10]] (on the other hand with the fut. Psa 81:15). דּוּמה is, as in Psa 115:17, the silence of the grave and of Hades; here it is the object to שׁכנה, as in Psa 37:3, Pro 8:12, and frequently. When he appears to himself already as one that has fallen, God's mercy holds him up. And when thoughts, viz., sad and fearful thoughts, are multiplied within him, God's comforts delight him, viz., the encouragement of His word and the inward utterances of His Spirit. שׁרעפּים, as in Psa 139:23, is equivalent to שעפּים, from שׂעף, סעף, Arab. š‛b, to split, branch off (Psychology, S. 181; tr. p. 214). The plural form ישׁעשׁעוּ, like the plural of the imperative in Isa 29:9, has two Pathachs, the second of which is the “independentification” of the Chateph of ישׁעשׁע.
Verses 20-23
In the sixth strophe the poet confidently expects the inevitable divine retribution for which he has earnestly prayed in the introduction. יחברך is erroneously accounted by many (and by Gesenius too) as fut. Pual = יחבּרך = יחבּר עמּך, a vocal contraction together with a giving up of the reduplication in favour of which no example can be advanced. It is fut. Kal = יחברך, from יחבּר = יחבּר, with the same regression of the modification of the vowel[1] as in יחנך = יחנך in Gen 43:29; Isa 30:19 (Hupfeld), but as in verbs primae gutturalis, so also in כּתבם, כּתבם, inflected from כּתב, Ew. §251, d. It might be more readily regarded as Poel than as Pual (like תּאכלנוּ, Job 20:26), but the Kal too already signifies to enter into fellowship (Gen 14:3; Hos 4:17), therefore (similarly to יגרך, Psa 5:5) it is: num consociabitur tecum. כּסּא is here the judgment-seat, just as the Arabic cursi directly denotes the tribunal of God (in distinction from Arab. ‘l - ‛arš, the throne of His majesty). With reference to הוּות vid., on Psa 5:10. Assuming that חק is a divine statute, we obtain this meaning for עלי־חק: which frameth (i.e., plots and executes) trouble, by making
- ↑ By means of a similar transposition of the vowel as is to be assumed in תּאהבוּ, Pro 1:22, it also appears that מדוּבּין = מוּסבּין (lying upon the table, ἀνακείμενοι) of the Pesach-Haggada has to be explained, which Joseph Kimchi finds so inexplicable that he regards it as a clerical error that has become traditional.
