Pro 6:5-35 | KD | STEP | The author warns against suretyship; or rather, he advises that if one has made himself surety, he should as quickly as possible withdraw from the snare. 1 My son, if thou hast become surety for thy neighbour, Hast given thy hand for another: 2 Thou art entangled in the words of thy mouth, Ensnared in the words of thy mouth. 3 Do this then, my son, and free thyself - For thou hast come under the power of thy neighbour - Go, instantly entreat and importune thy neighbour. 4 Give no sleep to thine eyes, And no slumber to thine eyelids; 5 Tear thyself free like a gazelle from his hand, And as a bird from the hand of the fowler. The chief question here is, whether ל after ערב introduces him for whom or with whom one becomes surety. Elsewhere ערב (R. רב, whence also ארב, nectere , to twist close and compact) with the accusative of the person means to become surety for any one, to represent him as a surety, ; ( ), ; (as with the accusative of the matter, to pledge anything, to deposit it as a pledge, ; , = שׂים, Arab. waḍ'a, ); and to become surety with any one is expressed, , by ערב לפני. The phrase ערב ל is not elsewhere met with, and is thus questionable. If we look to , the רע (רעה) mentioned there cannot possibly be the creditor with whom one has become surety, for so impetuous and urgent an application to him would be both purposeless and unbecoming. But if he is meant for whom one has become surety, then certainly לרעך is also to be understood of the same person, and ל is thus dat. commodi ; similar to this is the Targumic ערבוּתא על, suretyship for any one, ; Pro 22:26. But is the זר, 1b, distinguished from רעך, the stranger with whom one has become surety? The parallels ; , where זר denotes the person whom one represents, show that in both lines one and the same person is meant; זר is in the Proverbs equivalent to אחר, each different from the person in the discourse, ; - thus, like רעך, denotes not the friend, but generally him to whom one stands in any kind of relation, even a very external one, in a word, the fellow-creatures or neighbours, (cf. the Arab. sahbk and ḳarynk, which are used as vaguely and superficially). It is further a question, whether we have to explain 1b: if thou hast given thine hand to another, or for another. Here also we are without evidence from the usage of the language; for the phrase תּקע כּף, or merely תּקע, appears to be used of striking the hand in suretyship where it elsewhere occurs without any further addition, ; ; ; however, , נתקע ליד appears the same: to strike into the hand of any one, i.e. , to give to him the hand-stroke. From this passage Hitzig concludes that the surety gave the hand-stroke, without doubt in the presence of witnesses, first of all of the creditor, to the debtor, as a sign that he stood for him. But this idea is unnatural, and the “without doubt” melts into air. He on whose hand the stroke falls is always the person to whom one gives suretyship, and confirms it by the hand-stroke. Job also, l.c. , means to say: who else but Thou, O Lord, could give to me a pledge, viz., of my innocence? If now the זר, v. 1b, is, as we have shown, not the creditor, but the debtor, then is the ל the dat. commodi , as 1a, and the two lines perfectly correspond. תּקע properly means to drive, to strike with a resounding noise, cogn. with the Arab. wak'a, which may be regarded as its intrans. (Fl.); then particularly to strike the hand or with the hand. He to whom this hand-pledge is given for another remains here undesignated. A new question arises, whether in , where נוקשׁ ( illaqueari ) and נלכּד ( comprehendi ) follow each other as , cf. , the hypothetical antecedent is continued or not. We agree with Schultens, Ziegler, and Fleischer against the continuance of the אם. The repetition of the בּאמרי פיך (cf. ) serves rightly to strengthen the representation of the thought: thou, thou thyself and no other, hast then ensnared thyself in the net; but this strengthening of the expression would greatly lose in force by placing in the antecedent, while if is regarded as the conclusion, and thus as the principal proposition, it appears in its full strength.

