04_Reymond_224_246 15/07/14 12:18 Pagina 234 234 ERIC D. REYMOND where and when they are repeated and/or who repeats them. In re- lation to this, note Sir 6,9 where Ben Sira recognizes that there is danger in someone else repeating what you have spoken or done: “There is a friend who turns to an enemy, and will lay bare the dis- pute of your insult ($tprx byr)” (Ms A) 21. The preceding passages illustrate that Ben Sira was conscious of the variability in linguistic interpretation provided by the shifting circumstances of speech: the context of when, where, how, and by whom particular words were spoken. As the following paragraphs indicate, Ben Sira was also aware of how the various components of language could create multiple interpretations. IV. Ambiguity due to Syntax, Morphology, and Phonology A sensitivity to the effects of ambiguous words and syntax is apparent in the work of almost all poets, but Ben Sira’s use of am- biguous language (including that which depends on polysemous and homophonous words) seems particularly integral to his teach- ing. His teaching not only emphasizes the fact that people will in- terpret words in different ways, but also that many ideas or beliefs are more complicated than people often assume. For example, he writes that “shame” (tXb) is sometimes not shameful (Sir 4,21), that glory (do,xa) can lead to “diminishment” (evla,ttwsij) (20,11), that prudence (panourgi,a) can lead to bitterness (21,12), that death can be a relief (41,2). Even the most basic of concepts, like “good”, are not easy to identify: “[All these things (i.e., human necessities like water, fire, salt, milk) are good for those who are good, but] are turned loathsome [for those who are wicked]” (Sir 39,27 Mas [Ms B]). In some cases, Ben Sira uses ambiguous and confusing language to highlight the difficulties in communicating due to va- garies of context as well as to undermine certain assumptions about basic concepts. We have already seen one example of syntactic ambiguity that underlines the disparity in interpretation created through disparity 21 Ms C has the same text, except for the last word where it reads “he will withhold [$Xxy]”, a corruption preumably; see ELITZUR, “A New Hebrew Fragment”, 23, and IDEM, “Two New Leaves”, 22-23.