Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/618

 '''5-7. Simeon and Levi.'''

$5$ Simeon and Levi—brothers! Weapons of ruth are their daggers (?). $6$ Into their council my soul would not enter, In their assembly my mind would not join: For in their anger they slaughter men, And in their gloating they disable oxen. $7$ Accursed be their wrath for it is fierce, And their rage for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel.

5a. brothers] Hardly (schol. in Field) = 'true brother-spirits' (Tu. al.), or 'associates' in a common enterprise. The epithet is probably a survival from an old tradition in which S. and L. were the only sons of Leah (see 34$1. 25$; cf. Mey. INS, 286$1$, 426). It is universally assumed that that incident—the treacherous attack on Shechem—is the ground of the curse here pronounced; but the terms of the oracle are perfectly general and in part unsuited to the supposed circumstances; and it seems to me to be the habitual character of the tribes which is denounced, and not any particular action.—5b. The transl. is doubtful,

5b. G (OL. consummaverunt iniquitatem adinventionis suæ); Aq. []; V vasa iniquitatis bellantia [Je. arma eorum]; S ; T$O$ ; T$J$ [] .—] So Aq. VST$J$; but [E]GT$O$ : 'they accomplished. ] As to the cons. text, that of G cannot be certainly restored; Kethib is supported by Aq. ST$O$ (: cf. Ezk. 16$3$ 21$35$ 29$14$), by T$J$ (from [root], see IEz.), and probably V. The textual tradition must therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the many Heb. etymologies proposed (see Di. 459), the most plausible are those which derive from [root], or (reading ) from [root] , 'to dig.' No [root] , 'dig,' is actually found, though it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of : this would give the meaning 'digging instrument' (cf. gladio confodere), which Vollers (ZA, xiv. 355) tries to support from Ass. The [root] means in Ar. 'to turn' or 'wheel round'; hence Di. conj. that may be a curved knife or sabre. Some weapon suits the context, but what exactly it is must remain uncertain. How far the exegesis has been influenced by the resemblance to the Gr. (R. Johanan [d. 279 ], cited in Ber. R. § 99; Ra.) we cannot tell. Ba. and Gu. take the word to be, the former rendering 'plots' (fr. Ar. makara, 'to plot')