Psa 52:4 | KD | STEP | It is bad enough to behave wickedly, but bad in the extreme to boast of it at the same time as an heroic act. Doeg, who causes a massacre, not, however, by the strength of his hand, but by the cunning of his tongue, does this. Hence he is sarcastically called גּבּור (cf. ). David’s cause, however, is not therefore lost; for it is the cause of God, whose loving-kindness endures continually, without allowing itself to be affected, like the favour of men, by calumny. Concerning הוּות vid., on Psa 5:10. לשׁון is as usual treated as fem ; עשׂה רמיּה (according to the Masora with Tsere ) is consequently addressed to a person. In רע after אהבתּ has the Dagesh that is usual also in other instances according to the rule of the אתי מרחיק, especially in connection with the letters כפתבגד (with which Resh is associated in the Book of Jezira, Michlol 96 b , cf. 63 b ). The מן or מטּוב and מדּבּר is not meant to affirm that he loves good, etc., less than evil, etc., but that he does not love it at all (cf. Psa 118:8., ). The music which comes in after has to continue the accusations con amarezza without words. Then in the singing again takes them up, by addressing the adversary with the words “thou tongue of deceit” (cf. ), and by reproaching him with loving only such utterances as swallow up, i.e., destroy without leaving a trace behind (בּלע, pausal form of בלע, like בּצע in , cf. the verb in , ; 2Sa 20:19.), his neighbour’s life and honour and goods. Hupfeld takes as a second object; but the figurative and weaker expression would then follow the unfigurative and stronger one, and “to love a deceitful tongue” might be said with reference to this character of tongue as belonging to another person, not with reference to his own.

‏ Psalms 52:4

It is bad enough to behave wickedly, but bad in the extreme to boast of it at the same time as an heroic act. Doeg, who causes a massacre, not, however, by the strength of his hand, but by the cunning of his tongue, does this. Hence he is sarcastically called גּבּור (cf. Isa 5:22). David’s cause, however, is not therefore lost; for it is the cause of God, whose loving-kindness endures continually, without allowing itself to be affected, like the favour of men, by calumny. Concerning הוּות vid., on Psa 5:10. לשׁון is as usual treated as fem; עשׂה רמיּה (according to the Masora with Tsere) is consequently addressed to a person. In Psa 52:5 רע after אהבתּ has the Dagesh that is usual also in other instances according to the rule of the אתי מרחיק, especially in connection with the letters כפתבגד (with which Resh is associated in the Book of Jezira, Michlol 96 b, cf. 63 b). ^{▼▼אתי מרחיק is the name by which the national grammarians designate a group of two words, of which the first, ending with Kametz or Segol, has the accent on the penult., and of which the second is a monosyllable, or likewise is accented on the penult. The initial consonant of the second word in this case receives a Dagesh, in order that it may not, in consequence of the first ictus of the group of words “coming out of the distance,” i.e., being far removed, be too feebly and indistinctly uttered. This dageshing, however, only takes place when the first word is already of itself Milel, or at least, as e.g., מצאה בּית, had a half-accented penult., and not when it is from the very first Milra and is only become Milel by means of the retreating of the accent, as עשׂה פלא, Psa 78:12, cf. Deu 24:1. The penultima-accent has a greater lengthening force in the former case than in the latter; the following syllables are therefore uttered more rapidly in the first case, and the Dagesh is intended to guard against the third syllable being too hastily combined with the second. Concerning the rule, vid., Baer’s Thorath Emeth, p. 29f.}

The מן or מטּוב and מדּבּר is not meant to affirm that he loves good, etc., less than evil, etc., but that he does not love it at all (cf. Psa 118:8., Hab 2:16). The music which comes in after Psa 52:5 has to continue the accusations con amarezza without words. Then in Psa 52:6 the singing again takes them up, by addressing the adversary with the words “thou tongue of deceit” (cf. Psa 120:3), and by reproaching him with loving only such utterances as swallow up, i.e., destroy without leaving a trace behind (בּלע, pausal form of בלע, like בּצע in Psa 119:36, cf. the verb in Psa 35:25, 2Sa 17:16; 2Sa 20:19.), his neighbour’s life and honour and goods. Hupfeld takes Psa 52:6 as a second object; but the figurative and weaker expression would then follow the unfigurative and stronger one, and “to love a deceitful tongue” might be said with reference to this character of tongue as belonging to another person, not with reference to his own.