Pro 31:1-9 | KD | STEP | Superscription: 1 Words of Lemuel the king, The utterance wherewith his mother warned him. Such would be the superscription if the interpunction of the text as it lies before us were correct. But it is not possibly right. For, notwithstanding the assurance of Ewald, §277b, למואל מלך, nevertheless, as it would be here used, remains an impossibility. Certainly under circumstances an indeterminate apposition can follow a proper name. That on coins we read מתתיה כהן גדול or נרון קיסר is nothing strange; in this case we also use the words “Nero, emperor,” and that we altogether omit the article shows that the case is singular: the apposition wavers between the force of a generic and of a proper name. A similar case is the naming of the proper name with the general specification of the class to which this or that one bearing the name belongs in lists of persons, as e.g. , 1Ki 4:2-6, or in such expressions as, e.g. , “Damascus, a town,” or “ Tel Hum , a castle,” and the like; here we have the indefinite article, because the apposition is a simple declaration of the class. But would the expression, “The poem of Oscar, a king,” be proper as the title of a book? Proportionally more so than “Oscar, king;” but also that form of indeterminate apposition is contrary to the usus loq ., especially with a king with whom the apposition is not a generic name, but a name of honour. We assume that “Lemuel” is a symbolical name, like “Jareb” in “King Jareb,” Hos 5:13; Hos 10:6; so we would expect the phrase to be מלך למואל(ה) rather than למואל מלך. The phrase “Lemuel, king,” here in the title of this section of the book, sounds like a double name, after the manner of עבר מלך in the book of Jeremiah. In the Greek version also the phrase Λεμουέλου βασιλέως ( Venet .) is not used as syntactically correct without having joined to the βασιλέως a dependent genitive such as τῶν Αράβων, while none of the old translators, except Jerome, take the words למואל מלך together in the sense of Lamuelis regis . Thus מלך משּׂא are to be taken together, with Hitzig, Bertheau, Zöckler, Mühlau, and Dächsel, against Ewald and Kamphausen; משׂא, whether it be a name of a tribe or a country, or of both at the same time, is the region ruled over by Lemuel, and since this proper name throws back the determination which it has in itself on מלך, the phrase is to be translated: “Words of Lemuel the king of Massa” ( vid ., under ). If Aquila renders this proper name by Λεμμοῦν, Symmachus by Ἰαμουήλ, Theodotion by Ρεβουήλ, the same arbitrariness prevails with reference to the initial and terminal sound of the word, as in the case of the words Ἀμβακούμ, Βεελζεβούλ, Βελίαρ. The name למוּאל sounds like the name of Simeon’s first-born, ימוּאל, , written in Num 26:12 and as נמוּאל; יואל also appears, , as a Simeonite name, which Hitzig adduces in favour of his view that משׂא was a North Arab. Simeonite colony. The interchange of the names ימואל and נמואל is intelligible if it is supposed that ימואל (from ימה = ימא) designates the sworn (sworn to) of God, and נמואל (from נם Mishnic = נאם) the expressed (addressed) of God; here the reference of ימו and נמו to verbal stems is at least possible, but a verb למּה is found only in the Arab., and with significations inus . But there are two other derivations of the name: (1) The verb (Arab.) waâla signifies to hasten (with the infin. of the onomatop . verbs waniyal, like raḥyal, walking, because motion, especially that which is tumultuous, proceeds with a noise), whence mawnil, the place to which one flees, retreat. Hence למוּאל or למואל, which is in this case to be assumed as the ground-form, might be formed from אל מואל, God is a refuge, with the rejection of the א. This is the opinion of Fleischer, which Mühlau adopts and has established, p. 38-41; for he shows that the initial א is not only often rejected where it is without the support of a full vocal, e.g. , נחנוּ = אנחנוּ, lalah = ilalah ( Deus ), but that this aphaeresis not seldom also occurs where the initial has a full vocal, e.g. , לעזר = אלעזר, laḥmaru = âllahmaru ( ruber ), laḥsâ = âl-laḥsâ (the name of a town); cf. also Blau in Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr . xxv. 580. But this view is thus acceptable and tenable; a derivation which spares us by a like certainty the supposition of such an abbreviation established only by the late Palestinian לעזר, Λάζαρος, might well desire the preference. (2) Fleischer himself suggests another derivation: “The signification of the name is Deo consecratus , למו, poetic for ל, as also in it is to be vocalized למואל after the Masora.” The form למואל is certainly not less favourable to that first derivation than to this second; the û is in both cases an obscuration of the original. But that “Lemuel” may be explained in this second way is shown by “Lael,” Num 3:24 (Olshausen, §277d). It is a beautiful sign for King Lemuel, and a verification of his name, that it is he himself by whom we receive the admonition with which his mother in her care counselled him when he attained to independent government. אשׁר connects itself with דברי, after we have connected משׂא with מלך; it is accus. of the manner to יסּרתּוּ = יסּרתהוּ; cf. הטּתּוּ, , with גּמלתהוּ, : wherewith (with which words) she earnestly and impressively admonished him. The Syr. translates: words of Muel, as if ל were that of the author. “Others as inconsistently: words to Lemuel - they are words which is himself ought to carry in his mouth as received from his mother” (Fleischer). The name “Massa,” is it here means effatum , would be proportionally more appropriate for these “Words” of Lemuel than for the “Words” of Agur, for the maternal counsels form an inwardly connected compact whole. They begin with a question which maternal love puts to itself with regard to the beloved son whom she would advise:

