Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary

13 Even in the midst of laughter the heart experiences sadness; And to it, joy, the end is sorrow. Every human heart carries the feeling of disquiet and of separation from its true home, and of the nothingness, the transitoriness of all that is earthly; and in addition to this, there is many a secret sorrow in every one which grows out of his own corporeal and spiritual life, and from his relation to other men; and this sorrow, which is from infancy onward the lot of the human heart, and which more and more depends and diversifies itself in the course of life, makes itself perceptible even in the midst of laughter, in spite of the mirth and merriment, without being able to be suppressed or expelled from the soul, returning always the more intensely, the more violently we may have for a time kept it under and sunk it in unconsciousness. Euchel cites here the words of the poet, according to which 13a is literally true: "No, man is not made for joy; Why weep his eyes when in heart he laughs?" (Note: "Nein, der Mensch ist zur Freude nicht gemacht, Darum weint sein Aug' wenn er herzlich lacht.") From the fact that sorrow is the fundamental condition of humanity, and forms the background of laughter, it follows, 13b, that in general it is not good for man to give himself up to joy, viz., sensual (worldly), for to it, joy, the end (the issue) is sorrow. That is true also of the final end, which according to that saying, μακάριοι οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν ὅτι γελάσετε, changes laughter into weeping, and weeping into laughter. The correction אחרית השּׂמחה (Hitzig) presses upon the Mishle style an article in such cases rejected, and removes a form of expression of the Hebr. syntaxis ornata, which here, as at Isa 17:6, is easily obviated, but which is warranted by a multitude of other examples, vid., at Pro 13:4 (also Pro 5:22), and cf. Philippi's Status Const. p. 14f., who regards the second word, as here שׂמהה, after the Arab., as accus. But in cases like שׂנאי שׁקר, although not in cases such as Ezr 2:62, the accus. rendering is tenable, and the Arab. does not at all demand it. (Note: Regarding the supplying (ibdâl) of a foregoing genitive or accus. pronoun of the third person by a definite or indefinite following, in the same case as the substantive, Samachschar speaks in the Mufassal, p. 94ff., where, as examples, are found: raeituhu Zeidan, I have seen him, the Zeid; marartu bihi Zeidin, I have gone over with him, the Zeid; saraftu wugûhahâ awwalihâ, in the flight I smote the heads of the same, their front rank. Vid., regarding this anticipation of the definite idea by an indefinite, with explanations of it, Fleischer's Makkar, Additions et Corrections, p. xl. col. 2, and Dieterici's Mutanabbi, p. 341, l. 13.) In the old Hebr. this solutio of the st. constr. belongs to the elegances of the language; it is the precursor of the vulgar post-bibl. אחרייהּ שׂל־שׂמחה. That the Hebr. may also retain a gen. where more or fewer parts of a sentence intervene between it and its governing word, is shown by such examples as Isa 48:9; Isa 49:7; Isa 61:7. (Note: These examples moreover do not exceed that which is possible in the Arab., vid., regarding this omission of the mudâf, where this is supplied from the preceding before a genitive, Samachschar's Mufassal, p. 34, l. 8-13. Perhaps לחמך, Oba 1:7, of thy bread = the (men) of thy bread, is an example of the same thing.)