There is some difficulty about the ἅπαξ λεγομ. תּהותתוּ .לןדו (Psalm 62:4). Abulwald, whom Parchon, Kimchi, and most others follow, compares the Arabic hatta 'l-rajul, the man brags; but this Arab. ht (intensive form htht) signifies only in a general way to speak fluently, smoothly and rapidly one word after another, which would give too poor an idea here. There is another Arab. htt (cogn. htk, proscindere) which has a meaning that is even better suited to this passage, and one which is still retained in the spoken language of Syria at the present day: hattani is equivalent to "he compromised me" ( equals hataka es-sitra ‛annı̂, he has pulled my veil down), dishonoured me before the world by speaking evil concerning me; whence in Damascus el-hettât is the appellation for a man who without any consideration insults a person before others, whether he be present or absent at the time. But this Arab. htt only occurs in Kal and with an accusative of the object. The words עד־אנה תהותתו על־אישׁ find their most satisfactory explanation in the Arab. hwwt in common use in Damascus at the present day, which is not used in Kal, but only in the intensive form. The Piel Arab. hwwt ‛lâ flân signifies to rush upon any one, viz., with a shout and raised fist in order to intimidate him.

(Note: Neshwn and the Kms say: "hawwata and hajjata bi-fulân-in signifies to call out to any one in order to put him in terror (Arab. ṣâḥ bh);" "but in Syria," as Wetzstein goes on to say, "the verb does not occur as med. Jod, nor is hawwata there construed with Arab. b, but only with ‛lâ. A very ready phrase with the street boys in Damascus is Arab. l-'yy š' thwwt ‛lı̂, 'why dost thou threaten me?' ")

From this הוּת, of which even the construction with Arab. ‛lâ, together with the intensive form is characteristic, we here read the Pil. הותת, which is not badly rendered by the lxx ἐπιτίθεσθε, Vulgate irruitis.

In Psalm 62:4 it is a question whether the reading תּרצּחוּ of the school of Tiberias or the Babylonian תּרצּחוּ is to be preferred. Certainly the latter; for the former (to be rendered, "may you" or "ye shall be broken in pieces, slain") produces a thought that is here introduced too early, and one that is inappropriate to the figures that follow. Standing as it still does under the regimen of עד־אנה, תרצחו is to be read as a Piel; and, as the following figures show, is to be taken, after Psalm 42:11, in its primary signification contundere (root רץ).

(Note: The reading of Ben-Asher תּרצּחוּ is followed by Aben-Ezra, Kimchi, and others, taking this form (which could not possibly be anything else) as Pual. The reading of Ben-Naphtali תּרצּחוּ is already assumed in B. Sanhedrin 119a. Besides these the reading תּרצּחוּ without Dag.) is also found, which cannot be taken as a resolved Piel, since the Metheg is wanting, but is to be read terotzchu, and is to be taken (as also the reading מלשׁני, Psalm 101:5, and ויּחלקם, 1 Chronicles 23:6; 1 Chronicles 24:3) as Poal (vid., on Psalm 94:20; Psalm 109:10).)

The sadness of the poet is reflected in the compressed, obscure, and peculiar character of the expression. אישׁ and כּלּכם (a single one-ye all) stand in contrast. כּקיר וגו, sicut parietem equals similem parieti (cf. Psalm 63:6), forms the object to תּרצּחוּ. The transmitted reading גּדר הדּחוּיה, although not incorrect in itself so far as the gender (Proverbs 24:31) and the article are concerned (Ges. 111, 2, a), must apparently be altered to גּדרה דחוּיה (Olshausen and others) in accordance with the parallel member of the verse, since both גּדרה and גּדר are words that can be used of every kind of surrounding or enclosure. To them David seems like a bent, overhanging wall, like a wall of masonry that has received the thrust that must ultimately cause its fall; and yet they rush in upon him, and all together they pursue against the one man their work of destruction and ruin. Hence he asks, with an indignation that has a somewhat sarcastic tinge about it, how long this never-satiated self-satisfying of their lust of destruction is meant to last. Their determination (יעץ as in Isaiah 14:24) is clear. It aims only or entirely (אך, here tantummodo, prorsus) at thrusting down from his high position, that is to say from the throne, viz., him, the man at whom they are always rushing (להדּיח equals להדּיחו). No means are too base for them in the accomplishment of their object, not even the mask of the hypocrite. The clauses which assume a future form of expression are, logically at least, subordinate clauses (EW. 341, b). The Old Testament language allows itself a change of number like בּפיו instead of בּפיהם, even to the very extreme, in the hurry of emotional utterance. The singular is distributive in this instance: suo quisque ore, like לו in Isaiah 2:20, ממּנּו, Isaiah 5:23, cf. Isaiah 30:22, Zechariah 14:12. The pointing יקללוּ follows the rule of יהללו, Psalm 22:27, ירננו, Psalm 149:5, and the like (to which the only exceptions are הנני, חקקי, רננת).