Pro 6:30 | KD | STEP | 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 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; , (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 ) 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 and 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.

‏ Proverbs 6:30

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.