‏ Proverbs 6:5-35

The author warns against suretyship; or rather, he advises that if one has made himself surety, he should as quickly as possible withdraw from the snare. 1 My son, if thou hast become surety for thy neighbour, Hast given thy hand for another: 2 Thou art entangled in the words of thy mouth, Ensnared in the words of thy mouth. 3 Do this then, my son, and free thyself - For thou hast come under the power of thy neighbour - Go, instantly entreat and importune thy neighbour. 4 Give no sleep to thine eyes, And no slumber to thine eyelids; 5 Tear thyself free like a gazelle from his hand, And as a bird from the hand of the fowler.

The chief question here is, whether ל after ערב introduces him for whom or with whom one becomes surety. Elsewhere ערב (R. רב, whence also ארב, nectere, to twist close and compact) with the accusative of the person means to become surety for any one, to represent him as a surety, Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16 (Pro 27:13), Gen 43:9; Gen 44:33 (as with the accusative of the matter, to pledge anything, to deposit it as a pledge, Jer 30:21; Neh 5:3, = שׂים, Arab. waḍ'a, Job 17:3); and to become surety with any one is expressed, Gen 17:18, by ערב לפני. The phrase ערב ל is not elsewhere met with, and is thus questionable. If we look to Pro 6:3, the רע (רעה) mentioned there cannot possibly be the creditor with whom one has become surety, for so impetuous and urgent an application to him would be both purposeless and unbecoming. But if he is meant for whom one has become surety, then certainly לרעך is also to be understood of the same person, and ל is thus dat. commodi; similar to this is the Targumic ערבוּתא על, suretyship for any one, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26. But is the זר, 1b, distinguished from רעך, the stranger with whom one has become surety? The parallels Pro 11:15; Pro 20:16, where זר denotes the person whom one represents, show that in both lines one and the same person is meant; זר is in the Proverbs equivalent to אחר, each different from the person in the discourse, Pro 5:17; Pro 27:2 - thus, like רעך, denotes not the friend, but generally him to whom one stands in any kind of relation, even a very external one, in a word, the fellow-creatures or neighbours, Pro 24:28 (cf. the Arab. sahbk and ḳarynk, which are used as vaguely and superficially). It is further a question, whether we have to explain 1b: if thou hast given thine hand to another, or for another. Here also we are without evidence from the usage of the language; for the phrase תּקע כּף, or merely תּקע, appears to be used of striking the hand in suretyship where it elsewhere occurs without any further addition, Pro 17:18; Pro 22:26; Pro 11:15; however, Job 17:3, נתקע ליד appears the same: to strike into the hand of any one, i.e., to give to him the hand-stroke. From this passage Hitzig concludes that the surety gave the hand-stroke, without doubt in the presence of witnesses, first of all of the creditor, to the debtor, as a sign that he stood for him. But this idea is unnatural, and the “without doubt” melts into air. He on whose hand the stroke falls is always the person to whom one gives suretyship, and confirms it by the hand-stroke. Job also, l.c., means to say: who else but Thou, O Lord, could give to me a pledge, viz., of my innocence? If now the זר, v. 1b, is, as we have shown, not the creditor, ^{▼▼A translation by R. Joseph Joel of Fulda, 1787, whose autograph MS Baer possesses, renders the passage not badly thus: - “My son, if thou hast become surety for thy friend, and hast given the hand to another, then thou art bound by thy word, held by thy promise. Yet do what I say to thee, my son: Be at pains as soon as thou canst to get free, otherwise thou art in the power of thy friend; shun no trouble, be urgent with thy friend.”} but the debtor, then is the ל the dat. commodi, as 1a, and the two lines perfectly correspond. תּקע properly means to drive, to strike with a resounding noise, cogn. with the Arab. wak'a, which may be regarded as its intrans. (Fl.); then particularly to strike the hand or with the hand. He to whom this hand-pledge is given for another remains here undesignated. A new question arises, whether in Pro 6:6, where נוקשׁ (illaqueari) and נלכּד (comprehendi) follow each other as Isa 8:15, cf. Jer 50:24, the hypothetical antecedent is continued or not. We agree with Schultens, Ziegler, and Fleischer against the continuance of the אם. The repetition of the בּאמרי פיך (cf. Pro 2:14) serves rightly to strengthen the representation of the thought: thou, thou thyself and no other, hast then ensnared thyself in the net; but this strengthening of the expression would greatly lose in force by placing Pro 6:2 in the antecedent, while if Pro 6:2 is regarded as the conclusion, and thus as the principal proposition, it appears in its full strength. Pro 6:6-8

As Elihu (Job 35:11) says that God has set the beasts as our teachers, so he sends the sluggard to the school of the ant (Ameise), so named (in Germ.) from its industry (Emsigkeit): 6 Go to the ant, sluggard; Consider her ways, and be wise! 7 She that hath no judge, Director, and ruler: 8 She prepareth in summer her food, Has gathered in harvest her store.

