Pro 27:17-18 | KD | STEP | This proverb expresses the influence arising from the intercourse of man with man: Iron is sharpened by iron, And a man may sharpen the appearance of another. When the Masora reads יחד, Ewald remarks, it interprets the word as denoting “at the same time,” and the further meaning of the proverb must then accord therewith. Accordingly he translates: “iron together with iron! and one together with the face of another!” But then the prep. ב or עם is wanting after the second יחד - for יחד is, in spite of Ewald, §217h, never a prep. - and the “face,” 17b, would be a perplexing superfluity. Hitzig already replies, but without doing homage to the traditional text-punctuation, that such a violence to the use of language, and such a darkening of the thought, is not at all to be accepted. He suggests four ways of interpreting יחד: (1) the adverb יחד, united, properly (taken accusat.) union; (2) יחד, , imper. of the Piel יחד, unite; (3) יחדּ, , jussive of the Kal חדה, gaudeat ; and (4) as Kimchi, in Michlol 126a, jussive of the Kal חדה (= חדד) acuere , after the form תחז, Mic 4:11. ויּחץ, , etc. in p . יחד, after the form אחז, Job 23:9. ויּחל, 2Ki 1:2 (= ויּחלא, ). If we take יחד with בּרזל, then it is à priori to be supposed that in יחד the idea of sharpening lies; in the Arab. iron is simply called hadyda = חדוּד, that which is sharpened, sharp; and a current Arab. proverb says: alḥadyd balḥadyd yuflah = ferrum ferro diffinditur ( vid ., Freytag under the word falah). But is the traditional text-punctuation thus understood to be rightly maintained? It may be easily changed in conformity with the meaning, but not so that with Böttcher we read יחד and יחד, the fut . Kal of חדד: “iron sharpeneth itself on iron, and a man sharpeneth himself over against his neighbour” - for פני after a verb to be understood actively, has to be regarded as the object - but since יחד is changed into יחד ( fut . Hiph . of חדד), and יחד into יחד or יחד ( fut . Hiph . of חדד, after the form אחל, incipiam , , or אחל, profanabo , ; Num 30:3). The passive rendering of the idea 17a and the active of 17b thus more distinctly appear, and the unsuitable jussive forms are set aside: ferrum ferro exacuitur, et homo exacuit faciem amici sui (Jerome, Targ., the Venet .). But that is not necessary. As ויּעל may be the fut . of the Hiph . (he brought up) as well as of the Kal (he went up), so יחד may be regarded as fut . Kal , and יחד as fut . Hiph . Fleischer prefers to render יחד also as Hiph .: aciem exhibet , like יעשׁיר, divitias acquirit , and the like; but the jussive is not favourable to this supposition of an intransitive (inwardly transitive) Hiph . It may indeed be said that the two jussives appear to be used, according to poetic licence, with the force of indicatives (cf. under ), but the repetition opposes it. Thus we explain: iron is sharpened [ gewetzt , Luther uses this appropriate word] by iron (ב of the means, not of the object, which was rather to be expected in 17b after ), and a man whets פני, the appearance, the deportment, the nature, and manner of the conduct of his neighbour. The proverb requires that the intercourse of man with man operate in the way of sharpening the manner and forming the habits and character; that one help another to culture and polish of manner, rub off his ruggedness, round his corners, as one has to make use of iron when he sharpens iron and seeks to make it bright. The jussive form is the oratorical form of the expression of that which is done, but also of that which is to be done.

‏ Proverbs 27:17-18

This proverb expresses the influence arising from the intercourse of man with man:

Iron is sharpened by iron,

And a man may sharpen the appearance of another.