‏ Proverbs 31:1-9

Superscription: 1 Words of Lemuel the king, The utterance wherewith his mother warned him.

Such would be the superscription if the interpunction of the text as it lies before us were correct. But it is not possibly right. For, notwithstanding the assurance of Ewald, §277b, למואל מלך, nevertheless, as it would be here used, remains an impossibility. Certainly under circumstances an indeterminate apposition can follow a proper name. That on coins we read מתתיה כהן גדול or נרון קיסר is nothing strange; in this case we also use the words “Nero, emperor,” and that we altogether omit the article shows that the case is singular: the apposition wavers between the force of a generic and of a proper name. A similar case is the naming of the proper name with the general specification of the class to which this or that one bearing the name belongs in lists of persons, as e.g., 1Ki 4:2-6, or in such expressions as, e.g., “Damascus, a town,” or “Tel Hum, a castle,” and the like; here we have the indefinite article, because the apposition is a simple declaration of the class. ^{▼▼Thus it is also with the examples of indeterminate gentilicia, which Riehm makes valid for למואל מלך (for he translates למואל symbolically, which, however, syntactically makes no difference): “As analogous to 'Lemuel, a king,' one may adduce 'Jeroboam, son of Nebat, an Ephrathite,' 1Ki 11:26, instead of the usual form 'the Ephrathite;'” and בן־ימיני, Psa 7:1, for בן הימיני; on the contrary, כהן, 1Ki 4:5, does not belong to the subject, but is the pred.}