The Dechî written mostly under the לך separates the inseparable. The thought, Go to the ant, sluggard! permits no other distinction than in the vocative; but the Dechî of לך אל־נמלה is changed into Munach ^{▼▼Cod. 1294 accentuates לך אל־נמלה; and that, according to Ben-Asher’s rule, is correct.} on account of the nature of the Athnach-word, which consists of only two syllables without the counter-tone. The ant has for its Hebrew-Arabic name נמלה, from the R. נם (Isaiah, p. 687), which is first used of the sound, which expresses the idea of the low, dull, secret - thus of its active and yet unperceived motion; its Aramaic name in the Peshîto, ûmenaa', and in the Targ. שׁוּמשׁמנא (also Arab. sumsum, simsim, of little red ants), designates it after its quick activity, its busy running hither and thither (vid., Fleischer in Levy’s Chald. Wörterb. ii. 578). She is a model of unwearied and well-planned labour. From the plur. דּרכיה it is to be concluded that the author observed their art in gathering in and laying up in store, carrying burdens, building their houses, and the like (vid., the passages in the Talmud and Midrash in the Hamburg Real-Encyclopädie für Bibel und Talmud, 1868, p. 83f.). To the ant the sluggard (עצל, Aram. and Arab. עטל, with the fundamental idea of weight and dulness) is sent, to learn from her to be ashamed, and to be taught wisdom. Pro 6:9-11

After the poet has admonished the sluggard to take the ant as an example, he seeks also to rouse him out of his sleepiness and indolence: 9 How long, O sluggard, wilt thou lie? When wilt thou rise up from thy sleep? 10 “A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest!” 11 So comes like a strong robber thy poverty, And thy want as an armed man. Pro 6:9-10

The awakening cry, Pro 6:9, is not of the kind that Paul could have it in his mind, Eph 5:14. עצל has, as the vocative, Pasek after it, and is, on account of the Pasek, in correct editions accentuated not with Munach, but Mercha. The words, Pro 6:10, are not an ironical call (sleep only yet a little while, but in truth a long while), but per mimesin the reply of the sluggard with which he turns away the unwelcome disturber. The plurals with מעט sound like self-delusion: yet a little, but a sufficient! To fold the hands, i.e., to cross them over the breast, or put them into the bosom, denotes also, Ecc 4:5, the idler. חבּוּק, complicatio (cf. in Livy, compressis quod aiunt manibus sidere; and Lucan, 2:292, compressas tenuisse manus), for formed like שׁקּוּי, Pro 3:8, and the inf. שׁכב like חסר, Pro 10:21, and שׁפל, Pro 16:19. The perf. consec. connects itself with the words heard from the mouth of the sluggard, which are as a hypothetical antecedent thereto: if thou so sayest, and always again sayest, then this is the consequence, that suddenly and inevitably poverty and want come upon thee. That מהלּך denotes the grassator, i.e., vagabond (Arab. dawwar, one who wanders much about), or the robber or foe (like the Arab. 'aduww, properly transgressor finium), is not justified by the usage of the language; הלך signifies, 2Sa 12:4, the traveller, and מהלּך is one who rides quickly forward, not directly a κακὸς ὁδοιπόρος (lxx). Pro 6:12-15

There follows now a third brief series of instructions, which run to a conclusion with a deterring prospect similar to the foregoing. 12 A worthless man, a wicked man, Is he who practiseth falsehood with his mouth; 13 Who winketh with his eyes, scrapeth with his foot, Pointeth with his fingers. 14 Malice is in his heart, He deviseth evil at all times, He spreadeth strife. 15 Therefore suddenly his destruction shall come, Suddenly shall he be destroyed, and there is no remedy.

