Or “has brought me.” The verb הֱבִיאַנִי ( hevi ’ ani , Hiphil perfect 3rd person masculine singular בּוֹא , bo ’, “to bring” + 1st person common singular suffix) may be classified in two ways: (1) perfect of past action: “The king has brought me into his chambers” or (2) precative perfect: “May the king bring me into his chambers!” (J. S. Deere, “Song of Solomon,” BKCOT , 1012). While some older grammarians denied the existence of the precative (volitional) function of the perfect in Hebrew (e.g., S. R. Driver, Tenses in Hebrew , 25-26; GKC 312-13 §106. n , n. 2), its existence is accepted in more recent grammars (e.g., IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4d; Joüon 2:365 §112.k). While the perfect of past action is the more common use of the perfect, the context suggests the more rare precative. As IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4d notes, the precative can be recognized contextually by its parallelism with the other volitive forms. The parallelism of precative הֱבִיאַנִי (“bring me!”) with the volitives in the two preceding parallel colons – מָשְׁכֵנִי ( mashÿkheni , “draw me!”; Qal imperative 2nd person masculine singular from משַׁךְ , mashakh , “to draw” + 1st person common singular suffix:) and נָּרוּצָה ( narutsah , “let us run!”; Qal cohortative 1st person common plural from רוּץ , ruts , “to run”) – favors the precative function of the perfect. The volitive function of consonantal הביאני is reflected in Syriac. The BHS editors suggest revocalizing MT to הֲבִיאֵנִי “bring me!” The precative function of the perfect הֱבִיאַנִי may explain the origin of this variant vocalization tradition reflected in Syriac. In terms of connotation, the precative functions as a volitive as an example of the irreal modal or optative function of the perfect ( IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4d; Joüon 2:365 §112.k). In contrast to the use of the irreal perfect for situations which the speaker expresses as a wish without expectation of fulfillment (contrary-to-fact situations, hypothetical assertions, and expressions of a wish that is not expected to be realized), the precative refers to situations the speaker expresses his desire for and expects to be realized ( IBHS 494-95 §30.5.4d). It is used most often in contexts of prayers to God which the speakers expect to be answered (e.g., Pss 3:8; 22:22; 31:5-6 ). Here, she expresses her desire that her lover consummate their love in his bedroom chambers; she expects this desire to be realized one day (e.g., 4:1-5:1 ). There are, however, several problems with nuancing the form as a precative: (a) this would demand emending MT חֲדָרָיו ( khadarav , “his chambers”) to חַדְרֶךָ ( khadrekha , “your chamber[s]”) – which is, however, reflected by Syriac Peshitta and Symmachus, and (b) it would demand nuancing the article on הַמֶּלֶךְ ( hammelekh ) as a vocative (“O king!”).


The MT reads the 3rd person masculine singular suffix on a plural noun חֲדָרָיו ( khadarav , “his chambers”). This is reflected in LXX, Targums, and Vulgate. However, the 2nd person masculine singular suffix on a singular noun חַדְרֶךָ ( khadrekha , “your chambers”) is reflected by Syriac Peshitta and Symmachus. See preceding note on the text-critical significance of these variant readings.


The term חֶדֶר ( kheder , “chamber”) is used frequently in reference to a bedroom ( Gen 43:30 ; Judg 15:1; 16:9 ; 2 Sam 13:10 ; 1 Kgs 1:15 ; Ps 105:30 ; Isa 26:20 ). It refers explicitly to a bedroom when used with the noun מִשְׁכָּב ( mishkav , “bed”) in the expression חֶדֶר מִשְׁכָּב “bedroom chamber” (Exod 7:28; 2 Sam 4:7 ; 2 Kgs 6:12 ; Eccl 10:20 ). The plural form חֲדָרָיו ( khadarav , “his chamber s ”) functions as a plural of extension rather than a plural or number; it refers to one bedroom composed of several parts rather than referring to several different bedrooms. The expression “Bring me into your chambers” is a metonymy of cause for effect, that is, her desire for lovemaking in his bedroom chambers.


Alternately, “Let us rejoice and delight in you.” There is debate whether the cohortatives נָגִילָה ( nagilah , Qal cohortative 1st person common plural from גִּיל , gil , “to exult”), וְנִשְמְחָה ( vÿnishmÿkhah , Qal cohortative 1st person common plural from שָמַח , shamakh , “to rejoice”) and נַזְכִּירָה ( nazkirah , Hiphil cohortative 1st person common plural from זָכַר , zakhar , “to praise”) should be classified as (1) cohortatives of resolve, expressing the resolution or determination of the speakers to adopt or accomplish a course of action: “We will rejoice…we will delight…we will praise” (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV) or (2) hortatory cohortatives, exhorting others to join in doing something: “Let us rejoice…let us delight…let us praise” (e.g., NJPS).


A shift occurs in 1:4 from 1st person common singular forms to 1st person common plural forms: “Draw me ( מָשְׁכֵנִי , mashÿkeni )…Let us run ( נּרוּצָה , narutsah )…Bring me ( הֱבִיאַנִי , hevi ’ ani )… We will be glad ( נָגִילָה , nagilah )… We will rejoice in you ( וְנִשְׁמְחָה , vÿnishmÿkhah )… We will remember ( נַזְכִּירָה , nazkirah )… They love you ( אֲהֵבוּךָ , ’ ahevukha )….” Several translations and many commentators end the words of the Beloved at 1:4 a and begin the words of the Friends in 1:4 b and revert back to the words of the Beloved in 1:4 c. The subject of the 1st person common plural forms may be the “young women” ( עֲלָמוֹת ) previously mentioned in 1:3 . This is supported by the fact that in 1:3 the Beloved says, “The young women love you” ( עֲלָמוֹת אֲהֵבוּךָ , ’ alamot ’ ahevukha ) and in 1:4 c she again says, “Rightly do they [the young women] love you” ( מֵישָׁרִים אֲהֵבוּךָ , mesharim ’ ahevukha ). On the other hand, in ANE love literature the bride often uses plural pronouns to refer to herself (S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite , 92, 99). Some commentators suggest that the young man is addressing his beloved because בָּךְ ( bakh ) appears to have a 2nd person feminine singular suffix. However, the suffix on בָּךְ is in pause (after the accent) therefore, the normal 2nd person masculine singular suffix בָּךָ has reduced to shewa . The parallelism with the 2nd person masculine singular suffix on דֹדֶיךָ ( dodekha , “your love”) supports the 2nd person masculine singular classification.


Alternately, “remember.” The verb נַזְכִּירָה ( nazkirah , Hiphil imperfect 1st person common plural from זָכַר , zakhar ) is traditionally rendered “we will remember” (KJV), but is better nuanced “we will extol” (NASB) or “we will praise” (NIV). The verb זָכַר has a wide range of meanings: “to remember, call to mind” ( Gen 8:1 ; Deut 24:9 ; Judg 8:34 ), “to name, mention” ( Jer 20:9; 23:36; 31:20 ; Pss 63:7; 77:4 ), “to summon, command” ( Nah 2:6 ), “to swear by” ( Amos 6:10 ; 1 Chr 16:4 ), and “to praise, extol” ( Exod 23:13 ; Josh 23:7 ; Pss 45:18; 71:16; Isa 26:13; 48:1; 62:6 ). The Hiphil stem has four denotations, and “to remember” is not one of them: (1) “to take to court,” (2) “to mention,” (3) “to make known,” and (4) “to praise, profess” ( HALOT 269-70 s.v. I זכר ). NJPS offers a poetic nuance that plays upon the wine motif: “savoring it more than wine.”


Alternately, “The righteous love you.” Scholars debate whether מֵישָׁרִים ( mesharim ) should be taken as a substantive (“the righteous”), abstract noun (“righteousness”), or adverb (“rightly”). The LXX’s εὐθύτης ἠγάπησεν σε ( euquths hgaphsen, “righteousness loves you”) is awkward. The adverbial sense is preferred for several reasons: (1) The verb אֲהֵבוּךָ (’ ahevuka , “they love you”) in 1:4 c is repeated from 1:3 c where it was used in reference to the maiden’s love for her lover. (2) There is no group designated as “the righteous” elsewhere in the Song. (3) To introduce an additional party into this poetic unit is unnecessary when it can be easily understood as a reference to the maidens of 1:3 c.


Heb “they love you.” The words “the young women” do not appear in the Hebrew but are supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. The shift from the 1st person common plural subjects in the three cohortatives – נָגִילָה ( nagilah , Qal cohortative 1st person common plural from גּיל , gil , “to exult”), וְנִשְׂמְחָה ( vÿnishmÿkhah , Qal cohortative 1st person common plural from שָמַח , shamakh , “to rejoice”), and נַזְכִּירָה ( nazkirah , Hiphil cohortative 1st person common plural from זָכַר , zakhar , “to praise”) – to the 3rd person common plural subject in the verb אֲהֵבוּךָ (’ ahevukha , Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from אָהֵב , ’ ahev , “to love” + 2nd person masculine singular suffix) suggests to many scholars that a shift in speakers occurs at this point: the maidens praise the young man in the first two lines, while the Beloved affirms the appropriateness of their praise in the last line (e.g., NIV). However, the shift in person might simply be another example of heterosis of person (as already seen in 1:2-4 a) – this time from first person to third person. Thus, the shift in grammatical person does not necessarily indicate a shift in speakers. It is possible that the maidens are speaking throughout all three lines, and that the third line should be nuanced, “How rightly we love you!”


Heb “O daughters of Jerusalem.”


The term “lovely” does not appear in the Hebrew in this line but is supplied in the translation from the first line in this verse for the sake of clarity.


The MT vocalizes שׁלמה as שְׁלֹמֹה ( shÿlomoh , “Solomon”); however, the BHS editors suggest the vocalization שַׁלְמָה ( shalmah ); cf. NAB “Salma.” Salmah is the name of an ancient Arabian tribe mentioned in Assyrian and South Arabic sources, as well as Targum Onqelos ( Gen 15:19 ; Num 24:21 ; Judg 4:17 ). Like the tribe of Qedar, Salmah was an Arabian nomadic tribe which inhabited a region in northern Arabia and the region of Petra. The proposed revocalization produces tighter parallelism between Qedar and Salmah, than Qedar and Solomon. This also creates a striking wordplay on the name שְׁלֹמֹה (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs [AB], 320).


The relative pronoun שֶׁ ( she ) on שֶׁאֲנִי ( she ’ ani , “because I”) functions in a causal sense, as in the following colon (BDB 980 s.v. שֶׁ 3.b) (e.g., Song 5:2 ; Eccl 2:18 ).


The relative pronoun שֶׁ ( she ) on שֶׁשֱּׁזָפַתְנִי ( sheshshezafatni ) functions in a causal sense, as in the preceding colon (BDB 980 s.v. שֶׁ 3.b) (e.g., Song 5:2 ; Eccl 2:18 ).


Heb “the sun has stared at me.” The verb שָׁזַף ( shazaf ) means “to look at, catch sight of, glance at” (e.g., Job 20:9; 28:7 ) ( HALOT 1456 s.v. שׁזף ; BDB 1004 s.v. שָׁזַף ). The Beloved personifies the sun ( הַשָּׁמֶשׁ , hashshamesh ) as having looked at the Beloved too long, that is, it burned her skin.


Heb “the sons of my mother.”


Heb “soul.”


The causal relative pronoun שֶׁ ( she , “because”; BDB 980 s.v. שֶׁ 3.b) is prefixed to the interrogative particle לָמָה ( lamah , “why?”; BDB 554 s.v. מַה 4.d) to form the idiom שַׁלָּמָה ( shallamah , “lest”; BDB 554 s.v. מַה 4.d. β ; 980 s.v. שֶׁ 3b). BDB notes that לָמָה is used with an imperfect – as is the case here with אֶהְיֶה (’ ehyeh , Qal imperfect 1st person common singular from הָיָה , haya , “to be”) – to deprecate a situation and for rhetorical emphasis to introduce the reason why something should, or should not, be done: “Why should?” (e.g., Gen 27:45; 47:19 ; Exod 32:12 ; 1 Sam 19:5, 17; 20:8, 32 ; 2 Sam 2:22; 13:26; 16:9; 20:19 ; 2 Kgs 14:10 ; 2 Chr 25:16 ; Neh 6:3 ; Pss 79:10; 115:2 ; Eccl 5:5; 7:16-17 ; Jer 40:15 ; Joel 2:17 ) (BDB 554 s.v. מַה 4.d. β ). When connected with a foregoing sentence by the causal relative pronouns שֶׁ “because,” the idiom שַׁלָּמָה connotes “lest” (literally, “Because why should?”) (BDB 554 s.v. 4 .d. β ). The meaning of שַׁלָּמָה is identical to the parallel constructions אֲשֶׁר לָמָּה (’ asher lammah , “lest”; Dan 1:10 ) and דִּי לְמָה ( di lÿmah , “lest”; Ezra 7:23 ). In Song 1:6 [7] the causal relative pronoun שֶׁ connects it to the preceding lines, and our idiom assumes the elided phrase לִי הַגִּידָהּ ( haggidah li , “Tell me!”) which occurred earlier: “Tell me lest I …!” or “Tell me! For why should I…?”