But would the expression, “The poem of Oscar, a king,” be proper as the title of a book? Proportionally more so than “Oscar, king;” but also that form of indeterminate apposition is contrary to the usus loq., especially with a king with whom the apposition is not a generic name, but a name of honour. We assume that “Lemuel” is a symbolical name, like “Jareb” in “King Jareb,” Hos 5:13; Hos 10:6; so we would expect the phrase to be מלך למואל(ה) rather than למואל מלך. The phrase “Lemuel, king,” here in the title of this section of the book, sounds like a double name, after the manner of עבר מלך in the book of Jeremiah. In the Greek version also the phrase Λεμουέλου βασιλέως (Venet.) is not used as syntactically correct without having joined to the βασιλέως a dependent genitive such as τῶν Αράβων, while none of the old translators, except Jerome, take the words למואל מלך together in the sense of Lamuelis regis. Thus מלך משּׂא are to be taken together, with Hitzig, Bertheau, Zöckler, Mühlau, and Dächsel, against Ewald and Kamphausen; משׂא, whether it be a name of a tribe or a country, or of both at the same time, is the region ruled over by Lemuel, and since this proper name throws back the determination which it has in itself on מלך, the phrase is to be translated: “Words of Lemuel the king of Massa” (vid., under Pro 30:1). If Aquila renders this proper name by Λεμμοῦν, Symmachus by Ἰαμουήλ, Theodotion by Ρεβουήλ, the same arbitrariness prevails with reference to the initial and terminal sound of the word, as in the case of the words Ἀμβακούμ, Βεελζεβούλ, Βελίαρ. The name למוּאל sounds like the name of Simeon’s first-born, ימוּאל, Gen 46:10, written in Num 26:12 and 1Ch 4:24 as נמוּאל; יואל also appears, 1Ch 4:35, as a Simeonite name, which Hitzig adduces in favour of his view that משׂא was a North Arab. Simeonite colony. The interchange of the names ימואל and נמואל is intelligible if it is supposed that ימואל (from ימה = ימא) designates the sworn (sworn to) of God, and נמואל (from נם Mishnic = נאם) ^{▼▼In the Midrash Koheleth to Pro 1:1, the name Lemuel (as a name of Solomon) is explained: he who has spoken to God in his heart.} the expressed (addressed) of God; here the reference of ימו and נמו to verbal stems is at least possible, but a verb למּה is found only in the Arab., and with significations inus. But there are two other derivations of the name: (1) The verb (Arab.) waâla signifies to hasten (with the infin. of the onomatop. verbs waniyal, like raḥyal, walking, because motion, especially that which is tumultuous, proceeds with a noise), whence mawnil, the place to which one flees, retreat. Hence למוּאל or למואל, which is in this case to be assumed as the ground-form, might be formed from אל מואל, God is a refuge, with the rejection of the א. This is the opinion of Fleischer, which Mühlau adopts and has established, p. 38-41; for he shows that the initial א is not only often rejected where it is without the support of a full vocal, e.g., נחנוּ = אנחנוּ, lalah = ilalah (Deus), but that this aphaeresis not seldom also occurs where the initial has a full vocal, e.g., לעזר = אלעזר, laḥmaru = âllahmaru (ruber), laḥsâ = âl-laḥsâ (the name of a town); cf. also Blau in Deutsch. Morgenl. Zeitschr. xxv. 580. But this view is thus acceptable and tenable; a derivation which spares us by a like certainty the supposition of such an abbreviation established only by the late Palestinian לעזר, Λάζαρος, might well desire the preference. (2) Fleischer himself suggests another derivation: “The signification of the name is Deo consecratus, למו, poetic for ל, as also in Pro 31:4 it is to be vocalized למואל after the Masora.” The form למואל is certainly not less favourable to that first derivation than to this second; the û is in both cases an obscuration of the original. But that “Lemuel” may be explained in this second way is shown by “Lael,” Num 3:24 (Olshausen, §277d). ^{▼▼Simonis has also compared Aethiopic proper names, such as Zakrestos, Zaiasus. Zamikaël, Zamariam.}

It is a beautiful sign for King Lemuel, and a verification of his name, that it is he himself by whom we receive the admonition with which his mother in her care counselled him when he attained to independent government. אשׁר connects itself with דברי, after we have connected משׂא with מלך; it is accus. of the manner to יסּרתּוּ = יסּרתהוּ; cf. הטּתּוּ, Pro 7:21, with גּמלתהוּ, Pro 31:12 : wherewith (with which words) she earnestly and impressively admonished him. The Syr. translates: words of Muel, as if ל were that of the author. “Others as inconsistently: words to Lemuel - they are words which is himself ought to carry in his mouth as received from his mother” (Fleischer).

The name “Massa,” is it here means effatum, would be proportionally more appropriate for these “Words” of Lemuel than for the “Words” of Agur, for the maternal counsels form an inwardly connected compact whole. They begin with a question which maternal love puts to itself with regard to the beloved son whom she would advise: Pro 31:2 2 What, my son? and what the son of my womb? And what, O son of my vows?!