It is a question, what is the subject and what the predicate in Pro 6:12. Thus much is clear, that upon him who is here described according to his deceitful conduct the sentence of condemnation shall fall. He who is so described is thus subject, and אדם בּליּעל is without doubt predicate. But does the complex subject begin with אישׁ און? Thus e.g., Hitzig: “A worthless man is the wicked man who....” But the interchange of עדם and אישׁ is a sign of parallel relation; and if 12b belonged attributively to אישׁ און, then since אישׁ האון is not used, it ought at least to have been continued by ההולך. The general moral categories, 12a, are thus predicates, as was indeed besides probable; the copious division of the subject demands also in point of style a more developed predicate. Pro 16:27 is simpler in plan, and also logically different. There the expression is, as is usual, אישׁ בליעל. Since אדם און is not possible, the author uses instead בליעל. This word, composed of בּלי and יעל (from יעל, ועל, to be useful, to be good for), so fully serves as one word, that it even takes the article, 1Sa 25:25. It denotes worthlessness, generally in a chain of words in the genitive, but also the worthless, Job 34:18; and it is to be so taken here, for אדם does not form a constructivus, and never governs a genitive. בליעל is thus a virtual adjective (as nequam in homo nequam); the connection is like that of אדם רשׁע, Pro 11:7, and elsewhere, although more appositional than this pure attributive. Synonymous with בליעל is און (from an, to breathe), wickedness, i.e., want of all moral character. Thus worthless and wicked is he who practises deceit with his mouth (cf. Pro 4:24), i.e., who makes language the means of untruthfulness and uncharitableness. עקּשׁוּת פּה is meant in a moral sense, but without excluding that distortion of the mouth which belongs to the mimicry of the malicious. It is the accus. of the object; for הלך is also bound in a moral sense with the accusative of that which one practises, i.e., dealing with, exercises himself in, Pro 2:7; Pro 28:18, Isa 33:15. Pro 6:16-19

What now follows is not a separate section (Hitzig), but the corroborative continuation of that which precedes. The last word (מדנים, strife) before the threatening of punishment, 14b, is also here the last. The thought that no vice is a greater abomination to God than the (in fact satanical) striving to set men at variance who love one another, clothes itself in the form of the numerical proverb which we have already considered, pp. 12, 13. From that place we transfer the translation of this example of a Midda: - 16 There are six things which Jahve hateth, And seven are an abhorrence to His soul: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; 18 An heart that deviseth the thoughts of evil, Feet that hastily run to wickedness, 19 One that uttereth lies as a false witness, And he who soweth strife between brethren.

