Verse 11
At the close of the scene, the call now goes forth to the daughters of Zion, i.e., the women of Jerusalem collectively, to behold the king, who now shows himself to the object of his love and to the jubilant crowd, as the festal procession approaches. 11 Come out, yet daughters of Zion, and see King Solomon with the crown With which his mother crowned him On the day of his espousal, And on the day of the gladness of his heart.
The women of the court, as distinguished from the Galilean maiden, are called “daughters of Jerusalem;” here, generally, the women of Zion or Jerusalem (Lam 5:11) are called “daughters of Zion.” Instead of צאנה (since the verb Lamed Aleph is treated after the manner of verbs Lamed He, cf. Jer 50:20; Eze 23:49), צאינה, and that defect. צאנה,[1] is used for the sake of assonance with וּראינה;[2] elsewhere also, as we have shown at Isa 22:13, an unusual form is used for the sake of the sound. It is seen from the Sota (ix. 14) that the old custom for the bridegroom to wear a “crown” was abolished in consequence of the awful war with Vespasian. Rightly Epstein, against Grätz, shows from Job 31:36; Isa 28:1; Psa 103:4, that men also crowned themselves. בּעטרה (with the crown) is, according to the best authorities, without the art., and does not require it, since it is determined by the relat. clause following. חתנה is the marriage (the word also used in the post-bibl. Heb., and interchanging with חפּה, properly νυμφών, Mat 9:15), from the verb חתן, which, proceeding from the root-idea of cutting into (Arab. khatn, to circumcise; R. חת .R ;, whence חתך, חתם, חתר), denotes the pressing into, or going into, another family; חתן is he who enters into such a relation of affinity, and חטן the father of her who is taken away, who also on his part is related to the husband.[3]
Here also the seduction fable is shattered. The marriage with Shulamith takes place with the joyful consent of the queen-mother. In order to set aside this fatal circumstance, the “crown”
- ↑ Without the Jod after Aleph in the older ed. Thus also in J and H with the note לית וחסר [= nonnisi h. l. et defective] agreeing with the MS Masora Parna. Thus also Kimchi, Michlol 108b.
- ↑ The Resh has in H Chatef-Pathach, with Metheg preceding. This, according to Ben-Asher's rule, is correct (cf. Psa 28:9. וּר). In the punctuation of the Aleph with Tsere or Segol the Codd. vary, according to the different views of the punctuation. J has Segol; D H, Tsere, which latter also Kimchi, Michlol 109a.
- ↑ L. Geiger (Ursprung der Sprache, 1869, p. 88) erroneously finds in R. חת (חתם, etc.) the meaning of binding. The (Arab.) noun Khatan means first a married man, and then any relation on the side of the wife (Lane); the fundamental idea must be the same as that of Khatn, circumcidere (cf. Exo 4:25), viz., that of penetrating, which חתת, percellere, and נחת, descendere (cf. e.g., ferrum descendit haud alte in corpus, in Livy, and Pro 17:1), also exhibit.