The meaning of MT עֹטְיָה (’ otÿyah , Qal active participle fs from עָטָה , ’ atah , “to veil oneself”) is debated; several options have been proposed: (1) Some scholars attempt to explain this in light of ancient Israelite culture or customs. The term עָטָה describes a person wrapping oneself in a garment or with a veil ( HALOT 813 s.v. I עטה ) as (a) a sign of grief or mourning ( Ezek 24:17, 22 ), uncleanness ( Lev 13:45 ), or shame ( Mic 3:7 ), and as (b) the clothing of the deceased ( 1 Sam 28:14 ) and veiled cult-prostitutes ( Gen 28:14 ). The term is rendered “one who veils herself” (NASB), “one who is veiled” (NRSV, KJV margin) and “like a veiled woman” (ASV, NIV). BDB suggests that she veiled herself in mourning (BDB 741 s.v. I עָטָה ). Rashi suggested that she veiled herself in mourning because she did not know where to find her beloved ( Canticles Rabbah 1:6). Many commentators connect this with the veiled cult-prostitute soliciting business among shepherds. She wished to avoid what Tamar tried to do: to be mistaken as a harlot looking for business among the shepherds ( Gen 38:14-23 ). If her beloved would not declare his whereabouts, she would be reduced to looking for him among the shepherds – an action that could be easily misunderstood. This is reflected in the CEV paraphrase: “Don’t let the other shepherds think badly of me.” R. E. Murphy ( Song of Songs [Hermeneia], 131) writes: “Commentators have interpreted the covering as a sign of mourning ( 2 Sam 15:30 ) or as the sign of a harlot ( Gen 38:14-15 ). These references are not helpful in explaining the context of v 7 , and in neither of the instances is the word עָטָה used. She seems rather to refer to some kind of covering or disguise she will be forced to use unless she knows where to find him. One can infer that the disguise will enable her to avoid being identified by his ‘companions,’ but no reason is given (perhaps she does not want them to know about the rendezvous?)” (2) Other scholars resort to comparative lexicography. For example, S. R. Driver suggested that עֹטְיָה is not derived from עָטָה I (“to veil”), but from the Arabic root gth that came into Hebrew as the homonymic root עָטָה “to pick lice” ( Isa 22:17 ; Jer 43:12 ) ( HALOT 814 s.v. II עטה ). Driver renders the line, “lest I be left picking lice,” that is, while away the siesta-time grooming herself. Most scholars reject this proposal; it seems strange in the context and unnecessarily creates a homonym for a well-known term that makes adequate sense contextually. Nevertheless, Driver’s proposal was adopted by the NEB: “that I may not be left picking lice.” See D. R. Driver, “Lice in the Old Testament,” PEQ 106 (1974): 159-160. (3) Still other scholars emend the text. MT reads כְּעֹטְיָה ( kÿ ’ otÿyah , “like one who is veiled”) (preposition כְּ + Qal active participle fs עָטָה I “to veil”) which is also reflected in the LXX’s ὠ περιβαλλομενη ( w periballomenh, “like one who is covered”; fs passive participle from περιβάλλω , periballw, “to cover”). However, several ancient versions (Greek: Symmachus, Syriac Peshitta, Vulgate) reflect a Hebrew Vorlage with metathesis of the first two consonants: כְּטֹעִיָּה ( kÿto ’ iyyah ) from טָעָה ( ta ’ ah , “to wander about, to stray”; e.g., Ezek 13:10 ). The root טָעָה would be an Aramaizing form of Hebrew תָּעָה (“to wander”). This emendation is suggested by the BHS editors and the lexicons ( HALOT 377 s.v. טעה ; 814; BDB 742 s.v.); It is adopted by many translations: “like one who wanders” (RSV, AV, JB, NAB, NJV), “like one who strays” (JPS, NJPS) and “as one that turneth aside” (KJV). This would make nice sense contextually: she begs her beloved to tell her where to find him because she does not want to wander around like someone who is lost.


Heb “I compare you to.”


The hireq-yod ending on סֻסָתִי ( susati ) is a remnant of the old genitive ending (e.g., nominative: malku , genitive: malki , accusative: malka ), the so-called hireq compaginis ending. Thus, סֻסָתִי בְּרִכְבֵי פַרְעֹה ( susati berikve par ’ oh ) is a double genitive-construct: “a mare among the chariot-horses of Pharaoh” (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs [AB], 338) or “a mare among the chariots of Pharaoh” (R. E. Murphy , Song of Songs [Hermeneia], 131). The hireq-yod ending was mistakenly treated as 1st person common singular possessive suffix “ my mare” by LXX, Vulgate, Syriac. This approach is mistakenly adopted by several translations: “my mare” (NASB, NJB), “my filly” (NKJV) and “my company of horsemen” (DRA).


Heb “among the chariot-horses” or “among the chariots.” The noun רֶכֶב ( rekhev ) has a wide range of meanings: “chariots, war-chariots” ( Exod 14:17-18, 23; 15:19 ; Deut 11:4; 20:1 ; Josh 11:4 ) “chariot crews, chariot troops” ( 1 Kgs 9:22; 16:9; 22:31; 2 Kg 8:21 ), “column of chariots, troop of warriors” ( Isa 21:7, 9 ), “charioteer” ( Ps 76:7 ), and “chariot-horses” ( Exod 14:9 ; 2 Sam 8:4 ; 1 Chr 18:4 ; Ezek 39:20 ) ( HALOT 1233-35 s.v. רֶכֶב ). Scholars have struggled with the meaning of בְּרִכְבֵי פַרְעֹה ( bÿrikhbe par ’ oh , “[harnessed to (?)] Pharaoh’s chariot”; HALOT 1234 s.v. 6 .b). M. H. Pope ( Song of Songs [AB], 338) suggests that רִכְבֵי ( rikhbe ) be nuanced “chariot-horses” and the phrase rendered “among the chariot-horses of Pharaoh.” Pope offers the best explanation of this enigmatic picture: “A crucial consideration overlooked by commentators is the well-attested fact that Pharaoh’s chariots, like other chariotry in antiquity, were not drawn by a mare or mares but by stallions hitched in pairs. This bit of intelligence radically alters the usual understanding of the verse and dispels the notion that there is a grammatical incongruity, which needs harmonizing. The juxtaposition is between a single mare and a plurality of stallions and it requires only a modicum of what is called ‘horse sense’ to appreciate the thrust of the comparison. The situation envisaged is illustrated by the famous incident in one of the campaigns of Thutmose III against Qadesh. On his tomb at Thebes, the Egyptian soldier Amenemheb relates how the Prince of Qadesh sent forth a swift mare, which entered among the army. But Amenemheb ran after her on foot and with his dagger ripped open her belly, cut off her tail, and presented it to the king, thus preventing a debacle before the excited stallions could take out after the mare.”


The phrase “is lovely” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity to complete the parallelism with the preceding line.


The subject of the 1st person common plural verb נַעֲשֶׂה ( na ’ aseh ) might be the maidens of Jerusalem mentioned in 1:4 [5]. However, this might be an example of heterosis of number, that is, the 1st person common plural for 1st person common singular person. In this case, her lover – the speaker throughout the rest of 1:8-9 [9-10] – would still be the speaker here. Other possible examples of heterosis of number of the plural for the singular in the Song include 1:3 [4]; 2:15; 5:1 b; 6:13 [ 7:1 ].


Or “We will make gold ornaments with your studs of silver.”


The lexicons suggest that מֵסַב ( mesav ) refers to a round banquet table ( HALOT 604 s.v. מֵסַב ) or divan with cushions (BDB 687 s.v. מֵסַב 2). In Mishnaic Hebrew the noun מֵסַב refers to a dining couch, banquet table, as well as cushions or pillows ( HALOT 604). The related noun מְסִבָּה ( mÿsibbah ) refers to a banqueting party ( HALOT 604 s.v. מְסִבָּה ; Jastrow 803 s.v. מְסִבָּה ). The versions took it as a reference to a resting place (see LXX, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta). R. E. Murphy ( Song of Songs [Hermeneia], 131) suggests that it refers to (1) a couch or divan on which a person declined while eating, (2) a group of people gathered in a circle, that is, an entourage, or (3) a private place such as an enclosure. tc The MT בִּמְסִבּוֹ ( bimsibbo , “his banquet table”) is enigmatic: “While the king was at his banquet table, my nard gave forth its fragrance.” W. Rudolph suggests emending to מְסִבִּי ( mÿsibbi , “around me”): “While the king surrounded me, my nard gave forth its fragrance” ( Des Buch Ruth, das Hohe Lied, die Klagelieder [KAT], 27).


Or “The fragrance of my myrrh wafted forth.”


Alternately, “resting between my breasts.” The verb לִין ( lin ) has a three-fold range of meaning in the Qal stem: (1) “to leave overnight,” e.g., meat or corpse on a tree, (2) “to spend the night, stay overnight,” and (3) “to stay, dwell” ( HALOT 529 s.v. לין ). The myrrh motif (see study note above) suggests the nuance “to spend the night” ( HALOT 529 s.v. 2 ). This is also the most appropriate nuance of its usage in Song 7:12 (e.g., Gen 19:2; 24:23, 25, 54; 28:11; 31:54; 32:14, 22 ; Num 22:8 ; Josh 3:1; 4:3; 6:11; 8:9 ; Judg 18:2; 19:4-15 (9x), 20; 20:4; 2 Sam 12:16; 17:8, 16; 19:8 ; 1 Kgs 19:9 ; Isa 21:13; 65:4 ; Jer 14:8 ; Joel 1:13 ; Zeph 2:14 ; Pss 25:13; 55:8 ; Job 24:7; 31:32; 39:9 ; Prov 19:23 ; Song 7:12 ; Ruth 1:16; 3:13 ; Neh 4:16; 13:20 ; 1 Chr 9:27 ). Several translations follow course: “he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts” (KJV) and “which lies all night between my breasts” (NASB). Others downplay the obvious sexual connotations: “resting between my breasts” (NIV) and “lodged between my breasts” (NJPS). The imperfect has been taken in two basic senses: (1) future time action: “he shall spend the night between my breasts” and (2) present characteristic or present progressive: “he spends the night between my breasts.” The latter is favored by the characteristic/progressive nature of the metaphors used through 1:12-13 [13-14].


Heb “Your eyes are doves.” This metaphor compares her eyes to doves. There is no lack of suggestions as to the point of the comparison: (1) Arabic love literature describes doves having sentimental eyes, the point here (Marcia Falk, Love Lyrics from the Bible , 113). (2) The comparison has to do with the color of her eyes (G. L. Carr, Song of Solomon [TOTC], 86). (3) The comparison has to do with the glistening color of the dove and its quick movements, that is, her eyes had a beautiful color and had lively motion (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs [AB], 356). (4) The comparison has to do with the fluttering of her eyes which reminded him of the fluttering of a dove’s wings (M. D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs [JSOTSup], 5). (5) The comparison has to do with gentleness and purity, as well as longing and simplicity (K&D 18:38).


The term אַף (’ af , “how”) is used to: (1) introduce additional information; (2) to emphasize a point; (3) to enhance a statement; (4) to create an antithesis ( HALOT 76 s.v. אַף ). The usage here is to enhance “how pleasant” or “certainly pleasant” ( HALOT 76). The particle אַף is often used in Hebrew poetry to emphatically introduce a thought in the second colon which is a step beyond what was asserted in the first colon (e.g., Deut 33:3, 20, 28 ; 1 Sam 2:7 ; Pss 16:6, 7, 9; 18:49; 65:14; 68:9, 17; 74:16; 89:28; 93:1 ; Prov 22:19; 23:28 ) (BDB 64 s.v. b.1). Sometimes, אַף is used to introduce a surprise or something unexpected (e.g., Job 14:3; 15:4 ) (BDB 65 s.v. a.1). The particle אַף (“Oh!”), which introduces this line, is often used in Hebrew poetry to emphatically introduce a new thought and indicates that this is an addition to the previous statement; it is something far greater.


The term נָעִים ( na ’ im , “pleasant, delightful”) can refer to physical attractiveness or to personal character (BDB 653 I נָעֵם ; HALOT 705 s.v. I נעם ). Some suggest that it refers to the pleasantness of his character and personality; however, it is better to take this as a reference to his handsome physical appearance for several reasons: (1) The terms יָפֶה ( yafeh , “handsome”) and נָעִים (“delightful”) are probably used in synonymous rather than synthetic parallelism. (2) The emphasis in 1:15-16 is on physical beauty as the repetition of the term “beautiful, handsome” ( יָפֶה ) suggests. (3) The related verb נָּעַמְתְּ ( na ’ amtÿ , “to be delightful”) is used in Song 7:7 in synonymous parallelism with יָפָת ( yafat , “to be beautiful”) in the description of the Beloved’s physical beauty. (4) Hebrew lexicographers classify this usage of נָעִים in Song 1:16 in terms of physical beauty rather than personal character (BDB 653 s.v. 2 ).