The sense is not, that the six things are hateful to God, and the seventh an abomination to Him besides (Löwenstein); the Midda-form in Amos 1:3-2:6, and in the proverb in Job 5:19, shows that the seven are to be numbered separately, and the seventh is the non plus ultra of all that is hated by God. We are not to translate: sex haecce odit, for המּה, הנּה, (הם, הן) points backwards and hitherwards, but not, as אלּה, forwards to that immediately following; in that case the words would be שׁשׁ אלה, or more correctly האלה שׁשׁ. But also Hitzig’s explanation, “These six things (viz., Pro 6:12-15) Jahve hateth,” is impossible; for (which is also against that haecce) the substantive pronoun המה nuonorp , הנה (ההמה, ההנה) is never, like the Chald. המּון (המּו), employed as an accus. in the sense of אתהם, אתהן, it is always (except where it is the virtual gen. connected with a preposition) only the nom., whether of the subject or of the predicate; and where it is the nom. of the predicate, as Deu 20:15; Isa 51:19, substantival clauses precede in which הנה (המה) represents the substantive verb, or, more correctly, in which the logical copula resulting from the connection of the clause itself remains unexpressed. Accordingly, 'שׂנא ה is a relative clause, and is therefore so accentuated here, as at Pro 30:15 and elsewhere: sex (sunt) ea quae Deus odit, et septem (sunt) abominatio animae ejus. Regarding the statement that the soul of God hates anything, vid., at Isa 1:14. תועבות, an error in the writing occasioned by the numeral (vid., Pro 26:25), is properly corrected by the Kerı̂; the poet had certainly the singular in view, as Pro 3:32; Pro 11:1, when he wrote תועבת. The first three characteristics are related to each other as mental, verbal, actual, denoted by the members of the body by means of which these characteristics come to light. The virtues are taken all together as a body (organism), and meekness is its head. Therefore there stands above all, as the sin of sins, the mentis elatae tumor, which expresses itself in elatum (grande) supercilium: עינים רמות, the feature of the רם, haughty (cf. Psa 18:28 with 2Sa 22:28), is the opposite of the feature of the שׁח עינים, Job 22:29; עין is in the O.T. almost always (vid., Sol 4:9) fem., and adjectives of course form no dual. The second of these characteristics is the lying tongue, and the third the murderous hands. דּם־נקי is innocent blood as distinguished from דּם הנּקי, the blood of the innocent, Deu 19:13. ^{▼▼The writing דּם follows the Masoretic rule, vid., Kimchi, Michlol 205b, and Heidenheim under Deu 19:10, where in printed editions of the text (also in Norzi’s) the irregular form דּם נקי is found. Besides, the Metheg is to be given to דּם־, so that one may not read it dom, as e.g., שׁשׁ־מאות, Gen 7:11, that one may not read it שׁשׁ־.} Pro 6:20-21

After these three smaller sections, the teacher of wisdom returns here to the theme of the eighth: Warning against sins of the flesh, whose power and prevalence among men is so immeasurably great, that their terrible consequences cannot sufficiently be held up before them, particularly before youth. 20 Keep, my son, the commandment of thy father, And reject not the instruction of thy mother. 21 Bind them to thy heart evermore, Fasten them about thy neck.

The suff. -ēm refers to the good doctrine (cf. Pro 7:3) pointed out by מצוה and תּורה; the masc. stands, as is usual (e.g., Pro 1:16; Pro 5:2), instead of the fem. Regarding the figure, reminding us of the Tefillin and of Amuletes for perpetual representation, vid., under Pro 3:3. Similarly of persons, Sol 8:6. The verb ענד (only here and Job 31:36) signifies to bend, particularly to bend aside (Arab. 'ind, bending off, going aside; accus. as adv., aside, apud), and to bend up, to wind about, circumplicare. Pro 6:22

The representation of the good doctrine is now personified, and becomes identified with it.

When thou walkest, it will guide thee;

When thou liest down, it will keep watch over thee;

And when thou wakest, it will talk with thee.

The subject is the doctrine of wisdom, with which the representation of wisdom herself is identified. The futures are not expressive of a wish or of an admonition, but of a promise; the form of the third clause shows this. Thus, and in the same succession as in the schema Deu 6:7, cf. Pro 11:19, are the three circumstances of the outward life distinguished: going, lying down, and rising up. The punctuation בּהתהלכך, found here and there, is Ben-Naphtali’s variant; Ben-Asher and also the Textus rec. reject the Metheg in this case, vid., Baer’s Metheg-Setzung, §28. The verb נחה, with its Hiph. in a strengthened Kal-signification, is more frequently found in the Psalms than in the Proverbs; the Arab. nh' shows that it properly signifies to direct (dirigere), to give direction, to move in a definite direction. שׁמר with על, to take into protection, we had already Pro 2:11; this author has favourite forms of expression, in the repetition of which he takes delight. With lying down, sleeping is associated. והקיצות is, as Psa 139:18, the hypoth. perf., according to Ewald, §357a: et ut expergefactus es, illa te compellabit. Bertheau incorrectly: she will make thee thoughtful. But apart from the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of this Hiph. in the language of the Bible, the personification demands a clearer figure. שׂיח (שׂוּח) signifies mental speech and audible speech (Gen 24:63, poet., in the Talmudic ^{▼▼The conjecture thrown out by Wetstein, that (Arab.) shykh is equivalent to משׂיח (מסיח), speaker, is untenable, since the verb shakh, to be old, a so-called munsarif, i.e., conjugated throughout, is used in all forms, and thus is certainly the root of the shykh.} a common word); with ב, speaking concerning something (fabulari de), Psa 69:13; with the accus., that which is said of a thing, Psa 145:5, or the address, briefly for שׂיח ל, Job 12:8 (as מגּן with accus. Pro 4:9 = מגן ל): when thou art awake, wisdom will forthwith enter into conversation with thee, and fill thy thoughts with right matter, and give to thy hands the right direction and consecration. Pro 6:23