The thrice repeated מה is completed by תּעשׂה (cf. Köhler under Mal 2:15), and that so that the question is put for the purpose of exciting attention: Consider well, my son, what thou wilt do as ruler, and listen attentively to my counsel (Fleischer). But the passionate repetition of מה would be only affectation if thus interpreted; the underlying thought must be of a subjective nature: what shall I say, אדבּר (vid., under Isa 38:15), what advise thee to do? The question, which is at the same time a call, is like a deep sigh from the heart of the mother concerned for the welfare of her son, who would say to him what is beneficial, and say it in words which strike and remain fixed. He is indeed her dear son, the son whom she carries in her heart, the son for whom with vows of thanksgiving she prayed to God; and as he was given her by God, so to His care she commits him. The name “Lemuel” is, as we interpret it, like the anagram of the fulfilment of the vows of his mother. בּרי bears the Aramaic shade in the Arameo-Arab. colouring of these proverbs from Massa; בּריהּ is common in the Aram., and particularly in the Talmudic, but it can scarcely be adduced in support of ברי. וּמה belongs to the 24, מה, with ח or ע not following; vid., the Masora to Exo 32:1, and its correction by Norzi at Deu 29:23. We do not write וּמה־בּר; מה, with Makkeph and with Metheg, exclude one another. Pro 31:3

The first admonition is a warning against effeminating sensuality:

Give not thy strength to women,

Nor thy ways to them that destroy kings.

The punctuation למחות sees in this form a syncopated inf. Hiph. = להמחות (vid., at Pro 24:17), according to which we are to translate: viasque tuas ad perdendos reges (ne dirige), by which, as Fleischer formulates the twofold possibility, it may either be said: direct not thy effort to this result, to destroy neighbouring kings - viz. by wars of invasion (properly, to wipe them away from the table of existence, as the Arabs say) - or: do not that by which kings are overthrown; i.e., with special reference to Lemuel, act not so that thou thyself must thereby be brought to ruin. But the warning against vengeful, rapacious, and covetous propensity to war (thus Jerome, so that Venet. after Kimchi: ἀπομάττειν βασιλέας, C. B. Michaelis, and earlier, Gesenius) does not stand well as parallel with the warning against giving his bodily and mental strength to women, i.e., expending it on them. But another explanation: direct not thy ways to the destruction of kings, i.e., toward that which destroys kings (Elster); or, as Luther translates: go not in the way wherein kings destroy themselves - puts into the words a sense which the author cannot have had in view; for the individualizing expression would then be generalized in the most ambiguous way. Thus למחות מלכין will be a name for women, parallel to לנּשׁים. So far the translation of the Targum: לבנת מלכין, filiabus (לאמהת?) regum, lies under a right supposition. But the designation is not thus general. Schultens explains catapultis regum after Eze 26:9; but, inasmuch as he takes this as a figure of those who lay siege to the hearts of men, he translates: expugnatricibus regum, for he regards מחות as the plur. of מחה, a particip. noun, which he translates by deletor. The connecting form of the fem. plur. of this מחה might certainly be מחות (cf. מזי, from מזה), but למחות מלכין ought to be changed into 'וגו 'לם; for one will not appeal to anomalies, such as 'לם, Pro 16:4; 'כּג, Isa 24:2; 'לם, Lam 1:19; or 'וגו 'הת, 1Ki 14:24, to save the Pathach of למחות, which, as we saw, proceeds from an altogether different understanding of the word. But if 'לם is to be changed into 'לם, then one must go further, since for מחה not an active but a conditional meaning is to be assumed, and we must write למחות, in favour of which Fleischer as well as Gesenius decides: et ne committe consilia factaque tua iis quae reges perdunt, regum pestibus. Ewald also favours the change למחות, for he renders מחה as a denom. of מח, marrow: those who enfeeble kings, in which Kamphausen follows him. Mühlau goes further; he gives the privative signification, to enfeeble, to the Piel מחה = makhakha (cf. Herzog’s Real-Wörterb. xiv. 712), which is much more probable, and proposes לממחות: iis quae vires enervant regum. But we can appropriately, with Nöldeke, adhere to למחות, deletricibus (perditricibus), for by this change the parallelism is satisfied; and that מחה may be used, with immediate reference to men, of entire and total destruction, is sufficiently established by such passages as Gen 6:7; Jdg 21:17, if any proof is at all needed for it. Regarding the lxx and those misled by it, who, by מלכין and מלכים, 4a, think on the Aram. מלכּין, βουλαί, vid., Mühlau, p. 53. ^{▼▼Also Hitzig’s Blinzlerinnen [women who ogle or leer = seductive courtesans] and Böttcher’s Streichlerinnen [caressers, viz., of kings] are there rejected, as they deserve to be.}