The term רַעֲנָנָה ( ra ’ ananah , “lush, verdant”) refers to the color “green” and is often used in reference to luxuriant foliage or trees ( Pss 37:35; 52:8 ; Jer 11:16 ; Hos 14:8 ). The impression 1:16 c-17 gives is that the young man and young woman are lying down together on the grass in the woods enjoying the delights of their caresses. They liken the grass below and the green leaves above to a marriage couch or canopied bed.


Or “The lush foliage is our marriage couch.” The term עֶרֶשׂ (’ eres , “bed”) describes a canopied bed ( Pss 6:7; 41:4; 132:2 ; Prov 7:16 ) or marriage couch ( Song 1:16 ) (BDB 793 s.v. עֶרֶשׂ ).


Or “the rose of Sharon…the lily of the valleys.” There is debate whether the expressions חֲבַצֶּלֶת הַשָּׁרוֹן ( khavatselet hashsharon ) and שׁוֹשַׁנַּת הָעֲמָקִים ( shoshannat ha ’ amaqim ) are definite (“the rose of Sharon…the lily of the valleys”) or indefinite (“a rose of Sharon…a lily”). Some translations adopt the definite sense (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NAU, NJB, NLT); others the indefinite sense (ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NIB, NAB, NJPS, CEV).


Heb “meadow-saffron” or “crocus.” The noun חֲבַצֶּלֶת ( khavatselet ) traditionally has been translated “rose” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NJPS, NLT, CEV); however, recent translations suggest “crocus” (NIV margin, NJPS margin), “narcissus” (DBY) or simply “flower” (DRA, NAB). The LXX translated it with the generic term ἀνθος ( anqos, “flower, blossom”). Early English translators knew that it referred to some kind of flower but were unsure exactly which type, so they arbitrarily chose “rose” because it was a well-known and beautiful flower. In the light of comparative Semitics, modern Hebrew lexicographers have settled on “asphodel,” “meadow-saffron,” “narcissus,” or “crocus” (BDB 287 s.v. חֲבַצֶּלֶת ; HALOT 287 s.v. חֲבַצֶּלֶת ; DCH 3:153 s.v. חֲבַצֶּלֶת ). The Hebrew term is related to Syriac hamsalaita (“meadow saffron”) and Akkadian habasillatu (“flower-stalk, marsh plant, reed”). Lexicographers and botanists suggest that the Hebrew term refers to Ashodelos (lily family), Narcissus tazetta (narcissus or daffodil), or Colchicum autumnale (meadow-saffron or crocus). The location of this flower in Sharon suggests that a common wild flower would be more consonant than a rose. The term appears elsewhere only in Isa 35:1 where it refers to some kind of desert flower – erroneously translated “rose” (KJV, NJPS) but probably “crocus” (NASB, NIV, NJPS margin). Appropriately, the rustic maiden who grew up in the simplicity of rural life compares herself to a simple, common flower of the field (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs [AB], 367).


There is debate about the referent of שׁוֹשַׁנָּת ( shoshannat , “lily”) because there are many different species of the lily family. Botanists note that among the many different species of the lily family only one grows in Palestine. This species may be identified as the Anthemis palaestina , the chamomile, a white-daisy-like plant, which was indigenous to Palestine ( Fauna and Flora of the Bible , 134-36).


Alternately, “thorn bushes.” The term הַחוֹחִים ( hahokhim ) is probably derived from חוֹח ( khokh ,“thorn-bush, briars, thistles, thorns”; HALOT 296 s.v. I חוֹחַ ; BDB 296 s.v. חוֹחַ ) rather than חוֹח ( khokh , “crevice”; HALOT 296 s.v. II חוֹחַ ): “Like a lily among the thorns” rather than “Like a lily among the rock crevices.” The picture is of a beautiful flower growing in the midst of thorn bushes ( 1 Sam 14:11 ; 2 Kgs 14:9 ; 2 Chr 25:18 ; Job 31:40 ; Prov 26:9 ; Isa 34:13 ; Hos 9:6 ) rather than a beautiful flower growing in the midst of rocky outcroppings ( 1 Sam 13:6 ; 2 Chr 33:11 ). The Hebrew term is related to Akkadian hahu and haiahu “thorn” and hahinnu “thorny plants” ( AHw 1:308) and Aramaic hahhu ( HALOT 296). The “thorn bush” is a thistle plant ( Poterium spinosum ) which has prickly spines covered with thistles, but also sprouts beautiful small red flowers ( Fauna and Flora of the Bible , 184-85). sn The Lover accommodates her self-denigrating comparison, but heightens it to praise her: If she insisted that she was nothing more than a common flower of the field, then he insisted that all other women were like thorns by comparison. The term חוֹח ( khokh , “thorn”) is often used as a figure for utter desolation and the cause of pain; it is the antithesis of fertility and beautiful luxuriant growth ( Job 31:40 ; Isa 34:13 ; Hos 9:6 ).


Like the preceding line, this is a case of emblematic parallelism. An illustrative simile appears in the A-line (object of the comparison) and the subject of comparison appears in the B-line. The particles כֵּן … כְּ ( kÿ … ken , “like…so”) form an emphatic comparative construction (e.g., Ps 123:2 ); cf. IBHS 641-42 §38.5a.


Alternately, “I desired” or “I took delight in.” The meaning of this use of the verb חָמַד ( khamad , “delight, desire”) is debated. The root has a basic two-fold range of meanings: (1) “to take pleasure in, delight in” ( Job 20:20 ; Pss 39:12; 68:17 ; Prov 1:22 ; Isa 1:29; 44:9; 53:2 ) and (2) “to desire passionately, to desire illicitly” ( Exod 20:17; 34:24 ; Deut 5:21; 7:25 ; Josh 7:21 ; Prov 1:22; 6:25; 12:12 ; Mic 2:2 ) ( HALOT 325 s.v. חמד ; BDB 326 s.v. חָמַד ). The related noun חֶמְדָּה ( khemÿkhah ) describes objects which are “delightful, precious, desirable” ( HALOT 325 s.v. חֶמְדָּה ). Commentators who adopt an erotic view of the extended metaphor in 2:3 opt for the sexual desire nuance: “I desired (sexually).” Those who adopt the less erotic approach favor the more general connotation: “I took delight in” or “I delight in.”


Heb “I delighted and I sat down.” Alternately, “I sat down with delight….” The verbs חִמַּדְתִּי וְיָשַׁבְתִּי ( khimmadti vÿyashavti , “I delighted and I sat down”) form a verbal hendiadys (GKC 386 §120. d ): “I sat down with delight…” or “I delight to sit….” The sequence of a perfect followed by another perfect with vav conjunctive creates the coordination of the complementary verbal idea (first verb) with the idea of the main (second) verb. The main idea is indicated by the second verb; the first verb indicates the manner of action. The first verb functions adverbially while the second verb carries its full verbal sense (see IBHS 653-54 §39.2.5).


Heb “my palate.” The term חִכִּי ( khikki , “my palate”) is used metonymically in reference to the sensation of taste which is associated with a person’s palate. The idea of “tasting” is used as a metaphor in the OT for the experiential knowledge which is acquired through a person’s relationship with someone (e.g., Ps 34:9 ). Just as a person would learn whether a fruit was ripe and delicious by tasting it, so a person could learn of the quality of a person’s character by experiencing it through personal interaction. This extended metaphor compares the delights of his love to (1) the refreshment of sitting in the shade of a tree for refuge from the desert sun, and (2) the delight of tasting a sweet apple – a fruit that was not indigenous to Palestine.


The MT vocalizes consonantal הביאני as הֱבִיאַנִי ( hevi ’ ani , Hiphil perfect 3rd person masculine singular with 1st person common singular suffix, “He has brought me”). However, several medieval Hebrew mss vocalize the form as הֲבִיאֻנִי ( havi ’ uni , Hiphil imperative 2nd person masculine singular with 1st person common singular suffix, “Bring me!”). This is also reflected in LXX ( εἰσαγαγετε με , eisagagete me, “Bring me!”) and Syriac. This alternate vocalization tradition has several factors that make it a viable option: (1) It respects the consonantal text; (2) It is supported by the LXX and Syriac; (3) It provides a tighter parallelism with the two identical imperatival forms in 2:5 a (both 2nd person masculine plural imperatives with 1st person common singular suffixes); (4) It provides thematic unity to the entire poetic unit of 2:4-5 ; and (5) It helps make better sense of an enigmatic unit. This approach is strengthened if the MT reading וְדִגְלוֹ ( vÿdiglo , “and his banner”) is revocalized to the imperative וְדִגְלוּ ( vÿdiglu , “and feed [me]”) (see translator’s note below). In this case, the parallelism throughout 2:4-5 would be very tight. It would feature four parallel imperatives of request, all revolving around the theme of love-sickness: “Bring me into the banquet hall, feed me with love; sustain me with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am faint with love.” The weakness with the revocalization to הֲבִיאֻנִי (“Bring me!”) is that it demands, due to the dictates of synonymous parallelism, the questionable revocalization of the MT’s וְדִגְלוֹ (“and his banner”) to the imperative וְדִגְלוּ (“and feed [me]”). tn Alternately, “Bring me!”


Heb “house of wine.” The expression בֵּית הַיָּיִן ( bet hayyayin , lit. “house of wine” or “place of wine”) refers to a banquet house where wine is drunk or a vineyard where grapes to produce wine are grown ( HALOT 409 s.v. יַיִן ). G. L. Carr favors the vineyard view due to the agricultural metaphors in 2:1-5 . However, most commentators favor the banquet house view because of the reference to “raisin-cakes” and “apples” ( 2:4 ) which were served at banquets in the ancient Near East. Moreover, the expression בֵּית הַיָּיִן in in Song 2:4 may be equivalent to בֵּית מִשְׁתֵּה הַיַּיִן ( bet mishte hayyayin , “house of the drinking of wine”) in Esther 7:8 ( HALOT 409 s.v. יַיִן ). Second, raisin cakes are mentioned in this context in 2:5 , and they were often eaten to celebrate festive occasions ( 2 Sam 6:19 ; Isa 16:7 ; Hos 3:1 ); therefore, the banquet motif finds support. Selected Bibliography: E. Würthwein, “Zum Verständnis des Hohenliedes,” TRu 32 (1967): 205; G. L. Carr, Song of Solomon [TOTC], 90-91.


The MT vocalizes דגלו as the noun דְּגֶל ( dÿgel ) with 3rd person masculine singular suffix דִּגְלוֹ ( diglo , “his banner [over me is love]”). However, several medieval Hebrew mss vocalize דגלו as Qal mp imperative וְדִגְלוּ ( vÿdihlu , “Set [love before me].”) This is also reflected in LXX τάξατε ἐπ ’ ἐμὲ ἀγάπην ( taxate ep eme agaphn , “Set love before me!”). tn The meaning of the term דִּגְלוֹ ( diglo ) is debated. Five basic views have emerged: (1) “his banner over me was love.” BDB relates דִּגְלוֹ to the noun דְּגֶל ( dÿgel , “standard, banner”; BDB 186 s.v. דֶּגֶל ) which refers to (a) banners, standards ( Num 1:52; 2:2 ) and (b) battalion, company of troops, or division of a tribe signaled by a banner or standard ( Num 2:3, 10, 17-18, 25, 31, 34; 10:14, 18, 22, 25 ). Thus, most translations render דִּגְלוֹ as “his banner” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS). However, the expression “His banner over me was love” is enigmatic. (2) “serve love to me!” Delitzsch revocalized the noun וְדִגְלוֹ (“his banner”) as an imperative וְדִגְלוּ ( vÿdiglu , “serve [me]”) from the root דָּגַל ( dagal , “to serve food”) which is related to Akkadian dagalu II (“to serve food”). Delitzsch renders the passage: “Bring me into the banquet hall and serve me love…for I am faint with love.” This is supported by LXX which reads: εἰσαγάγετέ με εἰς οἶκον τοῦ οἲνου , τάξατε ἐπ ’ ἐμὲ ἀγάπην ( eisagagete me eis oikon tou oinou, taxate ep ’ eme agaphn, “Bring me into the wine house, and set love before me”). However, R. Gordis points out the difficulties with Delitzsch’s proposal: (a) The meaning “serve” for דָּגַל is unparalleled in Hebrew thus, it would create a homonymic hapax legomenon ; (b) We would expect the preposition לִי ( li , “to me”) rather than עָלַי (’ ala , “over me”) after the imperative; and (c) The Akkadian parallel is uncertain. (3) “its banner above me is love.” HALOT relates דִּגְלוֹ to the Akkadian noun diglu (“eyesight, view, look, gaze”) and proposes the nuance “sign of an inn,” such as a flag placed over taverns ( HALOT 213 s.v. דֶּגֶל ). This approach renders the line: “He has brought me to the banquet hall, and its banner above me is love.” (4) “his look toward me was loving” = “he looked at me lovingly.” Several lexicons relate דִּגְלוֹ to the homonymic root דָּגַל , “look, glance” (e.g., DCH 2:415 s.v. II דָּגַל ). The Hebrew noun degel II is related to the Akkadian noun diglu “eyesight, view, look, gaze” ( CAD 3:21; AHw 1:14). Likewise, the Hebrew verb II דָּגַל (“to look, behold”; Song 5:10; 6:4, 10 ; Eccl 9:13 ; Ps 20:6 ) (BDB 186 s.v. דָּגַל ; HALOT 213 s.v. I דגל ; DCH 2:414 s.v. I) is related to the Akkadian verb dagalu I “to look upon, to gaze, to look with astonishment, to look at with admiration” ( CAD 3:21; AHw 1:14). Those who adopt this approach render the line: “His glance upon me is love” ( DCH 2:414) or “His look upon me was loving” (R. Gordis, “The Root dgl in the Song of Songs,” JBL 88 [1969]: 203-204; idem, Song of Songs and Lamentations , 81-82); or “He looked upon me with love.” (5) “his wish regarding me was lovemaking.” M. H. Pope ( Song of Songs [AB], 376-77) notes that the Assyrian noun diglu may denote “wish,” i.e., desire or intent ( CAD 3:136). He renders the line: “His wish regarding me was lovemaking” or “His intentions were to make love.” Pope’s suggestion has been adopted by several recent commentators (e.g., G. L. Carr, Song of Solomon [TOTC], 91).