Since in היא the idea of wisdom and of wholesome doctrine lie in one another, the author can proceed with proof:

For a lamp is the commandment, and instruction a light (Jerome et lex lux);

And a way of life, disciplinary reproofs.

That תורה has here not the positive, specifically Israelitish sense, but the generalized sense of instruction in conformity with truth regarding the will of God and the duty of man, vid., p. 42. This instruction mediated by man, but of divine origin, is אור, light, which enlightens the man who submits to it; and the commandment, מצוה, which directs men in every case to do what is right, and forbids that which is wrong (including the prohibition Lev 4:2), is נר, a lamp which, kindled at that light, enlightens all the darkness of ignorance with reference to human conduct and its consequences. אור and נר are related to each other as general and particular, primary and derivative. Löwenstein accentuates incorrectly תּורהו אור instead of תּורהו אור (as the Cod. 1294 and the 3 Erfurt Codd.); vid., on the retrogression of the tone, not existing here, under Pro 3:15. The gen. מוּסר denotes the object or character of the admonition: not disciplinary in the external sense of the word, but rather moral, having in view discipline in the sense of education, i.e., moral edification and elevation. Such corrections are דּרך חיּים, the way to true life, direction how to obtain it. Pro 6:24

The section thus closes:

To keep thee from the vile woman,

From the flattery of the strange tongue.

Regarding the genitive connection אושׁת רע, a woman of a wicked character, vid., under Pro 2:14; and regarding the adjectival connection לשׁון נכריה, under Pro 6:17; the strange tongue is the tongue (לשׁון) of the strange (foreign) woman (vid., p. 81), alluring with smooth words (Pro 2:16). Ewald, Bertheau: from her of a smooth tongue, the stranger, as Symm., Theod., ἀπὸ λειογλώσσου ξένης; but חלקת is a substantive (Gen 27:16), and as a fem. adject. form is without an example. Rather חלקת לשׁון is to be regarded as the first member and נכריה as the second of the st. constr., for the former constitutes one idea, and לשון on this account remains unabbreviated; cf. Psa 68:22; Isa 28:1; but (1) this syntactical phenomenon is yet problematical, vid., Friedr. Philippi, Wesen und Ursprung des St. Constr. p. 17; and (2) the supposition of such an anomaly is here unnecessary. Pro 6:25-26

The proaemium of these twelve proverbial discourses is now at an end. Wisdom herself begins striking the note of the Decalogue: 25 Long not for her beauty in thy heart, And let her not catch thee with her eyelids; 26 Because for a harlot one cometh down to a piece of bread, And a man’s wife lieth in wait for a precious soul.

