³ tn It is difficult to determine whether the Hebrew term הֶבֶל (hevel) means “fleeting” or “useless” in this context. The imagery of quick-burning thorns under a cooking pot is ambiguous and can be understood in more than one way: (1) It is useless to try to heat a cooking pot by burning thorns because they burn out before the pot can be properly heated; (2) the heat produced by quick-burning thorns is fleeting—it produces quick heat, but lasts only for a moment. Likewise, the “laughter of a fool” can be taken in both ways: (1) In comparison to the sober reflection of the wise, the laughter of fools is morally useless: the burning of thorns, like the laughter of fools, makes a lot of noise but accomplishes nothing; (2) the laughter of fools is fleeting due to the brevity of life and certainty of death. Perhaps this is an example of intentional ambiguity.

³ tn The term כֻּלָּם (kullam, “all of them”) denotes “both of them.” This is an example of synecdoche of general (“all of them”) for the specific (“both of them,” that is, both the wise man and the fool).

¹ sn The Book of Fools covered vv. 1-12. This marks the beginning of what may be called the Book of Sluggards (vv. 13-16). Cf. this verse with 22:13.

³ sn The consequence is given in the first line and the cause in the second. It would be better not to send a message at all than to use a fool as messenger.

¹ tc The editors of BHS suggest that the preposition in v. 5 should be ב (bet) which looks similar to the כ (kaf) in v. 4 but has a different meaning. The result would be that v. 4 says “do not answer a fool in conformity with his folly,” while the v. 5 might read “answer a fool in opposition to his folly.” In a practical sense this would mean that v. 4 speaks of not answering a fool at the level of his folly, perhaps thereby giving it validity, while v. 5 speaks of responding to a fool in opposition to his folly. Yet a similar meaning may be arrived at by maintaining כ (kaf) in each verse but reading different nuances based on the second half of each verse.

⁴ sn The discerning person will learn from verbal rebukes. The contrast is caught in a wordplay in the Midrash: “For the wise a hint [rʾmizo], for the fool a fist [kurmezo]” (Mishle 22:6).

² sn The verse is simply observing two things that are misfits. It is not concerned with a fool who changes and can handle wealth, or a servant who changes to become a nobleman. It is focused on things that are incongruous.

¹ sn The “lips” is a metonymy of cause, meaning what the fool says. The “mouth” in the second colon is likewise a metonymy for speech, what comes out of the mouth.

² tn The Hitpael infinitive construct בְּהִתְגַּלּוֹת (b^ehitgallot) functions nominally as the object of the preposition. The term means “reveal, uncover, betray.” So the fool takes pleasure “in uncovering” his heart.

² tn The second colon begins with וְאַל (v^eʾal), “and not.” This negative usually appears with volitives, so the fuller expression of the parallel line would be “and let not a fool in his folly [meet someone].”

³ sn The Hiphil verb יַבִּיעַ (yabbiaʿ) means “to pour out; to emit; to cause to bubble; to belch forth.” The fool bursts out with reckless utterances (cf. TEV “spout nonsense”).

¹ sn The contrast is between the “tongue of the wise” and the “mouth of the fool.” Both expressions are metonymies of cause; the subject matter is what they say. How wise people are can be determined from what they say.

² tc The LXX reads “houses of transgressors will owe purification.” Tg. Prov 14:9 has “guilt has its home among fools,” apparently reading יָלִין (yalin, “to spend the night, dwell”) instead of יָלִיץ (yalits, “to scoff at”).

³ tn Heb “the mind of fools.” The לֵב (lev, “mind, heart”) is the place of thinking and so it is the both source of what is said and the place of discernment for what to say aloud.

³ sn The one who spreads slander is a fool because it not only destroys others but comes back on the guilty. See also the sayings of Amenemope and Ahiqar on these subjects (ANET 423, 429).

⁴ tn Heb “near destruction.” The words of the fool that are uttered without wise forethought may invite imminent ruin (e.g., James 3:13-18). See also Ptah-hotep and Amenemope in ANET 414 and 423.

¹ tn The verb “spurned” (נָאַץ, naʾats) is parallel to “comply, accede to, be willing” (e.g., 1:10). This is how the morally stubborn fool acts (e.g., 15:5).

¹ sn So what advantage does the wise man have over a fool? The rhetorical question in Hebrew implies a negative answer: the wise man has no absolute advantage over a fool in the sense that both will share the same fate: death. Qoheleth should not be misunderstood here as denying that wisdom has no relative advantage over folly; elsewhere he affirms that wisdom does yield some relative benefits in life (7:1-22). However, wisdom cannot deliver one from death.

³ tn The LXX contains this paraphrase: “If you scourge a fool in the assembly, dishonoring him, you would not remove his folly.” This removes the imagery of mortar and pestle from the verse. Using the analogy of pounding something in a mortar, the proverb is saying even if a fool was pounded or pulverized, meaning severe physical punishment, his folly would not leave him—it is too ingrained in his nature.

² tn The Hebrew לֹא־כֵן (loʾ khen) could be “not so” (HALOT 482 s.v. II כֵּן) or “not right, incorrect, wrong” (HALOT 482 s.v. I כֵּן), which is supported by the LXX: “hearts of fools are unstable.” If לֵב (lev, “heart, mind”) is understood to represent thinking, then, accepting the emendation in the first line, the proverb may say, “The lips of the wise preserve knowledge, but the thoughts of fools are incorrect.”