The syntax of the noun אַהֲבָה (’ ahavah , “love”) has been taken as: (1) predicate nominative: “His banner over me [was] love” or “His intention toward me [was] lovemaking” (M. H. Pope, Song of Songs [AB], 376-77; G. L. Carr, Song of Solomon [TOTC], 91); (2) genitive of attribute/content: “His banner of love [was] over me,” and (3) adverbial or adjectival accusative: “His look upon me was loving” or “He looked upon me lovingly” (R. Gordis, Song of Songs and Lamentations , 81-82). Examples of adverbial or adjectival accusatives, e.g., “I am peace” = “I am peaceful” ( Ps 120:7 ); “I will love them as a free gift” = “I will love them freely” ( Hos 14:5 ).


The imperatives סַמְּכוּנִי ( sammÿkhuni , “sustain me”) and רַפְּדוּנִי ( rappÿduni , “revive me”) are both plural in address (Piel 2nd person masculine plural imperatives with 1st person common singular suffixes). Thus, some commentators suggest that the woman is speaking to a large audience, perhaps the banquet guests implied in 2:4 or the maidens mentioned in 2:7 (R. Gordis, Song of Songs and Lamentations , 82). However, the Hebrew plural can be used in reference to a single individual when functioning in an intensive sense ( IBHS 122 §7.4.3a). Thus, the woman may be speaking to her beloved, as in the rest of 2:3-6 , but with intense passion. Similarly, in Sumerian love literature the bride sometimes uses plural verbs in reference to herself or her bridegroom (S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite , 92, 99).


Or “apricots.” The term תַּפּוּחִים ( tappukhim , “apples,” from תַּפּוּחַ , tappukha ) occurs four times in the book ( Song 2:3, 5; 7:9; 8:5 ) and twice outside ( Prov 25:4 ; Joel 1:12 ). It is usually defined as “apples” (BDB 656 s.v. תַּפּוּחַ ); however, some argue for “apricots” (FFB 92-93). The Hebrew noun תַּפּוּחַ (“apple”) is derived from the Hebrew root נָפַח ( nafakh , “scent, breath”) which is related to the Arabic root nafahu “fragrant scent” ( HALOT 708 s.v. נפח ). Hence, the term refers to a fruit with a fragrant scent. This may explain why the mere scent of this fruit was thought to have medicinal powers in the ancient Near East (G. E. Post, Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai , 128). This imagery draws upon two motifs associated with apples. First, apples were viewed as medicinal in ancient Syro-Palestinian customs; the sick were given apples to eat or smell in order to revive them. Similarly, the Mishnah and Talmud refer to apples as a medication like wine and grapes. Second, apples were considered an aphrodisiac in the ancient Near East. Both motifs are combined here because the Beloved is “love-sick” and only the embrace of her beloved can cure her, as 2:6 indicates (T. H. Ratzaby, “A Motif in Hebrew Love Poetry: In Praise of the Apple,” Ariel 40 [1976]: 14).


Heb “sick of love.” The expression חוֹלַת אַהֲבָה ( kholat ’ ahavah , “sick of love”) is an example of the causative use of the genitive construct: “I am sick because of love,” that is, “I am love-sick.” The expression חוֹלַת אַהֲבָה ( kholat ’ ahavah , “faint with love”) is a figure which compares physical or medical illness caused by a physically draining disease to sexual desire which is so intense that a person is so physically drained that they feel as if they could faint. The term חוֹל ( khol , “sick”) refers to the physical weakness which consumes a person who is suffering from a medical illness ( Gen 48:1 ; 1 Sam 19:14 ). It is used figuratively as a hyperbolic hypocatastasis for being so consumed with sexual desire that it saps one of his/her physical and emotional strength (BDB 317 s.v. 2 ). This is commonly referred to as “love-sickness.” It was associated with such deep longing for physical and sexual fulfillment that it weighed so heavily upon a person that he/she was physically and emotionally drained ( 2 Sam 13:2 ).


Heb “His left hand is under my head.” Ultimately, the only cure for her love-sickness is the caress of her beloved. The ancient Near Eastern love songs frequently portray the embrace of the lover as the only cure for the speaker’s love-sickness. For example, one Egyptian love song reads: “She will make the doctors unnecessary, because she knows my sickness” (Papyrus Harris 4:11 ). Similarly, “My salvation is her coming in from outside; when I see her, I will be healthy. When she opens her eye, my body is young; when she speaks, I will be strong. When I embrace her, she exorcises evil from me” (Papyrus Chester Beatty, C 5:1-2 ).


Heb “embraces.” Alternately, “May his left hand be under my head, and [may] his right hand embrace me.” The verb חָבַק ( khavaq ) has a two-fold range of meanings in the Piel stem: (1) to embrace or hug someone ( Gen 29:13; 33:4; 48:10 ; Job 24:8 ; Prov 4:8 ; Eccl 3:5 ; Lam 4:5 ) and (2) to fondle or sexually stimulate a lover ( Prov 5:20 ; Song 2:6; 8:3 ) ( HALOT 287 s.v. חבק ; BDB 287 s.v. חָבַק ). The verb designates an expression of love by the position or action of one’s hands ( TWOT 1:259). The term is probably used here as a euphemism. The function of the prefixed verbal form of תְּחַבְּקֵנִי ( tÿkhabbÿqeni , “embrace me”) may be classified several ways: (1) ingressive: “His right hand is beginning to stimulate me,” (2) instantaneous: “His right hand is stimulating me [right now],” (3) progressive: “His right hand stimulates me,” (4) jussive of desire: “May his right hand stimulate me!” (5) injunction: “Let his right hand stimulate me!” or (6) permission: “His right hand may stimulate me.” Based upon their view that the couple is not yet married, some scholars argue for an imperfect of desire (“May his right hand stimulate/embrace me!”). Other scholars suggest that the progressive imperfect is used (“His right hand stimulates me”). For a striking parallel, see S. N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite , 105.


Traditionally, “hinds.” A hind is a female deer, generally less than three years old.


Heb “of the field.” The Hebrew term refers to open fields or open country as the home of wild animals; if taken adjectivally this could modify the previous term: “wild young does” (cf. NRSV). sn The “gazelles” and “does of the fields” are probably zoomorphisms for love personified. In other words, the witness of this oath is “love” itself. Should the daughters violate this vow which they are asked to make, “love” itself would hold them accountable. Gazelles were often figures in Hebrew, Akkadian, and Ugaritic literature for mighty warriors or virile young men (e.g., 2 Sam 1:19; 2:18 ; Isa 14:9 ; Zech 10:3 ).


The syntactical function of the article on הָאַהֲבָה ( ha ’ ahavah , “love”) is debated. Most translations view this as an example of the article denoting an abstract concept. However, a few translations (KJV, AV, JB, NEB) view it as an abstract use of the article for the concrete ( abstractum pro concreto ), and render it as “my love” as referring either to the woman’s own feelings or the feelings of her lover. Throughout the Song, the term אַהֲבָה (’ ahavah , “love”) is not used as a term for endearment in reference to one of the lovers; it typically refers to sexual passion ( Song 2:4, 5, 7; 3:5; 5:4; 8:4, 6, 7 ). When used of the man/woman relationship, the term אַהֲבָה (“love”) may refer to emotional love ( Eccl 9:1, 6 ; Prov 15:17 ; Ps 109:4-5 ) or sexual love/desire ( Gen 29:20 ; 2 Sam 1:26; 13:4, 15 ; Prov 5:19-20; 7:18 ; Jer 2:33 ; Song 2:4, 5, 7; 3:5; 5:4; 8:4, 6, 7 ) ( DCH 1:141 s.v. I אַהֲבָה ; HALOT 18 s.v. I אַהֲבָה ). The reference to sexual desire in 2:4-5 and חוֹלַת אַהֲבָה ( kholat ’ ahavah , “love-sickness”) in 2:5 suggests that the use of אַהֲבָה (“love”) in 2:7 is sexual desire. Love is personified in this picture.


Heb “If you arouse or if you awaken love before it pleases….” Paraphrase: “Promise that you will not arouse or awaken love until it pleases!” This line is a typical Hebrew negative oath formula in which the speaker urges his/her audience to take a vow to not do something that would have destructive consequences: (1) The expression הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי ( hishba ’ ti , “I adjure you”) is used when a speaker urges his audience to take an oath. (2) The conditional clause אִם־תָּעִירוּ וְאִם־תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת־הָאַהֲבָה (’ im-ta ’ iru vÿim-te ’ orÿru ’ et-ha ’ ehavah , “If you arouse or awaken love…”) reflects the typical construction of a negative oath formula which consists of two parts: (1) protasis: the warning introduced by the conditional particle אִם (“if”) and (2) apodosis: the description of the disaster or penalty which would befall the person who broke the vow and violated the condition of the oath. (3) If the consequences of violating the oath were extremely severe, they would not even be spoken; the statement of the consequences would be omitted for emphasis – as is the case here, that is, the apodosis is omitted for rhetorical emphasis. As is typical in negative oath formulas, the sanction or curse on the violation of the condition is suppressed for rhetorical emphasis. The curse was so awful that one could not or dare not speak of them (M. H. Pope, IDB 3:575-77).


Heb “The voice of my beloved!” The exclamation קוֹל ( qol , “Listen!”) is an introductory exclamatory particle used to emphasize excitement and the element of surprise.


The phrase “is approaching” does not appear in Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


The exclamation הִנֵּה־זֶה ( hinneh-zeh , “Look!”) is used of excited speech when someone is seen approaching ( Isa 21:9 ).


Heb “are seen.”


Alternately, “the time of singing” or “the time of pruning.” The homonymic root זָמִיר ( zamir ) means “song, singing” ( HALOT 273 s.v. I זָמִיר ; DCH 3:117 s.v. זָמִיר a), while זָמִיר II means “pruning, trimming” ( HALOT 273 s.v. II; DCH 3:117 s.v. II). The intended root is debated among the ancient versions (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate, Targum), Hebrew lexicographers ( HALOT 273; DCH 3:117), and translations: “singing” (KJV, NIV, NASB margin, NJPS margin), “pruning” (NASB, NJPS). However, rather than choosing between these two roots, it is likely that this is an example of intentional ambiguity. The preceding line draws out the meaning of זָמִיר (“trimming, pruning”): “The pomegranates are seen in the land, the time of pruning has come.” The following line draws out the meaning of זָמִיר (“singing”): “The time of singing has come, the voice of the turtledove is heard in the land.” This homonymic wordplay creates an example of “janus parallelism” between the three poetic lines which play off both root meanings of the intentionally ambiguous homonym. This elegant wordplay and the AB:BA “janus parallelism” may be represented thus: “The pomegranates are seen in the land, the time has come for pruning // singing , the voice of the turtledove is heard in the land.”


The imperative אֶחֱזוּ (’ ekhezu , “catch”) is plural in form (Qal imperative 2nd person masculine plural from אָחַז , ’ akhaz ). Some commentators suggest that the woman is speaking to a large audience, perhaps the maidens of Jerusalem mentioned in 2:7 . However, the Hebrew plural can function in an intensive sense when used in reference to a single individual ( IBHS 122 §7.4.3a). As noted previously, the bride often uses the plural in reference to herself or to her bridegroom in Sumerian love literature. Thus, the woman simply may be speaking to her beloved, as in 2:16-17 , but with particularly intense passion.


