away a thing;” the form יחתּה is Kal, as יחנה (vid., Köhler, De Tetragammate, 1867, p. 10). חיק (properly indentation) is here not the lap, but, as Isa 40:11, the bosom.
Verse 28
A second example of destructive consequences naturally following a certain course is introduced with אם of the double question. גּחלים (from גּחל, after the form פּחם, but for which גּחלת is used) is the regular modification of gaḥḥalı̂m (Gesen. §27, 2). The fem. ורגליו is followed here (cf. on the other hand Pro 1:16) by the rhythmically full-sounding form תכּוינה (retaining the distinction of gender), from כּוה, Arab. kwy, to burn so that a brand-mark (כּי, Isa 3:24, cauterium) remains.
Verse 29
The instruction contained in these examples here follows: τὸ εἰς πῦρ καὶ εἰς γυναῖκα ἐμπεσεῖν Ἴσον ὑπάρχει (Pythagoras in Maximi Eclog. c. 39). בּוא אל is here, as the second in Psa 51:1, a euphemism, and נגע בּ, to come in contact with, means, as נגע אל, to touch, Gen 20:6. He who goes in to his neighbour's wife shall not do so with impunity (נקי). Since both expressions denote fleshly nearness and contact, so it is evident he is not guiltless.
Verses 30-31
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