When the Masora reads יחד, Ewald remarks, it interprets the word as denoting “at the same time,” and the further meaning of the proverb must then accord therewith. Accordingly he translates: “iron together with iron! and one together with the face of another!” But then the prep. ב or עם is wanting after the second יחד - for יחד is, in spite of Ewald, §217h, never a prep. - and the “face,” 17b, would be a perplexing superfluity. Hitzig already replies, but without doing homage to the traditional text-punctuation, that such a violence to the use of language, and such a darkening of the thought, is not at all to be accepted. He suggests four ways of interpreting יחד: (1) the adverb יחד, united, properly (taken accusat.) union; (2) יחד, Psa 86:11, imper. of the Piel יחד, unite; (3) יחדּ, Job 3:6, jussive of the Kal חדה, gaudeat; and (4) as Kimchi, in Michlol 126a, jussive of the Kal חדה (= חדד) acuere, after the form תחז, Mic 4:11. ויּחץ, Gen 32:8, etc. in p. יחד, after the form אחז, Job 23:9. ויּחל, 2Ki 1:2 (= ויּחלא, 2Ch 16:12). If we take יחד with בּרזל, then it is à priori to be supposed that in יחד the idea of sharpening lies; in the Arab. iron is simply called hadyda = חדוּד, that which is sharpened, sharp; and a current Arab. proverb says: alḥadyd balḥadyd yuflah = ferrum ferro diffinditur (vid., Freytag under the word falah). But is the traditional text-punctuation thus understood to be rightly maintained? It may be easily changed in conformity with the meaning, but not so that with Böttcher we read יחד and יחד, the fut. Kal of חדד: “iron sharpeneth itself on iron, and a man sharpeneth himself over against his neighbour” - for פני after a verb to be understood actively, has to be regarded as the object - but since יחד is changed into יחד (fut. Hiph. of חדד), and יחד into יחד or יחד (fut. Hiph. of חדד, after the form אחל, incipiam, Deu 2:25, or אחל, profanabo, Eze 39:7; Num 30:3). The passive rendering of the idea 17a and the active of 17b thus more distinctly appear, and the unsuitable jussive forms are set aside: ferrum ferro exacuitur, et homo exacuit faciem amici sui (Jerome, Targ., the Venet.). But that is not necessary. As ויּעל may be the fut. of the Hiph. (he brought up) as well as of the Kal (he went up), so יחד may be regarded as fut. Kal, and יחד as fut. Hiph. Fleischer prefers to render יחד also as Hiph.: aciem exhibet, like יעשׁיר, divitias acquirit, and the like; but the jussive is not favourable to this supposition of an intransitive (inwardly transitive) Hiph. It may indeed be said that the two jussives appear to be used, according to poetic licence, with the force of indicatives (cf. under Pro 12:26), but the repetition opposes it. Thus we explain: iron is sharpened [gewetzt, Luther uses this appropriate word] by iron (ב of the means, not of the object, which was rather to be expected in 17b after Pro 20:30), and a man whets פני, the appearance, the deportment, the nature, and manner of the conduct of his neighbour. The proverb requires that the intercourse of man with man operate in the way of sharpening the manner and forming the habits and character; that one help another to culture and polish of manner, rub off his ruggedness, round his corners, as one has to make use of iron when he sharpens iron and seeks to make it bright. The jussive form is the oratorical form of the expression of that which is done, but also of that which is to be done. Pro 27:18

The following three proverbs are connected with 17 in their similarity of form: - 18 Whosoever watcheth the fig-tree will enjoy its fruit; And he that hath regard to his master attaineth to honour.

The first member is, as in Pro 27:17, only the means of contemplating the second; as faithful care of the tree has fruit for a reward, so faithful regard for one’s master, honour; נצר is used as at Isa 27:3, שׁמר as at Hos 4:10, etc. - the proverb is valid in the case of any kind of master up to the Lord of lords. The fig-tree presented itself, as Heidenheim remarks, as an appropriate figure; because in the course of several years’ training it brings forth its fruit, which the language of the Mishna distinguishes as פגין, unripe, בוחל, half ripe, and צמל, fully ripe. To fruit in the first line corresponds honour in the second, which the faithful and attentive servant attains unto first on the part of his master, and then also from society in general.