The exact meaning of סֹב ( sov , Qal imperative 2nd person masculine singular from סָבַב , savav , “to turn”) in this context is uncertain. The imperatival form may be classified as an invitation. HALOT notes that סָבַב (“to turn”) occasionally denotes “to sit [lie] at a table” ( 1 Sam 16:11 ; Sir 9:9) and suggests that this is a figurative use of this nuance ( HALOT 739 s.v. סבב 2c). The Beloved would be issuing an invitation to him to “turn aside to sit” at her table, that is, to enjoy the delights of her love. On the other hand, סֹב (“Turn!”) may simply be a synonym for the following parallel imperative דְּמֵה ( dÿmeh , “Be like!”), that is, “turn, change” ( HALOT 224 s.v. דָּם ). In keeping with the extended simile in which the Beloved compares him to a gazelle or stag leaping upon the mountains, the term סֹב may simply denote “turn oneself around, change direction” ( HALOT 739 s.v. 1 ). Rather than leaping somewhere else, so to speak, she invites him to leap upon the “mountain gorges.”


Alternately, “at night” or “night after night.” The noun בַּלֵּילוֹת ( ballelot , plural of “night”) functions as an adverbial accusative of time. The plural form בַּלֵּילוֹת from לַיְלָה ( laylah , “night”) can be classified in several ways: (1) plural of number: “night after night” (NASB, NEB); (2) plural of extension: “all night long” (NIV); (3) plural of composition: “by night” (KJV) and “at night” (NJPS); or (4) plural of intensity: “during the blackest night.” The plural of extension (“all night long”) is supported by (1) the four-fold repetition of the verb בָּקַשׁ ( baqash , “to seek”) in 3:1-2 which emphasizes that the Beloved was continually looking for her lover all night long, (2) her decision to finally arise in the middle of the night to look for him in 3:2-4 , and (3) her request in the immediately preceding verse ( 2:17 ) that he make love to her all night long: “until the day breathes and the shadows flee….” One should note, however, that the plural בַּלֵּילוֹת occurs in 3:8 where it is a plural of composition: “by night” (NJPS) or “of the night” (NASB, NIV) or “in the night” (KJV). sn The use of the term בַּלֵּילוֹת ( ballelot , “night”) in 3:1 stands in striking contrast to the use of the term הַיּוֹם ( hayyom , “the day”) in 2:17 which is the preceding verse. In 2:17 the woman invited her beloved to make love to her all night long; however, in 3:1 she recounts a nightmarish experience in which she was unable to find her beloved next to her in bed. Scholars debate whether 3:1-4 recounts a nightmare-like dream sequence or a real-life experience. There are striking parallels between 3:1-4 and 5:2-8 which also raises the possibility of a nightmare-like dream sequence.


The term מִשְׁכָּב ( mishkav , “bed”) in 3:1 is the common term for marriage bed ( HALOT 646 s.v. מִשְׁכָּב ; BDB 1012 s.v. מִשְׁכָּב ) in distinction from the common term for עֶרֶש (’ eresh , “couch”) in 1:16 . Several uses of the term מִשְׁכָּב (“bed”) have overt sexual connotations, denoting the place of copulation ( Gen 49:4 ; Lev 18:22; 20:13 ; Num 31:17, 35 ; Judg 21:11, 12 ; Prov 7:17 ; Isa 57:7-8 ). The noun is used in the expression מִשְׁכָּב דֹּדִים ( mishkav dodim , “love-bed”) with obvious sexual connotations ( Ezek 23:17 ).


Heb “I sought….” The verb בָּקַשׁ ( baqash , “to seek”) denotes the attempt to physically find someone (e.g., 1 Sam 13:14; 16:16; 28:7 ; 1 Kgs 1:2-3 ; Isa 40:20 ; Ezek 22:30 ; Esth 2:2 ; Job 10:6 ; Prov 18:1 ) ( HALOT 152 s.v. בקשׁ ). However, it is clear in 3:1 that this “search” took place upon her bed. It does not make sense in the context that the Beloved was looking around in her bed to find her lover – how big could her bed be that she had lost him? Rather, בָּקַשׁ (“to seek”) is used metonymically to reference to her longing for her absent lover, that is, seeking in the sense of anticipation. The perfect tense should be classified as a past constantive action, describing a past action which covered an extended period of time, as indicated by the phrase בַּלֵּילוֹת ( ballelot , plural of extension, “all night long”) in 3:1 . This continual action is emphasized by the four-fold repetition of בָּקַשׁ (“seek”) in 3:1-2 .


Heb “the one whom my soul loves.” The expression נַפְשִׁי ( nafshi , “my soul”) is a synecdoche of part for the whole (= the woman). The expression נַפְשִׁי (“my soul”) is often used as independent personal pronoun. It often expresses personal preference, such as love or hatred (e.g., Gen 27:4, 25 ; Lev 26:11, 30 ; Judg 5:24 ; Isa 1:14 ) ( HALOT 712 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ ). The term נֶפֶשׁ ( nefesh , “soul”) is used over 150 times in OT to refer to the seat of a person’s emotions and passions (BDB 660 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ c.6.a) (e.g., Deut 12:15, 20, 21; 14:26; 18:6; 21:14; 24:15 ; 1 Sam 3:21; 23:30 ; 2 Sam 14:14 ; 1 Kgs 11:37 ; Isa 26:8 ; Jer 2:24; 22:27; 34:16; 44:14 ; Ezek 16:27 ; Hos 4:8 ; Mic 7:1 ; Pss 10:3; 24:4; 25:1; 35:25; 78:18; 86:4; 105:22; 143:8 ; Prov 13:4; 19:8; 21:10 ; Job 23:13 ; Song 5:6 ). It often refers to the seat of love (BDB 660 s.v. d.6.e) (e.g., Gen 34:3, 8 ; Jer 12:7 ; Ps 63:9 ; Song 1:7; 3:1-4 ). The expression אֵת־שֶׁאָהֲבָה נַפְשִׁי (’ et-she ’ ahavah nafshi , “the one whom I love”; Heb “the one whom my soul loves”) is repeated four times in 3:1-4 . The repetition emphasizes her intense love for her beloved. The noun אָהֲבָה (’ ahavah , “love”) is often used in reference to the love between a man and woman, particularly in reference to emotional, romantic, or sexual love ( 2 Sam 1:26; 13:15 ; Prov 5:19; 7:18 ; Song 2:4-5, 7; 3:5; 5:8; 8:4, 6-7 ; Jer 2:2, 33 ). Likewise, the verb אָהֵב (’ ahev , “to love”) often refers to emotional, romantic, or sexual love between a man and woman (e.g., Gen 24:67; 29:20, 30, 32; 34:3 ; Deut 21:15, 16 ; Judg 14:16; 16:4, 15 ; 1 Sam 1:5; 18:20 ; 2 Sam 13:1, 4, 15 ; 1 Kgs 11:1 ; 2 Chr 11:21 ; Neh 13:26 ; Esth 2:17 ; Eccl 9:9 ; Song 1:3, 4, 7; 3:1-4 ; Jer 22:20, 22 ; Ezek 16:33, 36-37; 23:5, 9, 22 ; Hos 2:7-15; 3:1 ; Lam 1:19 ).


Heb “I searched for him” or “I sought him” (see study note above).


The LXX adds “I called him but he did not answer me” ( ἐκάλεσα αὐτόν καὶ οὐχ ὑπήκουσέν μου , ekalesa auton kai ouc Juphkousen ) to 3:2 d on the basis of its appearance in the parallel expressions in Song 5:6 . There is no textual support for its inclusion here. tn Heb “but I did not find him.” The verb מָצָא ( matsa ’, “to find”) normally describes discovering the whereabouts of something/someone who is lost or whose presence is not known. It is clear in 3:1 that the Beloved was not taking a physically active role in looking all around for him, because she stayed in her bed all night long during this time. Therefore, the verb מָצָא (“to find”) must be nuanced metonymically in terms of him appearing to her. It does not denote “finding” him physically, but visually; that is, if and when he would arrive at her bedside, she would “find” him. This might allude to her request in 2:17 for him to rendezvous with her to make love to her all night long (“until the day breathes and the shadows flee”). Despite the fact that she was waiting for him all night long, he never appeared ( 3:1 ). The verb מָצָא (“to find”) is repeated four times in 3:1-4 , paralleling the four-fold repetition of בָּקַשׁ ( baqash , “to seek”). This antithetical word-pair creates a strong and dramatic contrast.


The root סָבַב ( savav ) in the Qal stem means “to go around, to do a circuit” ( 1 Sam 7:16 ; 2 Chr 17:9; 23:2 ; Eccl 12:5 ; Song 3:3 ; Isa 23:16 ; Hab 2:16 ), while the Polel stem means “to prowl around” ( Ps 59:7, 15 ; Song 3:2 ) ( HALOT 739-740 s.v. סבב ). The idea here is that the Beloved is determined to “look all around” until she finds her beloved.


Heb “those who go around the city” or “those who go around in the city.” The expression הַסֹּבְבִים בָּעִיר ( hassovÿvim ba ’ ir , “those who go around the city”) probably refers to the watchmen of the city walls rather than night city street patrol (e.g., Ps 127:1 ; Song 5:7 ; Isa 21:11; 62:6 ). The Israelite night watchmen of the walls is paralleled by the Akkadian sahir duri (“one who goes around the wall”) which appears in a lexical text as the equivalent of ma - sar musi (“night watchman”) ( CAD 4:192). See M. H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB), 419. There is a wordplay in 3:2-3 between the verb וַאֲסוֹבְבָה ( va ’ asovÿvah , “I will go about”) and הַסֹּבְבִים ( hassovÿvim , “those who go around”). This wordplay draws attention to the ironic similarity between the woman’s action and the action of the city’s watchmen. Ironically, she failed to find her beloved as she went around in the city, but the city watchmen found her. Rather than finding the one she was looking for, she was found.


Heb “the one whom my soul loves – have you seen [him]?” The normal Hebrew word-order (verb-subject-direct object) is reversed in 3:3 (direct object-verb-subject) to emphasize the object of her search: אֵת שֶׁאָהֲבָה נַפְשִׁי רְאִיתֶם (’ et she ’ ahavah nafshi rÿ ’ item , “The one whom my soul loves – have you seen [him]?”).


Heb “like a little.” The term כִּמְעַט ( kim ’ at ), which is composed of the comparative preposition כְּ ( kÿ , “like”) prefixed to the noun מְעַט ( mÿ ’ at , “the small, the little, the few”), is an idiom that means “within a little” or “scarcely” (BDB 590 s.v. מְעַט b.2.a).


Heb “I held him” ( אֲחַזְתִּיו , ’ akhaztiv ). The term אָחַז (’ akhaz , “grasp”) denotes to forcefully seize someone to avoid losing hold of him (BDB 28 s.v. אָחַז b).


The verb רָפָה ( rafah , “to let go”) means to relax one’s grip on an object or a person ( HALOT 1276-77 s.v. רפה ; BDB 952 s.v. רָפָה 2). The Hiphil stem means “to let loose” ( Job 7:19; 27:6 ; Song 3:4 ; Sir 6:27) or “to release from one’s hands” ( Deut 9:14 ; Josh 10:6 ; Ps 37:8 ). The negative expression לֹא רָפָה ( lo ’ rafah , “to not let [someone or something] go”) denotes an intense desire or effort to not lose possession of someone or something ( Job 27:6 ; Prov 4:13 ). Here the expression וְלֹא אַרְפֶּנּוּ ( vÿlo ’ ’ arpennu , “I would not let him go”) pictures her determination to hold on to him so she would not lose him again. The shift from a suffix-conjugation (perfect) אֲחַזְתִּיו (’ akhaztiv , “I grasped him”) to a prefix-conjugation (imperfect) אַרְפֶּנּוּ (’ arpennu , “I would [not] let him go”) depicts a shift from a completed/consummative action (perfect: she took hold of his hand) to an ongoing/progressive action (imperfect: she would not let go of it). A basic distinction between the perfect and imperfect tenses is that of consummative versus progressive action. The literary/syntactical structure of אֲחַזְתִּיו וְלֹא אַרְפֶּנּוּ (“I grasped him and I would not let him go”) in 3:4 mirrors that of בִּקַּשְׁתִּיו וְלֹא מְצָאתִיו ( biqqashtiv vÿlo ’ mÿtsa ’ tiv , “I searched for him but I could not find him”) in 3:1-2 . This parallelism in the literary and syntactical structure emphasizes the fortunate reversal of situation.


The term חֶדֶר ( kheder , “chamber”) literally means “dark room” ( HALOT s.v. חֶדֶר 293) and often refers to a bedroom ( Gen 43:30 ; Exod 7:28; Judg 3:24; 15:1; 16:9, 12 ; 2 Sam 4:7; 13:10 ; 1Kgs 1:15 ; 2 Kgs 6:12; 9:2 ; Eccl 10:20 ; Isa 26:20 ; Joel 2:16 ; Prov 24:4 ; Song 1:4; 3:4 ).


See the notes on these lines at 2:7 .


The comparative “like” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.


