01_Biblica_1_F_Gregory_Layout 1 05/11/12 12:13 Pagina 332 332 BRADLEY C. GREGORY a statement like “for slanderous statements are made carelessly all the time” would be expected. Rather, the empathy reflected in the rhetorical question in the second line suggests that the slip of the tongue is related to something the person in question has said, as described in v. 14. In other words, v. 16 seems to be asserting that even if the other person said something wrong, there may be miti- gating circumstances: he may have said it unintentionally, in which case Ben Sira counsels empathetic compassion: “Who has not sinned with his tongue?” The obvious answer to this rhetorical ques- tion is “no one”. From the rhetorical progression in this pericope, we can make three observations about Ben Sira’s idea of a slip of the tongue. First, the slip described here is unintentional; it is, literally, “not from his heart” 25. It is precisely the potentially unintentional nature of it, coupled with the appeal to common experience, which is the motivation for empathy towards such a person. Second, and related, this kind of slip is understood by Ben Sira to be universal. The rhetorical question in v. 16b points to the fact that everyone, wise as well as foolish, has made slips of this nature. Third, how one un- derstands the moral evaluation of the slip is contingent upon the force of the rhetorical question in v. 16b. Is it conceptually parallel and thus identifying the slip as something sinful that was said? Or is Ben Sira arguing along the lines of a qal wahomer, appealing to the fact that everyone has sinned with the tongue and therefore should be compassionate towards a non-sinful error, a slip of the tongue? While the qualifier “though unintentional” might be taken to suggest the latter, Ben Sira elsewhere portrays slips of the tongue as culpable, at least insofar as they are indicative of a lack of dis- cipline. The unintentional aspect is actually part of what makes slips of speech culpable. In addition, the fact that such a slip of the tongue has initiated the need for reproof suggests that the former interpretation is more probable. A comparable view of culpable slips of the tongue can be found among the sectarian literature at Qumran. In the Community Rule if someone speaks angrily against one of the priests the punishment is exclusion from the holy food for one year. If, however, he speaks unintentionally (‫ ,)שגגה‬the pun- Segal suggests ‫ ולא מלבו‬as underlying the Greek kai. ouvk avpo. yuch/j 25 (‫.)511 ,ספר בן־סירא השלם‬