thus God on the whole overrules events” (Exo 1:12). Similarly also Ewald, who thinks on a mercenary, unrighteous rich man: God finally lifts up the oppressed poor man; the rich man always becoming richer, on the contrary, is “punished for all his wickedness only more and more.” But with all these explanations there is too much read between the lines. Since אך למחדור (Pro 11:24; Pro 21:5) refers back to the subject: himself to mere loss, so also will it be here; and the lxx, Symmachus, Jerome (cf. also the Syr. auget malum suum) are right when they also refer לו, not to the poor man, but to the oppressor of the poor. We explain: he who extorts from the poor enriches himself thereby; but he who gives to the rich has nothing, and less than nothing, thereby - he robs himself, has no thanks, only brings himself by many gifts lower and lower down. In the first case at least, 17a, the result corresponds to the intention; but in this latter case, 17b, one gains only bitter disappointment.

Pro 22:17-21, forming the introduction to this appendix, are these Words of the Wise: 17 Incline thine ear and hear the words of the wise, And direct thine heart to my knowledge! 18 For it is pleasant if thou keep them in thine heart; Let them abide together on thy lips. 19 That thy trust may be placed in Jahve, I have taught thee to-day, even thee! 20 Have not I written unto thee choice proverbs, Containing counsels and knowledge, 21 To make thee to know the rule of the words of truth, That thou mightest bring back words which are truth to them that send thee?

From Pro 10:1 to Pro 22:16 are the “Proverbs of Solomon,” and not “The Words of the Wise;” thus the above παραίνεσις is not an epilogue, but a prologue to the following proverbs. The perfects הודעתּיך and כתבתּי refer, not to the Solomonic proverbial discourses, but to the appendix following them; the preface commends the worth and intention of this appendix, and uses perfects because it was written after the forming of the collection. The author of this preface (vid., pp. 23, 36, vol. i.) is no other than the author of chap. 1-9. The הט (with Mehuppach, after Thorath Emeth, p. 27) reminds us of Pro 4:20; Pro 5:1. The phrase שׁית לב, animum advertere, occurs again in the second appendix, Pro 24:32. נעים is repeated at Pro 23:8; Pro 24:4; but נעם with נעם is common in the preface, chap. 1-9. כּי־נעים contains, as at Psa 135:3; Psa 147:1, its subject in itself. כּי־תּשׁמרם is not this subject: this that thou preservest them, which would have required rather the infin. שׁמרם (Psa 133:1) or לשׁמרם; but it supposes the case in which appears that which is amiable and praiseworthy: if thou preservest them in thy heart, i.e., makest them thoughtfully become thy mental possession. The suffix ēm refers to the Words of the Wise, and mediately also to לדעתּי, for the author designates his practical wisdom דעתי, which is laid down in the following proverbs, which, although not composed by him, are yet penetrated by his subjectivity. Regarding בּטן, which, from meaning the inner parts of the body, is transferred to the inner parts of the mind, vid., under Pro 20:27. The clause 18b, if not dependent on כי, would begin with ויכּנוּ. The absence of the copula and the antecedence of the verb bring the optative rendering nearer. Different is the syntactical relation of Pro 5:2, where the infin. is continued in the fin. The fut. Niph. יכּנוּ, which, Pro 4:27, meant to be rightly placed, rightly directed, here means: to stand erect, to have continuance, stabilem esse. In Pro 22:19, the fact of instruction precedes the statement of its object, which is, that the disciple may place his confidence in Jahve, for he does that which is according to His will, and is subject to His rule. מבטחך, in Codd. and correct editions with Pathach (vid., Michlol 184b); the ח is as virtually doubled; vid., under Pro 21:22. In 19b the accentuation הודעתיך היום is contrary to the syntax; Codd. and old editions have rightly הודעתיך היום, for אף־אתּה is, after Gesen. §121. 3, an emphatic repetition of “thee;” אף, like גּם, Pro 23:15; 1Ki 21:19. Hitzig knows of no contrast which justifies the emphasis. But the prominence thus effected is not always of the nature of contrast (cf. Zec 7:5, have ye truly fasted to me, i.e., to serve me thereby), here it is strong individualizing; the te etiam te is equivalent to, thee as others, and thee in particular. Also that, as Hitzig remarks, there does not appear any reason for the emphasizing of “to-day,” is incorrect: היּום is of the same signification as at Psa 95:7; the reader of the following proverbs shall remember later, not merely in general, that he once on a time read them, but that he to-day, that he on this definite day, received the lessons of wisdom contained therein, and then, from that time forth, became responsible for his obedience or his disobedience.