The proper nuance of מְקֻטֶּרֶת ( mÿqutteret , Pual participle fs from קָטַר , qatar , “to make a sacrifice, go up in smoke”) is illusive. The lexicons take the participle adjectivally and translate מְקֻטֶּרֶת מוֹר ( mÿqutteret mor ) as “completely filled with fragrance or incense” ( HALOT 1094 s.v. I קטר ) or “fumigated with myrrh” (BDB 883 s.v. קָטַר ). Most translations take it adjectivally: “perfumed with myrrh” (KJV, NASB, NIV); however, NJPS takes it as a substantive: “clouds of myrrh.” It is better to take the participle as a substantive and to nuance מְקֻטֶּרֶת מוֹר as “billow of myrrh,” as suggested by its parallelism with כְּתִימֲרוֹת עָשָׁן ( kÿtimarot ’ ashan , “like a column of smoke”). While this is the only usage of the Pual stem of the verb, the root קטר appears frequently in other stems, all of which connote smoke, e.g., Piel: “to make a sacrifice, to go up in smoke” and Hiphil: “to cause to go up in smoke” ( HALOT 1094-95 s.v. I קתר ). In Middle Hebrew the root קִטְרָא ( qitra ’) meant “to steam, smell” (Qal) and “to smoke” (Hiphil). The Hebrew root is related to Ugaritic qtr “smoke, incense” ( UT 19.2220; WUS 1404); Akkadian qataru “to billow (of smoke)” ( AHw 2:907; CAD Q:166); Old South Arabic mqtr “incense; Ethiopic qetare “fragrance, spice”; Arabic qatara “to smell, smoke”; and Syriac `etar “vapour, fume, incense” ( HALOT 1094). Due to the rarity of the Pual stem of this root, the Targum mistakenly vocalized the form as Piel participle מִקְּטֹרֶת ( miqqÿtoret , “going up in smoke”).


The term לְבוֹנָה ( lÿvonah , “frankincense”) refers to fragrant incense ( Exod 30:34 ; Lev 2:1, 15; 5:11; 6:8; 24:7 ; Num 5:15 ; Isa 43:23; 66:3 ; Jer 6:20; 17:26; 41:5 ; Neh 13:5, 9 ; 1 Chr 9:29 ; Song 3:6; 4:6, 14 ). It is composed of the white (sometimes yellow) resin of Boswellia Carteri and Frereana from Hadramawt and Somaliland ( HALOT 518 s.v. לְבֹנָה ).


The term אַבְקַת (’ avqat , “fragrant-powder”) means “scent-powders” ( HALOT 9 s.v. אַבָקָה ) or “ground spice” ( HALOT 1237 s.v. I רכל 2.a). The noun אֲבָקָה (’ avaqah ) is from the root אָבָק (’ avaq , “dust, powder”) ( HALOT 9 s.v.).


The singular form of רוֹכֵל ( rokhel , “merchant”) may be classified as a generic singular, representing the genus of the merchant guild of which there are many. The term רוֹכֵל means “trader, vendor,” as small retailer ( HALOT 1237 s.v. I רכל ) distinct from סָתַר ( satar ) “shopkeeper, dealer” as large wholesaler ( HALOT 750 s.v. סתר ). It may refer to a traveling merchant, as in Middle Hebrew רוֹכְלָה ( rokhÿlah ) “traveling merchant” and Old South Arabic rkl “to go about as a trader” (Conti 242a). The general nuance appears in Judean Aramaic רוֹכְלָא ( rokhÿla ’, “hawker, peddler”) and Syriac rakkala “merchant.”


The term מִטָּה ( mittah ) refers to a “royal portable couch” spread with covers, cloth, and pillows ( HALOT 573 s.v. מִטָּה ; BDB 641 s.v. מִטָּה ). The Hebrew noun is related to Ugaritic mtt “bed” ( UT 1465). The term מִטָּה (“bed, couch”) itself can refer to a number of similar but different kinds of pieces of reclining furniture: (1) the bed of a common person, found in the bedchamber for reposing and sleeping at night ( Gen 47:31; 48:2; 49:33 ; Exod 8:3 [7:28]; 2 Sam 4:7 ; 1 Kgs 17:19 ; 2 Kgs 4:10, 21, 32 ; Ps 6:6 [7]; Prov 26:14 ); (2) the royal bed of the king or nobility, often elevated and made of expensive materials ( 1 Kgs 21:4 ; 2 Kgs 1:4, 6, 16 ; 2 Chr 24:25 ; Esth 7:8 ; Amos 6:4 ; Ezek 23:41 ); (3) the couch of a common person for reclining or sitting during the day ( 1 Sam 28:23 ); (4) a royal banqueting couch for reclining at feasts or carousing ( Ezek 23:41 ; Amos 3:12; 6:4 ; Esth 1:6; 7:8 ); (5) a portable light-weight bed for transporting the sick ( 1 Sam 19:15 ); (6) a portable bed, such as a funeral bier for transporting the dead ( 2 Sam 3:31 ); and (7) a portable royal couch for transporting the king ( Song 3:7 ). The royal couch was often made of expensive materials, such as ivory, silver, and gold ( Ezek 23:41 ; Amos 6:4 ; Song 3:9-10 ; Esth 1:6 ).


Heb “trained of sword” or “girded of sword.” Alternately, “girded with swords.” The genitive construct phrase אֲחֻזֵי חֶרֶב (’ akhuze kherev ) is interpreted in two ways: (1) Most interpret it with the assumption that אָחַז (’ akhaz ) denotes “to physically grasp, hold” ( HALOT 31-32 s.v. I אחז ; BDB 28 s.v. אָחַז ). Most translations adopt this approach, although differing on whether the participle functions substantivally (NASB), verbally (KJV, NIV), or adjectivally (RSV), they all are heading in the same direction: “[all] hold swords” (KJV), “girded with sword” (RSV), “wielders of the sword” (NASB), and “wearing the sword” (NIV). This, however, provides only a vague parallel with the following colon: מְלֻמְּדֵי מִלְחָמָה ( mÿlummÿde milkhamah , “trained in warfare”). (2) Others, however, suggest taking אחז in its rare metaphorical sense of “to learn” (= mentally grasp, take hold of): “learned, skillful” (R. Gordis, Song of Songs and Lamentations , 85; J. Lewy, “Lexicographical Notes,” HUCA 12/13 (1937/1938): 98-99). This nuance is much more common in the related Akkadian verb ahazu “to learn,” as HALOT 31 notes. Likewise, JB renders it “skilled swordsmen,” and NJPS suggests “trained in warfare” for Song 3:8 , citing Akkadian ahazu “to learn.” The Akkadian verb ahazu has a broad range of meanings including: (1) to seize, hold a person, (2) to take a wife, to marry, (3) to hold, possess, take over, grasp something, to take to (a region), and (4) to learn, to understand ( CAD 1:1:173). The concrete, physical sense of grasping or taking an object in one’s hands lent itself to the metaphorical sense of mentally grasping something, that is, learning or understanding. The category ahazu 4 (“to learn, to understand”) is used in reference to general learning, as well to specialized knowledge involving a special skill, professional craft, or ability acquired through instruction and experience ( CAD 1:1:177). The causative form suhuzu means “to teach, educate, train” someone to become a skilled craftsman in a professional trade ( CAD 1:1:180). This provides a tight parallelism with the following colon: אֲחֻזֵי חֶרֶב (’ akhuze kherev , “skillful in swordsmanship”) precisely parallels מְלֻמְּדֵי מִלְחָמָה (“well-trained in [the art of] warfare”). The AB:AB parallelism between the two lines is exact: (1) אֲחֻזֵי “learned, skillful” parallels מְלֻמְּדֵי “trained, instructed,” and (2) חֶרֶב “in respect to swordsmanship” (genitive of specification or limitation) exactly parallels מִלְחָמָה “in regard to [the art of] warfare” (genitive of specification or limitation). The term חֶרֶב (“sword”) may be nuanced metonymically as “swordsmanship” in the light of (a) its collocation with terms for professional expertise: מְלֻמְּדֵי (“trained”) and אֲחֻזֵי (“skilled”), and (b) the connotation “swordsmanship” can be sustained in a few cases, e.g., “It was not by their swordsmanship that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory” ( Ps 44:3 ). In the genitive construct phrase אֲחֻזֵי חֶרֶב , the genitive noun חֶרֶב (“sword”) may be classified either as (1) a genitive of specification; “[skilled] in respect to swordsmanship” or (2) a genitive of instrument; “[skilled] with a sword.”


Heb “trained of war.” In the genitive construct מְלֻמְּדֵי מִלְחָמָה ( mÿlummÿde milkhamah , “trained of war”) the noun מִלְחָמָה (“war, battle”) is a genitive of specification or limitation, that is, it specifies the extent to which the expertise of the subjects applies: “in regard to warfare.” The term מִלְחָמָה (“warfare”) may be nuanced metonymically as “the art of warfare” in the light of (1) its collocation with terms for professional expertise: מְלֻמְּדֵי (“trained”) and אֲחֻזֵי (’ akhuze , “skilled”), and (2) its parallelism with חֶרֶב ( kherev , “sword, swordsmanship”).


The term אַפִּרְיוֹן (’ affiryon ) is a hapax legomenon variously rendered “sedan-chair” ( HALOT 80 s.v. אַפִּרְיוֹן ) and “sedan, litter, palanquin” (BDB 68 s.v. אַפִּרְיוֹן ). It occurs in Mishnaic Hebrew אַפִּרְיוֹן and Judean Aramaic אַפִּרְיוֹנָא (’ affiryona ’, “bridal-litter”; Jastrow 108 s.v. אַפִּרְיוֹן ) and Syriac pwrywn / purya (“litter”). The Mishnah used אַפִּרְיוֹן in reference to a bridal-litter: “In the last war it was decreed that a bride should not pass through the town in an אַפִּרְיוֹן but our Rabbis later sanctioned it” (Sotah 9:14). There are several views of the origin of the term: (1) LXX Greek φορεῖον ( foreion , “bridal-litter”) is a loanword from Hebrew; the term is not used in Greek until the Koine period (LSJ 1950-51); (2) Sanskrit paryanka and palki “palanquin, sedan-chair” (M. Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary , 554); (3) Old Persian upariyana “litter-bed” (R. Gordis, “A Wedding Song for Solomon,” JBL 63 [1944]: 263-70; G. Widengren, Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum , 122); (4) less likely is Ugaritic apn “two-wheeled cart” ( UT 305); and (5) Egyptian pr “house” with the prefix ua and suffix yn meaning “palace” (G. Gerleman, “Die Bildsprache des Hohenliedes und die altegyptische Kunst,” ASTI 1 [1962]: 24-30). A palanquin was a riding vehicle upon which a royal person sat and which was carried by servants who lifted it up by its staffs. Royalty and members of the aristocracy only rode in palanquins. The Illustrated Family Encyclopedia of the Living Bible , 10:55, describes what the typical royal palanquin was made of and looked like in the ancient world: “Only the aristocracy appear to have made use of litters in Israel. At a later period, in Greece, and even more so in Rome, distinguished citizens were carried through the city streets in splendid palanquins. In Egypt the litter was known as early as the third millennium b.c. , as is testified by the one belonging to Queen Hetepheres, the mother of the Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops), which was found at Gaza. This litter is made of wood and inlaid in various places with gold decorations. Its total length ft. 10 in., and the length of the seat inside ft. 3 in. An inscription on the litter, of gold set in ebony, lists the queen’s titles.”


Heb “with trees of Lebanon.” In the genitive construct phrase מֵעֲצֵי הַלְּבָנוֹן ( me ’ atse hallÿvanon , “the wood of Lebanon”) the genitive functions as a genitive of place of origin: “wood from Lebanon.” The plural construct noun עֲצֵי (’ atse , literally, “trees, woods” from עֵץ , ’ ets , “tree, wood”) is a plural of composition: the plural is used to indicate composition, that is, what the sedan-chair was made out of. The plural is used because the sedan-chair was constructed from the wood from several trees or it was constructed from several pieces of wood (see IBHS 119-20 §7.4.1b; R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax , 7, §9; Joüon 2:500 §136.b).


Heb “He made its posts of silver.”


The nouns כֶסֶף ( kesef , “silver”), זָהָב ( zahav , “gold”) and אַרְגָּמָן (’ argaman , “purple”) function as genitives of material out of which their respective parts of the palanquin were made: the posts, base, and seat. The elaborate and expensive nature of the procession is emphasized in this description. This litter was constructed with the finest and most expensive materials. The litter itself was made from the very best wood: cedar and cypress from Lebanon. These were the same woods which Solomon used in constructing the temple (1 Kgs 5:13-28). Silver was overlaid over the “posts,” which were either the legs of the litter or the uprights which supported its canopy, and the “back” of the litter was overlaid with gold. The seat was made out of purple material, which was an emblem of royalty and which was used in the tabernacle ( Exod 26:1 f; 27:16; 28:5-6 ) and in the temple ( 2 Chr 3:14 ). Thus, the litter was made of the very best which Solomon could offer. Such extravagance reflected his love for his Beloved who rode upon it and would be seen upon it by all the Jerusalemites as she came into the city.