But the Syr. has an idea worthy of the discourse, who translates epulis regum without our needing, with Mühlau, to charge him with dreaming of לחם in למחות. Perhaps that is true; but perhaps by למחות he thought of למחות (from מה, the particip. adj. of מחח): do not direct thy ways to rich food (morsels), such as kings love and can have. By this reading, 3b would mediate the transition to Pro 31:4; and that the mother refers to the immorality, the unseemliness, and the dangers of a large harem, only in one brief word (3a), cannot seem strange, much rather it may be regarded as a sign of delicacy. But so much the more badly does וּדרכיך accord with למחות. Certainly one goes to a banquet, for one finds leisure for it; but of one who himself is a king, it is not said that he should not direct his ways to a king’s dainties. But if למחות refers to the whole conduct of the king, the warning is, that he should not regulate his conduct in dependence on the love and the government of women. But whoever will place himself amid the revelry of lust, is wont to intoxicate himself with ardent spirits; and he who is thus intoxicated, is in danger of giving reins to the beast within him. Pro 31:4-5

Hence there now follows a warning against drunkenness, not unmediated by the reading למחות: 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, Not for kings to drink wine, Not for rulers to ask for intoxicating drink; 5 Lest he drink, and forget what is prescribed, And pervert the right of all the children of want.

The usual translation of 4a is: non decet reges... (as e.g., also Mühlau); but in this אל is not rightly rendered, which indeed is at times only an οὐ, spoken with close interest, but yet first of all, especially in such paraenetic connection as here, it is a dissuasive μή. But now לא למלכים שׁתות or לא למלכים לשׁתּות, after 2Ch 26:18; Mic 3:1, signifies: it is not the part of kings, it does not become them to drink, which may also be turned into a dissuasive form: let it not be the part of kings to drink, let them not have any business therewith, as if it belonged to their calling; according to which Fleischer renders: Absit a regibus, Lemuel, absit a regibus potare vinum. The clearer expression למואל, instead of למוּאל, is, after Böttcher, occasioned by this, that the name is here in the vocative; perhaps rather by this, that the meaning of the name: consecrated to God, belonging to God, must be placed in contrast to the descending to low, sensual lust. Both times we write אל לּמלכים with the orthophonic Dagesh ^{▼▼Vid., Luth. Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 413. It is the rule, according to which, with Ben-Asher, it is to be written בּן־נּוּן.} in the ל following ל, and without the recompensative Dagesh, the want of which is in a certain measure covered by the Metheg (vid., Norzi). Regarding the inf. constr. שׁתו (cf. קנה, Pro 16:16), vid., Gesen. §75, Anm. 2; and regarding the sequence of accents here necessary, אל לּמלכים שׁתו־יין (not Mercha, Dechi, Athnach, for Dechi would be here contrary to rule), vid., Thorath Emeth, p. 22 §6, p. 43 §7.

In 4b nothing is to be gained from the Chethı̂b או. There is not a substantive או, desire, the constr. of which would here have to be read, not או (Umbreit, Gesenius), but או, after the form קו (Maurer); and why did the author not write תּאות שׁכר? But the particle או does not here also fall in with the connection; for if או שׁכר connect itself with יין (Hitzig, Ewald, and others), then it would drag disagreeably, and we would have here a spiritless classification of things unadvisable for kings. Böttcher therefore sees in this או the remains of the obliterated סבוא; a corrector must then have transformed the וא which remained into או. But before one ventures on such conjectures, the Kerı̂ אי [where?] must be tried. Is it the abbreviated אין (Herzog’s Real-Wörterbuch, xiv. 712)? Certainly not, because וּלרוזנים אין שׁכר would mean: and the princes, or rulers (vid., regarding רוזנים at Pro 8:15), have no mead, which is inconsistent. But אין does not abbreviate itself into אי, but into אי. Not אי, but אי, is in Heb., as well as in Ethiop., the word with which negative adjectives such as אי נקי, not innocent, Job 22:30, and in later Heb. also, negative sentences, such as אי אפשׁר: it is not possible, are formed. ^{▼▼The author of the Comm. עטרת זקנים to the ארח חיים, c. 6, Geiger and others would read אי, because אי is abbreviated from אין. But why not from אין, 1Sa 21:9? The traditional expression is אי; and Elias Levita in the Tishbi, as also Baer in the Siddur Abodath Jisrael, are right in defending it against that innovation.}