The warning 25a is in the spirit of the “thou shalt not covet,” Exo 20:17, and the ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτοῦ, Mat 5:28, of the Preacher on the Mount. The Talmudic proverb הרהודי עבירה קשו מעבירה (Joma 29a) means only that the imagination of the sinful act exhausts the body even more than the act itself. The warning, “let her not catch thee with her eyelids,” refers to her (the adulteress’s) coquettish ogling and amorous winking. In the reason added, beginning with כּי בעד־ (thus it is to be punctuated), there is the appositional connection אשּׁה זונה, Gesen. §113; the idea of זונה goes over into 26b. “לחם כּכּר [ = כּרכּר, R. kr, to round, vid., at Gen 49:5], properly a circle of bread, is a small round piece of bread, such as is still baked in Italy (pagnotta) and in the East (Arab. ḳurṣ), here an expression for the smallest piece” (Fl.). בּעד (constr. of בּעד), as Job 2:4; Isa 32:14, is used in the sense of ὑπέρ, pro, and with עד there is connected the idea of the coming down to this low point. Ewald, Bertheau explain after the lxx, τιμὴ γὰρ πόρνης ὅση καὶ ἑνὸς ἄρτου, γυνὴ δὲ ἀνδρῶν τιμίας ψυχὰς ἀγρεύει. But nothing is said here of price (reward); the parallelism is synonymous, not antithetic: he is doubly threatened with loss who enters upon such a course. The adulterer squanders his means (Pro 29:3) to impoverishment (vid., the mention of a loaf of bread in the description of poverty 1Sa 2:36), and a man’s wife (but at the same time seeking converse with another) makes a prey of a precious soul; for whoever consents to adulterous converse with her, loses not perhaps his means, but certainly freedom, purity, dignity of soul, yea, his own person. צוּד comprehends - as צידון, fisher’s town [Zidon], Arab. ṣyâd, hunter and fisher, show - all kinds of hunting, but in Hebr. is used only of the hunting of wild beasts. The root-meaning (cf. צדיּה) is to spy, to seize. Pro 6:27-29

The moral necessity of ruinous consequences which the sin of adultery draws after it, is illustrated by examples of natural cause and effect necessarily connected: 27 Can one take fire in his bosom And his clothes not be burned? 28 Or can any one walk over burning coals And his feet not be burned? 29 So he that goeth to his neighbour’s wife, No one remains unpunished that toucheth her.

We would say: Can any one, without being, etc.; the former is the Semitic “extended (paratactic) ^{▼▼The παρατακτικὸς χρόνος denotes the imperfect tense, because it is still extended to the future.} construction.” The first אישׁ has the conjunctive Shalsheleth. חתה signifies to seize and draw forth a brand or coal with the fire-tongs or shovel (מחתּה, the instrument for this); cf. Arab. khât, according to Lane, “he seized or snatched away a thing;” the form יחתּה is Kal, as יחנה (vid., Köhler, De Tetragammate, 1867, p. 10). חיק (properly indentation) is here not the lap, but, as Isa 40:11, the bosom. Pro 6:30-31

The thief and the adulterer are now placed in comparison with one another, in such a way that adultery is supposed to be a yet greater crime. 30 One does not treat the thief scornfully if he steals To satisfy his craving when he is hungry; 31 Being seized, he may restore sevenfold, Give up the whole wealth of his house.

For the most part 30a is explained: even when this is the case, one does not pass it over in the thief as a bagatelle. Ewald remarks: בּוּז ל stands here in its nearest signification of overlooking, whence first follows that of contemning. But this “nearest” signification is devised wholly in favour of this passage; - the interpretation, “they do not thus let the thief pass,” is set aside by Sol 8:1, Sol 8:7; for by 31b, cf. Sol 8:7, and 34a, cf. Sol 8:6, it is proved that from Pro 6:30 on, reminiscences from the Canticles, which belong to the literature of the Chokma, find their way into the Mashal language of the author. Hitzig’s correct supposition, that בּוּז ל always signifies positive contemning, does not necessitate the interrogative interpretation: “Does not one despise the thief if...?” Thus to be understood, the author ought to have written אף כי or גם כי. Michaelis rightly: furtum licet merito pro infami in republica habetur, tamen si cum adulterio comparatur, minus probrosum est. Regarding נפשׁ in the sense of appetite, and even throat and stomach, vid., Psychologie, p. 204. A second is, that the thief, if he is seized (but we regard ונמצא not as the hypoth. perf., but as the part. deprehensus), may make compensation for this crime. The fut. ישׁלּם thus to be understood as the potential lies near from this, that a sevenfold compensation of the thing stolen is unheard of in the Israelitish law; it knows only of a twofold, fourfold, fivefold restoration, Ex. 21:37; Exo 22:1-3, Exo 22:8 (cf. Saalschütz, Mos. Recht, p. 554ff.). This excess over that which the law rendered necessary leads into the region of free-will: he (the thief, by which we are now only to think of him whom bitter necessity has made such) may make compensation sevenfold, i.e., superabundantly; he may give up the whole possessions (vid., on הון at Pro 1:13) of his house, so as not merely to satisfy the law, but to appease him against whom he has done wrong, and again to gain for himself an honoured name. What is said in Pro 6:30 and Pro 6:31 is perfectly just. One does not contemn a man who is a thief through poverty, he is pitied; while the adulterer goes to ruin under all circumstances of contempt and scorn. And: theft may be made good, and that abundantly; but adultery and its consequences are irreparable. Pro 6:32-33