The noun רְפִידָה ( rÿfidah ) is a hapax legomenon whose meaning is uncertain. It may be related to the masculine noun רָפַד ( rafad , “camping place, station”) referring to a stopping point in the wilderness march of Israel ( Exod 17:1, 8; 19:2 ; Num 33:14 ); however, what any semantic connection might be is difficult to discern. The versions have translated רְפִידָה variously: LXX ἀνάκλιτον ( anakliton, “chair for reclining”), Vulgate reclinatorium (“support, back-rest of a chair”) Peshitta teshwiteh dahba (“golden cover, throne sheathed in gold leaf”). Modern translators have taken three basic approaches: (1) Following the LXX and Vulgate (“support, rest, back of a chair”), BDB suggests “support,” referring to the back or arm of the chair of palanquin (BDB 951 s.v. רָפַד ). Several translations take this view, e.g., NRSV: “its back,” NEB/REB: “its headrest,” and NJPS: “its back.” (2) Koehler-Baumgartner suggest “base, foundation of a saddle, litter” (KBL 905). Several translations follow this approach, e.g., KJV: “the bottom,” NASB: “its base” (margin: “its support,” and NIV: “its base.” (3) G. Gerleman suggests the meaning “cover,” as proposed by Peshitta. The first two approaches are more likely than the third. Thus, it probably refers either to (1) the back of the sedan-chair of the palanquin or (2) the foundation/base of the saddle/litter upon which the palanquin rested ( HALOT 1276 s.v. רפד ).


The Hebrew noun אַרְגָּמָן (’ argaman , “purple fabric”) is a loanword from Hittite argaman “tribute,” which is reflected in Akkadian argamannu “purple” (also “tribute” under Hittite influence), Ugaritic argmn “tax, purple,” and Aramaic argwn “purple” ( HALOT 84 s.v. אַרְגָּמָן ). The Hebrew term refers to wool dyed with red purple ( BRL2 153; HALOT 84). It is used in reference to purple threads ( Exod 35:25; 39:3 ; Esth 1:9 ) or purple cloth ( Num 4:13 ; Judg 8:26 ; Esth 8:15 ; Prov 31:22 ; Jer 10:9 ; Song 3:10 ). Purple cloth and fabrics were costly ( Ezek 27:7, 16 ) and were commonly worn by kings as a mark of their royal position ( Judg 8:26 ). Thus, this was a sedan-chair fit for a king. KJV and NIV render it simply as “purple,” NASB as “purple fabric,” and NJPS “purple wool.”


The participle רָצוּף ( ratsuf ) probably functions verbally: “Its interior was fitted out with love/lovingly.” Taking it adjectivally would demand that ַאהֲבָה (’ ahavah , “love”) function as a predicate nominative and given an unusual metonymical connotation: “Its inlaid interior [was] a [gift of] love.”


The accusative noun אַהֲבָה (’ ahavah , “love” or “leather”) functions either as an accusative of material out of which the interior was made (“inlaid with leather”) or an accusative of manner describing how the interior was made (“inlaid lovingly,” that is, “inlaid with love”). The term אַהֲבָה is a homonymic noun therefore, there is an interesting little debate whether אַהֲבָה in 3:10 is from the root אַהֲבָה “love” (BDB 13 s.v. אָהֵב ; DCH 1:141 s.v. אַהֲבָה ) or אהבה “leather” ( HALOT 18 s.v. II אַהֲבָה ). The homonymic root אַהֲבָה “leather” is related to Arabic `ihab “leather” or “untanned skin.” It probably occurs in Hos 11:4 and may also appear in Song 3:10 ( HALOT 18 s.v. II). Traditionally, scholars and translations have rendered this term as “love” or “lovingly.” The reference to the “daughters of Jerusalem” suggests “love” because they had “loved” Solomon ( 1:4 ). However, the context describes the materials out of which the palanquin was made ( 3:9-10 ) thus, an interior made out of leather would certainly make sense. Perhaps the best solution is to see this as an example of intentional ambiguity in a homonymic wordplay: “Its interior was inlaid with leather // love by the maidens of Jerusalem.” See G. R. Driver, “Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament,” JBL 55 (1936): 111; S. E. Loewenstamm, Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible , 1:39; D. Grossberg, “Canticles 3:10 in the Light of a Homeric Analogue and Biblical Poetics,” BTB 11 (1981): 75-76.


Heb “daughters” (also in the following line).


Heb “the day of the joy of his heart.” In the genitive construct phrase וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַת ( uvÿyom simkhat , “the day of joy”) the noun שִׂמְחָה ( simkhah , “joy”) functions as a descriptive genitive of attribute (attributive genitive), that is, the genitive identifies the outstanding quality of the construct noun: “the joyous day” or “the day characterized by joy.” In the second genitive construct phrase שִׂמְחַת לִבּוֹ ( simkhat livvo , “joy of his heart”) the noun לִבּוֹ (“his heart”) is a subjective genitive: “his heart rejoices.” The term לֵב ( lev , “heart”) is a synecdoche of part for the whole (= Solomon himself), that is, “the day Solomon greatly rejoiced” or “the day of Solomon’s great joy.”


Alternately, “the watering-hole” or “watering-place.” The noun רַחְצָה ( rakhtsah ) may be nuanced “washing-place” (BDB 934 s.v. רַחְצָה ) or “watering-hole, watering-place” ( HALOT 1221 s.v. רַחְצָה ). The related verb רָחַץ ( rakhats ) means “to wash, bathe, rinse off” (BDB 934 s.v. רָחַץ ; HALOT 1220-21 s.v. רחץ ). The metaphor describing the beautiful teeth of the bride probably pictures freshly washed sheep rather than freshly watered sheep. He praises his bride’s teeth by comparing them to freshly washed sheep. In the ancient Near East it was customary to wash sheep before shearing them. The picture of freshly washed sheep depicts the whiteness of the bride’s teeth.


The phrase חוּט הַשָּׁנִי ( khut hashshani , “thread of scarlet”) is a genitive construct with the genitive functioning adjectivally. This phrase is used three times in classical Hebrew to denote a scarlet colored “thread” or “cord” ( Josh 2:18 ; Song 4:3; 11 QT 49:3) ( HALOT 296-97 s.v. חוּט ; DCH 3:170-71 s.v. חוּט ). This is a comparison of sight, describing the color and shape of her lips.


Alternately, “cheek,” or “temple” (see Judg 4:21 ).


The term מִגְּדַל ( miggÿdal , “tower”) refers to a military structure, such as a stronghold, arsenal, or defensive tower on the walls of a city (e.g., Judg 8:9, 17; 9:51 ; 2 Kgs 9:17; 17:9; 18:8 ; 2 Chr 14:6; 26:15; 27:4; 32:5 ).


The feminine noun לְתַלְפִּיּוֹת ( lÿtalpiyyot ) is a hapax legomenon of uncertain etymology. Various attempts have been made to find the origin of this word, but they are all uncertain. LXX εἰς θαλπιωθ ( eis qalpiwq ) simply transliterated the word, taking it as a proper name of a locality (Tel Pivoth). Similarly, Dom Calmet treated תלפיות as a compound word ( תֵּל , tal , “hill,” and פֵּיוֹת , peyot , “mouths”) as a reference to a tower built by David on a height in the valleys of Lebanon. The Talmud suggests that the term refers to Jerusalem as the hill ( תֵּל ) to which all mouths ( פיות ) turn ( b.Berakhot 30a). Aquila reads εἰς ἐπάλξεις ( eis epalxeis ) and Symmachus εἰς ὓψη ( eis {uyh ), while Vulgate has cum propugnaculis . Ibn Ezra redivided לתלפיות as ל תל פיות “for suspending weapons” by taking פֵּיוֹת (“mouths” = edge of swords) as a reference to weaponry. This is reflected in several translations: “armoury” (KJV, AV, ASV), “arsenal” (RSV), and “fortress” (JB). The noun may be related to the Arabic root tlp (“to perish”) in a metonymical sense: “a cause of perishing,” i.e., a weapon. The Hebrew Piel verb תִּלֵּף ( tillef ) means “to hang up for display,” thus NEB suggests that it is derived from lpy which means “to arrange in courses,” i.e., “layered,” as a reference to the Bride’s layered necklace she wears. The NIV nuances it as “with elegance” and NEB “winding courses.” Perles connects תַלְפִּיּוֹת to Akkadian tilpanu (“bow”), while Haupt connects the word with the Shaphel stem of the Akkadian labu (“to fortify”). Honeyman suggests that לְתַלְפִּיּוֹת is a feminine plural noun of the taqtilat nominal pattern from the root לפי which means “to arrange in courses.” HALOT notes that the phrase בָּנוּי לְתַלְפִּיּוֹת ( banu lÿtalpiyyot ) has been rendered in several ways: (1) “built with turrets,” (2) “built with siege-towers,” (3) “built in rows (of stones)” or “built in terraces.” Haupt and Krauss suggest that לְתַלְפִּיּוֹת בָּנוּי denotes “constructed for siege-towers” or “built for an armory.” Honeyman suggests that תַלְפִּיּוֹת is a feminine plural noun with a standard nominative prefix ת and is derived from the verbal root לפא (“to arrange in stones”). Probably, the best solution is to relate this Hebrew root to Akkadian lapu (“to surround, enclose”), Arabic laffa or lifafah (“to envelope”), and Aramaic lpp and lp ’ (“to interlace, entwine, plait”). This is the simplest solution and does not demand emending the text. The preposition לְ ( lÿ ) could denote “in respect to” and the colon בָּנוּי לְתַלְפִּיּוֹת could be translated “built in rows (of stones)” or “built in terraces.” Thus, the phrase “built in rows of stones” refers to the outer walls of a tower built in spiraling rows of stones or built in terraces. This is a comparison of sight: (1) her neck was long and symmetrical or (2) she was wearing a strand of beads or necklaces wrapped around her neck like a tower built in spiraling rows of stones. See P. Haupt, “Heb. talpi’ot , Siege-Towers,” JBL 38 (1919): 186-88; S. Krauss, “The Archaeological Background of Some Passages in the Song of Songs,” JQR 32 (1941-42): 125-29; A. M. Honeyman, “Two Contributions to Canaanite Toponymy,” JTS 50 (1949): 51; B. S. J. Isserlin, “Song of Songs IV, 4: An Archaeological Note,” PEQ 90 (1958): 59-61; K. Crim, “‘Your Neck is Like the Tower of David’ (The Meaning of a Simile in Song of Solomon 4:4 ),” BT 22:2 (1977): 72-74; E. Klein, Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language , 704.


Scholars debate whether this refers to (1) the interior walls of a tower upon which warriors would hang their shields when not in use or (2) the external upper wall of a military fortress upon which warriors would hang their shields to add to their protection during battle. A few scholars suggest that what is pictured here are the internal walls of the tower and, on the basis of Ezek 27:10-11 , posit that in the ancient world there was a practice in which mercenaries, who had joined themselves to a king, would hang their shields upon his fortress wall as a sign of their allegiance. Following Crim, Deere suggests, “the custom of hanging shields on the tower was symbolic of the warriors’ allegiance to and valor for a particular king.” Crim suggests that the point of comparison of his praise would be something similar to what follows: “Just as the fame of Tyre in Ezek. 27:11 attracted mercenaries, the fame of the tower of David has attracted soldiers to come and enter its service. The shields hanging there show that they have given their allegiance to the tower. Your neck is like that tower. It is so beautiful that it could win the allegiance of a thousand heroic soldiers.” We would then translate something like this: “Your neck attracts men as the tower of David attracts warriors. A thousand heroic soldiers would swear allegiance to your beauty.” J. S. Deere suggests that the point of the comparison is that the bride’s neck was so beautiful and majestic that mighty warriors from near and far would have given their allegiance to her…It is as if he were saying that these soldiers would be willing to surrender their shields to her beauty. On the other hand, most scholars suggest that it refers to the common practice in the ancient Near East of lining the top wall of a military fortress tower with shields, behind which the soldiers could stand for protection leaving both hands free for bow and arrows (Note: It is possible to view Ezek 27:10-11 and 2 Chr 32:5 in this manner). This is supported by ancient Near Eastern art which pictures such a practice, especially by the relief of Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish which shows the top wall of Lachish lined with shields. The Illustrated Family Encyclopedia of the Living Bible , 10:56, notes: “The art of the ancient East often shows us the shields that were, in time of war, set in position on the towers of the city walls, so that defenders could safely fire arrows and hurl stones while standing upright behind them.” Those who see this as the imagery all agree that the point of comparison is to jeweled necklaces with pendants which could be compared to shields, as in 1:10-11 (A. Robert, T. J. Meek, G. Gerlemann, A. M. Honeyman, B. S. J. Isserlin, J. McKenzie). McKenzie expresses this view when he posits that she was wearing jewelry around her neck and that this was being compared to the shields hung around this military tower: “One of the many physical charms that the Beloved finds in his mistress (Song of Sol. 4:1-4 ) is her long neck which, with its stately poise, reminds him of the lofty tower of David. Just as this tower is hung all round with shields placed there by mighty men of valor, so is his mistress’ neck adorned with chains and strings of jewels. This is supported by the fact that 4:9 explicitly mentions a necklace with a multitude of jewels in it which she was wearing at this time. And Isserlin suggests that the complete image in view fits the evidence of both ancient Near Eastern military towers and jewelry which has been recovered archaeologically: “It seems to the present writer that a reading of the verse…can be taken to refer to the presence not of one, but two elements on the tower: there is the coursed masonry, and on top of it there are the shields. If we keep the idea that a multiple necklace is alluded to, then this should be made up of two kinds of elements: on top there should be a series of beads resembling round shields; below we should find something resembling either the short or the long side of building stones (according to whether the masonry is laid in headers or stretchers). Can necklaces of this type be found in the ancient Near East? It seems to the writer that the well-known sculpture from Arsos in Cyprus (Pl. VI) represents just this type of necklace. The upper beads do look like a row of round shields, as shown on the tower in the relief slab representing Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish, while the lower elements do evoke roughly bossed headers, as found in ancient Palestinian defence works” (B. S. J. Isserlin, The Israelites , 59, and plate VI). Composite necklaces such as this one might be referred to in Prov 1:9 . In any case, it is quite unlikely that the point of comparison was that she had a large, muscular neck, as some have suggested (M. Jastrow, L. Waterman, and R. Gordis). See A. M. Honeyman, “Two Contributions to Canaanite Toponymy,” JTS 50 (1949): 51; B. S. J. Isserlin, “Song of Songs IV, 4: An Archaeological Note,” PEQ 90 (1958): 59-61; The Illustrated Family Encyclopedia of the Living Bible , 10:56; K. R. Crim, “Your Neck is Like the Tower of David (The Meaning of a Simile in the Song of Solomon 4:4 ),” BT 22:2 (April 1977): 70-74.


