Armenia in comments -- Book: Proverbs (tProv) Առակներ
Searched terms: aram
tProv 12:15 15 The way of the fool is right in his own eyes,
But the wise listeneth to counsel.
Other proverbs, like Pro 16:2, say that generally the judgment of a man regarding his character does not go beyond a narrow subjectivity; but there are objective criteria according to which a man can prove whether the way in which he walks is right; but the fool knows not other standard than his own opinion, and however clearly and truly one may warn him that the way which he has chosen is the wrong way and leads to a false end, yet he obstinately persists;
(Note: Vid., kindred proverbs by Carl Schulze, Die bibl. Sprichwrter der deutschen Sprache (1860), p. 50, and M. C. Wahl's Das Sprichwort in der heb.-aram. Literatur, u.s.w. (1871), p. 31.)
while a wise man is not so wise in his own eyes (Pro 3:7) as not to be willing to listen to well-meant counsel, because, however careful he may be regarding his conduct, yet he does not regard his own judgment so unerring as not to be inclined ever anew to try it and let it stand the test. Ewald has falsely construed: yet whoever hears counsel is wise. In consequence of the contrast, אויל and חכם are the subject ideas, and with ושׁמע לעצה is brought forward that which is in contrast to the self-complacency of the fool, the conduct of the wise man. Proverbs 12:16 tProv 12:19 19 The lip of truth endures for ever,
But the lying tongue only while I wink with the eye.
None of the old translators understood the phrase ועד־ארגּיעה; the Venet. also, which follows Kimchi's first explanation, is incorrect: ἕως ῥήξεως, till I split (shatter) it (the tongue). Abulwald is nearer the correct rendering when he takes ארגיעה as a noun = רגע with He parag. Ahron b. Joseph is better in rendering the phrase by: until I make a רגע, and quite correct if רגע (from רגע = Arab. raj', which is used of the swinging of the balance) is taken in the sense of a twinkling of the eye (Schultens: vibramen); cf. Orelli's Die hebr. Synonyme der Zeit und Ewigkeit, p. 27f., where the synonyms for a twinkling of the eye, a moment, are placed together. עד (properly progress) has in this phrase the meaning, while, so long as, and the cohortative signifies, in contradistinction to ארגיע, which may also denote an unwilling movement of the eyelids, a movement proceeding from a free determination, serving for the measurement of a short space of time, Ewald, 228a. ארגיעה, Jer 49:19; Jer 50:44, where Ewald takes כי ארגיעה (when I...) in the same sense as אד־ארגיעה here, which is more appropriate than the explanation of Hitzig, who regards כי as opening the principal clause, and attaches to הרגיע the quite too pregnant signification "to need (for an action) only a moment." The lip of truth, i.e., the lip which speaketh truth, endures for ever (for truth, אמת = אמנתּ, is just the enduring); but the tongue of falsehood is only for a moment, or a wink of the eye, for it is soon convicted, and with disgrace brings to silence; for a post-bibl. Aram. proverb says: קוּשׁטא קאי שׁקרא לא קאי, the truth endures, the lie endures not (Schabbath 104a), and a Hebrew proverb: השּׁקר אין לו רגלים, the lie has no feet (on which it can stand).
(Note: Vid., Duke's Rabbin. Blumenlese (1844), p. 231.) Proverbs 12:20 tProv 12:27 27 The slothful pursues not his prey;
But a precious possession of a man is diligence.
The lxx, Syr., Targ., and Jerome render יחרך in the sense of obtaining or catching, but the verbal stem חרך nowhere has this meaning. When Fleischer remarks, חרך, ἅπ. λεγ., probably like לכד, properly to entangle in a noose, a net, he supports his opinion by reference to חרכּים, which signifies lattice-windows, properly, woven or knitted like a net. But חרך, whence this חרכים, appears to be equivalent to the Arab. kharḳ, fissura, so that the plur. gives the idea of a manifoldly divided (lattice-like, trellis-formed) window. The Jewish lexicographers (Menahem, Abulwald, Parchon, also Juda b. Koreish) all aim at that which is in accord with the meaning of the Aram. חרך, to singe, to roast (= Arab. ḥark): the slothful roasteth not his prey, whether (as Frst presents it) because he is too lazy to hunt for it (Berth.), or because when he has it he prepares it not for enjoyment (Ewald). But to roast is צלה, not דרך, which is used only of singeing, e.g., the hair, and roasting, e.g., ears of corn, but not of the roasting of flesh, for which reason Joseph Kimchi (vid., Kimchi's Lex.) understands צידו of wild fowls, and יחרך of the singeing of the tips of the wings, so that they cannot fly away, according to which the Venet. translates οὐ μενεῖ ... ἡ θήρα αὐτοῦ. Thus the Arab. must often help to a right interpretation of the ἅπ. λεγ.. Schultens is right: Verbum ḥarak, חרך, apud Arabes est movere, ciere, excitare, κινεῖν generatim, et speciatim excitare praedam e cubili, κινεῖν τήν θήραν. The Lat. agitare, used of the frightening up and driving forth of wild beasts, corresponds with the idea here, as e.g., used by Ovid, Metam. x. 538, of Diana:
Aut pronos lepores aue celsum in cornua cervum
Aut agitat damas.
Thus יחרך together with צידו gains the meaning of hunting, and generally of catching the prey. רמיּה is here incarnate slothfulness, and thus without ellipse equivalent to אישׁ רמיה. That in the contrasted clause חרוץ does not mean ἀποτόμως, decreed (Lwenstein), nor gold (Targ., Jerome, Venet.), nor that which is excellent (Syr.), is manifest from this contrast as well as from Pro 10:4; Pro 12:24. The clause has from its sequence of words something striking about it. The lxx placed the words in a difference order: κτῆμα δὲ τίμιον ἀνὴρ καθαρὸς (חלוץ in the sense of Arab. khâlaṣ). But besides this transposition, two others have been tried: הון אדם חרוץ יקר, the possession of an industrious man is precious, and הון יקר אדם חרוץ, a precious possession is that (supply הון) of an industrious man. But the traditional arrangement of the words gives a better meaning than these modifications. It is not, however, to be explained, with Ewald and Bertheau: a precious treasure of a man is one who is industrious, for why should the industrious man be thought of as a worker for another and not for himself? Another explanation advanced by Kimchi: a valuable possession to men is industry, has the twofold advantage that it is according to the existing sequence of the words, and presents a more intelligible thought. But can חרוּץ have the meaning of חריצוּת (the being industrious)? Hitzig reads חרוץ, to make haste (to be industrious). This is unnecessary, for we have here a case similar to Pro 10:17, where שׁמר for שׁומר is to be expected: a precious possession of a man is it that, or when, he is industrious, חרוּץ briefly for היותו חרוּץ rof yl. The accentuation fluctuates between והון־אדם יקר (so e.g., Cod. 1294), according to which the Targum translates, and והון־אדם יקר, which, according to our explanation, is to be preferred. Proverbs 12:28