Therefore Mühlau vocalizes אי, and thinks that the author used this word for אל, so as not to repeat this word for the third time. But how is that possible? אי שׁכר signifies either: not mead, or: there is not mead; and both afford, for the passage before us, no meaning. Is, then, the Kerı̂ אי truly so unsuitable? Indeed, to explain: how came intoxicating drink to rulers! is inadmissible, since אי always means only ubi (e.g., Gen 4:9); not, like the Ethiop. aitê, also quomodo. But the question ubi temetum, as a question of desire, fits the connection, whether the sentence means: non decet principibus dicere (Ahron b. Josef supplies שׁיאמרו) ubi temetum, or: absit a principibus quaerere ubi temetum (Fleischer), which, from our view of 4a, we prefer. There is in reality nothing to be supplied; but as 4a says that the drinking of wine ought not to characterize kings, so 4b, that “Where is mead?” (i.e., this eager inquiry after mead) ought not to characterize rulers. ^{▼▼The translation of Jerome, quia nullum secretum est ubi regnat ebrietas (as if the words were לית רזא אי שׁכר), corresponds to the proverb: נכנס יין יצא סוד :b, when the wine goes in the secret comes out; or, which is the same thing: if one adds יין (= 70), סוד (= 70) comes out.}

Why not? Pro 31:5 says. That the prince, being a slave to drink, may not forget the מחקּק, i.e., that which has been made and has become חק, thus that which is lawfully right, and may not alter the righteous cause of the miserable, who cry against their oppressors, i.e., may not handle falsely the facts of the case, and give judgment contrary to them. שׁנּה דין (Aquila, Theodotion, Quinta, ἀλλοιοῦν κρίσιν) is elsewhere equivalent to הטּה משׁפּט (עוּת). בּני־עני are those who are, as it were, born to oppression and suffering. This mode of expression is a Semitism (Fleischer), but it here heightens the impression of the Arab. colouring. In כל (Venet. ὡντινοῦν) it is indicated that, not merely with reference to individual poor men, but in general to the whole class of the poorer people, suffering humanity, sympathy and a regard for truth on the part of a prince given to sensuality are easily thrown aside. Wine is better suited for those who are in a condition to be timeously helped over which, is a refreshment to them. Pro 31:6-7 6 Give strong drink to him that is perishing, And wine to those whose soul is in bitter woe; 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty, And let him think of his misery no more.

The preparation of a potion for malefactors who were condemned to death was, on the ground of these words of the proverb, cared for by noble women in Jerusalem (נשׁים יקרות שׁבירושׁלים), Sanhedrin 43a; Jesus rejected it, because He wished, without becoming insensible to His sorrow, to pass away from the earthly life freely and in full consciousness, Mar 15:23. The transition from the plur. to the sing. of the subject is in Pro 31:7 less violent than in Pro 31:5, since in Pro 31:6 singular and plur. already interchange. We write תּנוּ־שׁכר with the counter-tone Metheg and Mercha. אובד designates, as at Job 29:13; Job 31:19, one who goes to meet destruction: it combines the present signification interiens, the fut. signif. interiturus, and the perf. perditus (hopelessly lost). מרי נפשׁ (those whose minds are filled with sorrow) is also supported from the Book of Job; Job 3:20, cf. Pro 21:25, the language and thought and mode of writing of which notably rests on the Proverbs of Agur and Lemuel (vid., Mühlau, pp. 64-66). The Venet. τοῖς πικροῖς (not ψυξροῖς) τὴν ψυχήν. רישׁ (poverty) is not, however, found there, but only in the Book of Proverbs, in which this word-stem is more at home than elsewhere. Wine rejoices the heart of man, Psa 104:15, and at the same time raises it for the time above oppression and want, and out of anxious sorrow, wherefore it is soonest granted to them, and in sympathizing love ought to be presented to them by whom this its beneficent influence is to be wished for. The ruined man forgets his poverty, the deeply perplexed his burden of sorrow; the king, on the contrary, is in danger from this cause of forgetting what the law required at his hands, viz., in relation to those who need help, to whom especially his duty as a ruler refers. Pro 31:8-9 8 Open thy mouth for the dumb, For the right of all the children of leaving; 9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, And do right to the poor and needy.