Heb “until the day breathes.”


The Piel denominative verb לבב is derived from the noun לֵבָב ( levav , “heart”), and occurs only here. Its meaning is debated: (1) metonymical sense: “you have encouraged me,” that is, given me heart (BDB 525 s.v. לֵב ; AV, RSV); (2) intensive sense: “you have made my heart beat faster” (KBL 471 s.v. I לבב ); and (3) privative sense: “you have ravished my heart” or “you have stolen my heart” ( HALOT 515 s.v. I לבב ; GKC 141-42 §52. h ) (NIV). While the Niphal stem has a metonymical nuance (cause for effect): to get heart, that is, to get understanding ( Job 11:12 ), the Piel stem may have a privative nuance: to take away heart, that is, to take away the senses. Her beauty was so overwhelming that it robbed him of his senses (e.g., Hos 4:11 ). This is paralleled by a modern Palestinian love song: “She stood opposite me and deprived me of reason (literally, “took my heart”), your dark eyes slew me while I was singing, your eyebrows drove shame from me…the darkness of your eyes have slain me; O one clad in purple clothes, it is worthwhile falling in love with you, for your eyes are black and sparkle, and have slain me indeed.” Less likely is the proposal of Waldeman who relates this to Akkadian lababu (“to rage, be aroused to fury”), suggesting that Song 4:9 means “to become passionately aroused” or “to be aroused sexually.” See S. H. Stephan, “Modern Palestinian Parallels to the Song of Songs,” JPOS 2 (1922): 13; R. Gordis, Song of Songs and Lamentations , 85-86; N. M. Waldman, “A Note on Canticles 4:9 ,” JBL 89 (1970): 215-17; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament , 40-58.


Alternately, “eye-stone [of your necklace].” The term עִינַיִךְ (’ inayikh , “your eyes”) probably refers to her physical eyes (e.g., 4:1 ). However, in Sumero-Akkadian literature the term “eye” sometimes refers to the eye-stone of a necklace. Agate-stones were cut so that white stripes appeared around the black or brown core to look like the pupil on the eye. M. H. Pope ( Song of Songs [AB], 482-83) suggests that the parallelism between the A and B lines suggests the following: “with one of your eye-stones” and “with one jewel of your necklace.” See W. G. Lambert, “An Eye Stone of Esarhaddon’s Queen and Other Similar Gems,” RA 63 (1969): 65-71.


Or “with all the finest balsam trees.” The Hebrew term בֹּשֶׂם ( bosem ) can refer either to the balsam tree, the spice associated with it, or by extension any fragrant aroma used as perfuming oil or incense.


Heb “a fountain of gardens” or “a headwaters for gardens.” The term מַעְיַן ( m ’ yan , “fountain”) denotes “source, headwaters” as the place of origin of streams ( HALOT 612 s.v. מַעְיַן ). The term does not refer to a water fountain such as commonly found in modern cultivated gardens or parks; rather, it refers to the headwaters of streams and rivers, such as Banyas as the headwaters of the Jordan. The genitive construct מַעְיַן גַּנִּים ( m ’ yan gannim , “a fountain of gardens”) is an unusual expression that has been treated in various ways: (1) “a garden fountain,” that is, a fountain located in a garden ( HALOT 198 s.v. גַּן ); (2) “a fountain of gardens,” that is, the headwaters of many spring-watered gardens. The latter is preferred. In Song 4:12-14 the bride is figuratively described as a garden with exotic plants; however, in 4:15 the metaphor shifts to the source of the water for the garden: מַעְיַן (“headwaters”) and בְּאֵר ( bÿ ’ er , “well”) of fresh water flowing down from Lebanon.


Heb “a watering place” or “well of underground water.” The term בְּאֵר ( bÿ ’ er , “well”) refers to an underground well that is dug in the ground to provide fresh water for humans and beasts (e.g., Gen 21:19, 25, 30; 26:15, 18, 19, 22, 32 ) ( HALOT 106 s.v. I בְּאֵר ; DCH 2:87 s.v. I בְּאֵר ). The term is often used in parallelism with בּוֹר ( bor , “cistern”), עַיִן (’ ayin , “spring”), and שׁוּחָה ( shukhah , “water-hole”).


1. 5:2; 11 QT 45:16) ( DCH 3:202 s.v. I חַי 1; HALOT 308 s.v. חיה 1; BDB 312 s.v. חַי f). The adjective חַיִּים (“living”) frequently refers to what is fresh ( Gen 26:19 ), healthy (Sir 30:14), or thriving ( Gen 43:7, 27 ). Fresh, flowing water is pictured as pure ( Lev 14:5-6, 50-52; 15:13 ) and a source of refreshment ( Gen 26:19 ). See P. Reymond, L ’ eau, sa vie, et sa signification dans l ’ Ancien Testament (VTSup), 136.


Heb “may flow.”


Heb “my heart.” The term לִבִּי ( livvi , “my heart”) is a metonymy of association for emotions (e.g., Prov 15:13 ; Song 3:11 ) or thoughts (e.g., Ps 90:12 ; Prov 18:15 ) or a synecdoche of part for the whole. If this verse is introducing a dream sequence in 5:2-8 , this is a metonymy for the Beloved’s thoughts in her dream: “I was sleeping but my mind was dreaming.” If this verse depicts the Beloved beginning to doze off to sleep – only to be awakened by his knocking at her door – then it is a synecdoche of part for the whole: “I was about to fall asleep when I was suddenly awakened.”


Heb “but my heart was awake.” Scholars have interpreted 5:2 a in two basic ways: (1) The Beloved had been asleep or was just about to fall asleep when she was awakened by the sound of him knocking on the door of her bedroom chambers. The term לִבִּי ( livvi , “my heart”) is a synecdoche of part for the whole: “my heart” = “I.” The participle עֵר (’ er ) functions verbally, describing a past ingressive state: “was awakened.” The line would be rendered: “I was sleeping when I (= my heart) was awakened.” (2) The Beloved was sleeping, but her mind was dreaming (in her dream she heard him knocking on her door). In this case, לִבִּי (“my heart”) is a metonymy of association for the thoughts (e.g., Ps 90:12 ; Prov 18:15 ) and emotions (e.g., Prov 15:13 ; Song 3:11 ) she experienced during her dream: “my heart” = “my mind.” The participle עֵר functions verbally, describing a past progressive state: “was awake.” The line could be nuanced, “I was asleep, but my mind was dreaming.” Many translations adopt this approach: “I was asleep but my heart waketh” (KJV), “I was asleep but my heart was awake” (NASB, NIV), and “I was asleep, but my heart was wakeful” (NJPS).


The phrase “at the door” does not appear in the Hebrew but is supplied in the translation for clarity.


Possibly a euphemism ( double entendre ). The term יָד ( yad , “hand”) normally refers simply to the physical hand ( HALOT 386 s.v. I יָד 1; BDB 388 s.v. יָד 1). There are, however, at least three occasions when יָד refers to tall stone pillars (translated “monument” or “pillar”), such as those used in Canaanite fertility-cults in the form of phallic representations ( 1 Sam 15:12 ; 2 Sam 18:18 ; Isa 56:5 ). It is clearly used as a euphemism for the male copulative organ in Isa 57:8, 10 . It is now an established fact that yad is sometimes used as a euphemism for the male sexual organ in Ugaritic literature (e.g., text no. 52:33-35) ( UT 1072). The noun יָד is also used in the Qumran literature in this sense in a list of penalties for indecent exposure (Manual of Discipline 7:12-15 ). Thus, several scholars suggest that a subtle double entendre in 5:4-6 . The imagery of the man thrusting his “hand” through the “hole” in the door, and the Beloved “opening” to her lover, with her fingers dripped with “myrrh” on the “handles of the lock,” might have a double reference to the literal attempt to gain entry to her bedroom and his desire to make love to her. See M. Delcour, “Two Special Meanings of the Word yd in Biblical Hebrew,” JSS 12 (1967): 230-40.


Heb “sent his hand through.” Most scholars suggest that it denotes “to send through,” that is, “to thrust through” or “to extend through.” For example, BDB 1018 s.v. שָׁלַח 3.a proposes that מִן + שָׁלַח ( shalakh + min ) means “to stretch out (his hand) from the outside, inward.” He was attempting to open the door from the outside by extending his hand inside the door through some kind of latch-opening: “he put in his hand by the opening of the door” (KJV), “he extended his hand through the opening” (NASB), “he thrust his hand through the latch-opening” (NIV). Others, however, suggest that the construction. מִן + שָׁלַח denotes “to withdraw from” (e.g., 1 Kgs 13:4 ). The preposition מִן is taken to mean, not “through,” but “away from.” Thus, he was withdrawing his hand from the latch-opening, that is, he had given up and was leaving. This approach is adopted by NJPS: “My beloved took his hand off the latch.” His departure is clearly stated in 5:6 , “I opened [the door] for my beloved, but my beloved had already turned and gone away; my heart sank at his departure!” (see study notes below on 5:6 ).


Heb “hole.” Probably “latch-hole” or “key-hole,” but possibly a euphemism ( double entendre ). The noun חֹר ( khor , “hole”) is used in OT in a literal and metaphorical sense: (1) literal sense: hole bored in the lid of a chest ( 2 Kgs 12:10 ); hole in a wall ( Ezek 8:7 ); hole in the ground or cave used as hiding places for men ( 1 Sam 13:6; 14:11 ; Isa 42:23 ); hole in the ground, as the dwelling place of an asp ( Isa 11:8 ); and a hole in a mountain, as the den of lions ( Nah 2:13 ); and (2) figurative sense: hole of an eye (metonymy of association), that is, eye-socket ( Zech 14:12 ) ( HALOT 348 s.v. II חֹר ; BDB 359 s.v. III חֹר ). While the meaning of חֹר in Song 5:4 is clear – “hole” – there is a debate whether it is used in a literal or figurative sense. (1) Literal sense: The lexicons suggest that it denotes “hole of a door, that is, key-hole or latch-opening” ( HALOT 348; BDB 359). Most commentators suggest that it refers to a hole bored through the bedroom door to provide access to the latch or lock. The mention in 5:5 of כַּפּוֹת הַמַּנְעוּל ( kaffot hamman ’ ul , “latches of the door-bolt”) suggests that the term refers to some kind of opening associated with the latch of the bedroom door. This approach is followed by most translations: “the hole in the door” (JB), “the latch-hole” (NEB), “the latch-opening” (NIV), “the latch-hole” (NEB), “the latch” (RSV, NJPS), and “the opening of the door” (KJV). The assumption that the hole in question was a latch-hole in the door is reflected in Midrash Rabbah: Rabbi Abba ben Kahana said, “Why is the hole of the door mentioned here, seeing that it is a place where vermin swarm?” The situation envisaged by his actions are often depicted thus: In ancient Near Eastern villages, the bolting systems of doors utilized door-bolts and keys made of wood. The keys were often stored either on the outside (!) or inside of the door. If the key was placed on the inside of the door, a small hole was bored through the door so that a person could reach through the hole with the key to unlock the door. The key was often over a foot in length, and the keyhole large enough for a man’s hand. Apparently, he extended his hand through the hole from the outside to try to unbolt the door latch on the inside. He could put his hand through the hole, but could not open the door without the key. (2) Figurative sense: Because of the presence of several erotic motifs in 5:2-8 and the possibility that a double entendre is present (see notes below), several scholars suggest that the term is a euphemism for the female vagina ( HALOT 348). They suggest that חֹר (“hole”) is the female counterpart for the euphemistic usage of יָד (“hand”) in 5:4 . See A. S. Cook, The Root of the Thing: A Study of Job and the Song of Songs , 110, 123; Cheryl Exum, “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs,” ZAW 85 (1973): 50-51; M. H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB), 518-19.