Here there is a contrast stated to Pro 6:30 : 32 He who commits adultery (adulterans mulierem) is beside himself, A self-destroyer-who does this. 33 He gains stripes and disgrace, And his reproach is never quenched. נאף, which primarily seems to mean excedere, to indulge in excess, is, as also in the Decalogue, cf. Lev 20:10, transitive: ὁ μοιχεύων γυναῖκα. Regarding being mad (herzlos = heartless) = amens (excors, vecors), vid., Psychologie, p. 254. משׁחית נפשׁו is he who goes to ruin with wilful perversity. A self-murderer - i.e., he intends to ruin his position and his prosperity in life - who does it, viz., this, that he touches the wife of another. It is the worst and most inextinguishable dishonouring of oneself. Singularly Behaji: who annihilates it (his soul), with reference to Deu 21:12. Eccl. 4:17, where עשׂה would be equivalent to בּטּל, καταργεῖν, which is untrue and impossible. ^{▼▼Behaji ought rather to have referred to Zep 3:19; Eze 7:27; Eze 22:14; but there עשׂה את means agere cum aliquo, as we say: mit jemandem abrechnen (to settle accounts with any one).} נגע refers to the corporal punishment inflicted on the adulterer by the husband (Deu 17:8; Deu 21:5); Hitzig, who rejects Pro 6:32, refers it to the stripes which were given to the thief according to the law, but these would be called מכּה (מכּות). The punctuation נגע־וקלון is to be exchanged for קלונו נגע (Löwenstein and other good editors). מצא has a more active signification than our “finden” (to find): consequitur, τυγχάνει. Pro 6:34-35

One who has been stolen from is to be appeased, but not the injured husband. 34 For jealousy is the fury of a husband, And he spareth not in the day of vengeance. 35 He regardeth not any ransom, And is not contented though thou offerest to him gifts ever so great.

The connection marks קנאה as the subject; for it respects carnal intercourse with another’s wife. Jealousy is not usually חמה, the glow of anger (from יחם, as שׁנה from ישׁן), but חמת־גּבר (constr. as שׂנת), the glow of a man’s anger, who with the putting forth of all his manly strength will seek satisfaction to his wounded honour. גּבר, here significant for אישׁ, with the fundamental idea of strength, firmness; cf. Arab. jabr, to make fast, to put right again something broken in pieces, particularly a broken vessel, hence Algebra, properly the operation by which an incomplete magnitude is completed (Fl.). The following ולא־יחמּל (with the orthophonic Dagesh, as Pro 6:25 יחמּד, and with Makkeph) is connected with גבר, with definite reference to the man whom the faithless guest has made a cuckold. When the day comes in which the adultery brought to light demands and admits of vengeance, then, wounded in his right and in his honour, he knows no mercy; he pays no regard to any atonement or recompense by which the adulterer seeks to appease him and induce him not to inflict the punishment that is due: he does not consent, even though thou makest ever so great the gift whereby thou thinkest to gain him. The phrase נשׂא פנים, πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν, signifies elsewhere to receive the countenance, i.e., the appearance and the impression of a man, i.e., to let it impress one favourably; here it is used of the כּפר, i.e., the means by which covering, i.e., non-punishment, pardon of the crime, impunity of the guilty, is obtained. Regarding אבה, to consent to, vid., at Pro 1:10. שׂחד, Aram. שׂוּחד, is a gift, particularly bribery. That the language may again finally assume the form of an address, it beautifully rounds itself off.