In 20a the Chethı̂b שלשום denotes no definite date; besides, this word occurs only always along with תּמול (עתמול). Umbreit, Ewald, Bertheau, however, accept this “formerly (lately),” and suppose that the author here refers to a “Book for Youths,” composed at an earlier period, without one seeing what this reference, which had a meaning only for his contemporaries, here denotes. The lxx reads כתבתּ, and finds in 20a, contrary to the syntax and the usus loq., the exhortation that he who is addressed ought to write these good doctrines thrice (τρισσῶς) on the tablet of his heart; the Syr. and Targ. suppose the author to say that he wrote them three times; Jerome, that he wrote them threefold - both without any visible meaning, since threefold cannot be equivalent to manchfeltiglich (Luther) [= several times, in various ways]. Also the Kerı̂ שׁלשׁים, which without doubt is the authentic word, is interpreted in many unacceptable ways; Rashi and Elia Wilna, following a Midrash explanation, think on the lessons of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; Arama, on those which are referable to three classes of youth; Malbim (as if here the author of the whole Book of Proverbs, from 1 to 31, spake), on the supposed three chief parts of the Mishle; Dächsel better, on chap. 1-9, as the product of the same author as this appendix. Schultens compares Ecc 4:12, and translates triplici filo nexa. Kimchi, Meîri, and others, are right, who gloss שׁלישׁים by דברים נכבדים, and compare נגידים, Pro 8:6; accordingly the Veneta, with the happy quid pro quo, by τρισμέγιστα. The lxx translates the military שׁלישׁ by τριστάτης; but this Greek word is itself obscure, and is explained by Hesychius (as well as by Suidas, and in the Etymologicum) by Regii satellites qui ternas hastas manu tenebant, which is certainly false. Another Greek, whom Angellius quotes, says, under Exo 15:4, that τριστάτης was the name given to the warriors who fought from a chariot, every three of whom had one war-chariot among them; and this appears, according to Exo 14:7; Exo 15:4, to be really the primary meaning. In the period of David we meet with the word שׁלישׁים as the name of the heroes (the Gibbôrı̂m) who stood nearest the king. The shalish-men form the élite troops that stood highest in rank, at whose head stood two triads of heroes - Jashobeam at the head of the first trias, and thus of the shalish-men generally; Abishai at the head of the second trias, who held an honourable place among the shalish-men, but yet reached not to that first trias, 2Sa 23:8. (= 1Ch 11:11.). The name השּׁלישׁים (Apoc. 2Sa 23:8, השּׁלשׁי, and 2Sa 23:13, 1Ch 27:6, incorrectly השּׁלשׁים) occurs here with reference to the threefold division of this principal host; and in regard to the use of the word in the time of Pharaoh, as well as in the time of the kings, it may be granted that shalish denotes the Three-man (triumvir), and then generally a high military officer; so that שׁלשׁים here has the same relation to נגידים, Pro 8:6, as ducalia to principalia. The name of the chief men (members of the chief troop) is transferred to the chief proverbs, as, Jam 2:8, that law which stands as a king at the head of all the others is called the “royal law;” or, as Plato names the chief powers of the soul, μέρη ἡγεμόνες. As in this Platonic word-form, so shalishim here, like negidim there, is understood neut. cf. under Pro 8:6, and ריקים, Pro 12:11; ישׁרים, Pro 16:13. The ב of בּמעצות (occurring at Pro 1:31 also) Fleischer rightly explains as the ב of uniting or accompanying: chief proverbs which contain good counsels and solid knowledge.

In the statement of the object in Pro 22:21, we interpret that which follows להודיעך not permutat.: ut te docerem recta, verba vera (Fleischer); but קשׁט (ground-form to קשׁט, Psa 60:6) is the bearer of the threefold idea: rectitudinem, or, better, regulam verborum veritatis. The (Arab.) verb ḳasiṭa means to be straight, stiff, inflexible (synon. צדק, to be hard, tight, proportionately direct); and the name ḳisṭ denotes not only the right conduct, the right measure (quantitas justa), but also the balance, and thus the rule or the norm. In 21b, אמרים אמת (as e.g., Zec 1:13; vid., Philippi, Status Constr. p. 86f.) is equivalent to אמרי אמת; the author has this second time intentionally chosen the appositional relation of connection: words which are truth; the idea of truth presents itself in this form of expression more prominently. Impossible, because contrary to the usus loq., is the translation: ut respondeas verba vera iis qui ad te mittunt (Schultens, Fleischer), because שׁלח, with the accus. following, never means “to send any one.” Without doubt השׁיב and שׁלח stand in correlation to each other: he who lets himself be instructed must be supposed to be in circumstances to bring home, to those that sent him out to learn, doctrines which are truth, and thus to approve himself. The subject spoken of here is not a right answer or a true report brought back to one giving a commission; and it lies beyond the purpose and power of the following proverbs to afford a universal means whereby persons sent out are made skilful. The שׁלחים [senders] are here the parents or guardians who send him who is to be instructed to the school of the teacher of wisdom (Hitzig). Yet it appears strange that he who is the learner is just here not addressed as “my son,” which would go to the support of the expression, “to send to school,” which is elsewhere unused in Old Hebrew, and the שׁלחי of another are elsewhere called those who make him their mandatar, Pro 10:26; Pro 25:13; 2Sa 24:13. The reference to the parents would also be excluded if, with Norzi and other editors, לשׁלחך were to be read instead of לשׁלחיך (the Venet. 1521, and most editions). Therefore the phrase לשׁעליך, which is preferred by Ewald, recommends itself, according to which the lxx translates, τοῖς προβαλλομένοις σοι, which the Syro-Hexap. renders ^{▼▼The Syr. n. fem. awchda (אוּחדא, Psa 49:5, Targ.) is equivalent to Heb. חידה, from (Syr.) achd, אחד = אחז, Neh 7:3, to shut up, properly, to lay hold on and retain; the Arab. akhdhat means magic, incantation; as seizing and making fast.} by להנון דאחדין לך אוחדתא yb, i.e., to those who lay problems before thee (vid., Lagarde). The teacher of wisdom seeks to qualify him who reads the following proverbs, and permits himself to be influenced by them, to give the right answer to those who question him and go to him for counsel, and thus to become himself a teacher of wisdom.