He is called dumb who suffers the infirmity of dumbness, as עוּר and פּסּח, Job 29:15, is he who suffers the infirmity of blindness or lameness, not here figuratively; at the same time, he who, on account of his youth, or on account of his ignorance, or from fear, cannot speak before the tribunal for himself (Fleischer). With ל the dat. commodi (lxx after Lagarde, μογιλάλῳ; Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, ἀλάλῳ; the Venet. after Gebhardt, βωβῷ) אל, of the object aimed at, interchanges, as e.g., 1Ki 19:3; 2Ki 7:7, אל־נפשׁם, for the preservation of their life, or for the sake of their life, for it is seldom that it introduces the object so purely as here. And that an infin. such as חלוף should stand as a subst. occurs proportionally seldomer in Heb. (Isa 4:4; Psa 22:7; cf. with ה of the artic., Num 4:12; Psa 66:9) than it does in Arab. בּני חלוף in the same way as בּני־עני, 5b, belongs to the Arab. complexion of this proverb, but without its being necessary to refer to the Arab. in order to fix the meaning of these two words. Hitzig explains after khalf, to come after, which further means “to have the disadvantage,” in which Zöckler follows him; but this verb in Arab. does not mean ὑστερεῖν (ὑστερεῖσθαι), we must explain “sons of him that remains behind,” i.e., such as come not forward, but remain behind ('an) others. Mühlau goes further, and explains, with Schultens and Vaihinger: those destitute of defence, after (Arab.) khalafahu he is ranked next to him, and has become his representative - a use of the word foreign to the Heb. Still less is the rendering of Gesenius justified, “children of inheritance” = children left behind, after khallafa, to leave behind; and Luther, “for the cause of all who are left behind,” by the phrase (Arab.) khallfany'an 'awnih, he has placed me behind his help, denied it to me, for the Kal of the verb cannot mean to abandon, to leave. And that בני חלוף means the opposers of the truth, or of the poor, or the litigious person, the quarrelsome, is perfectly inadmissible, since the Kal חלוף cannot be equivalent to (Arab.) khilaf, the inf. of the 3rd conj., and besides, the gen. after דּין always denotes those in whose favour, not those against whom it is passed; the latter is also valid against Ralbag’s “sons of change,” i.e., who say things different from what they think; and Ahron b. Josef’s “sons of changing,” viz., the truth into lies. We must abide by the meaning of the Heb. חלף, “to follow after, to change places, pass away.” Accordingly, Fleischer understands by חלוף, the going away, the dying, viz., of parents, and translates: eorum qui parentibus orbati sunt. In another way Rashi reaches the same sense: orphans deprived of their helper. But the connection בני חלף requires that we make those who are intended themselves the subject of חלוף. Rightly Ewald, Bertheau, Kamphausen, compare Isa 2:18 (and Psa 90:5., this with questionable right), and understand by the sons of disappearance those whose inherited lot, whose proper fate, is to disappear, to die, to perish (Symmachus: πάντων υἱῶν ἀποιχομένων; Jerome: omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt). It is not men in general as children of frailty that are meant (Kimchi, Meîri, Immanuel, Euchel, and others), after which the Venet. τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ μεταβάλλειν (i.e., those who must exchange this life for another), but such as are on the brink of the abyss. צדק in שׁפט־צדק is not equivalent to בּצדק, but is the accus. of the object, as at Zec 8:16, decide justice, i.e., so that justice is the result of thy judicial act; cf. Knobel on Deu 1:16. ודּין is imper., do right to the miserable and the poor; cf. Psa 54:3 with Jer 22:16; Jer 5:28. That is a king of a right sort, who directs his high function as a judge, so as to be an advocate [procurator] for the helpless of his people.