i. e., "To give honor to the fool is like binding a stone in a sling; you cannot throw it." In each case you misapply and so waste. Others render in the sense of the margin: To use a precious stone where a pebble would be sufficient, is not less foolish than to give honor to a fool.

As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honor to a fool - It is entirely thrown away. This, however, is a difficult proverb; and the versions give but little light on the subject. The Hebrew may be translated, "As a piece of precious stone among a heap of stones, so is he that giveth honor to a fool." Or, As he that putteth a precious stone in a heap of stones. See Parkhurst: but on this interpretation the meaning would rather be, "It is as useless to throw a jewel among a heap of stones to increase its bulk, as to give honor to a fool."
As he that sendith a stoon into a hepe of monee; so he that geveth to an unwiisman wirschip - Old MS. Bible.
"He that setteth a foole in hye dignite, that is even as yf a man dyd caste a precious stone upon the galous." - Coverdale. This translator refers to the custom of throwing a stone to the heap under which a criminal lay buried. The Vulgate gives some countenance to this translation: "He who gives honor to a fool is like one who throws a stone to Mercury's heap." Mercury was considered the deity who presided over the highways; and stones were erected in different places to guide the traveler. Hence those lines of Dr. Young: -
"Death stands like Mercuries in every way;
And kindly points us to our journey's end."

As he that bindeth a stone in a sling,.... That so fastens it to it that it cannot be slung out of it, it becomes useless and does not answer the end for which it is put there; or that places it there that it may be cast out, and is cast out, and so is thrown away, and of no more use; or that puts a precious stone, so some interpret it, in a heap of common stones, even in such a heap as is used at the stoning of malefactors; or increases the heap of stones on such, which the more exposes them, and the greater reproach they are loaded with; so the more a fool is praised, it does but bring to mind his folly, and issues in his greater disgrace, so Gussetius (o): or rather it has respect to a precious stone put in such a heap of stones, as Luther; or else, according to Schultens, to such an one put into a heap of sepulchral stones; or, as Aben Ezra, that binds up a stone, a common stone, in purple, which to do is ridiculous, so R. Joseph Kimchi; the Vulgate Latin version renders it,
"as he that casts a stone to Mercury's heap;''
a Heathen deity, called by the eastern people Mertholin and Margenah (p), which last is near the same with the Hebrew word here used; whose statue was set up where two or more ways met, to direct travellers; and who therefore out of respect to the deity, and to show gratitude to him, used to cast a stone to the heap for the support of it; and which stones, set up in such doubtful places, were dedicated to him, and were called after his name (q); and not only travellers did this in honour of the deity, and to make his statue more manifest (r), but also for profit, to clear the way from stones; and this custom obtained with the Indians, Arabs, Saracens, and now does with the Mahometans (s): and such heaps of stones were also placed in cities, and at the doors of houses, in honour of Mercury, and were called from him Hermae (t); these stones were also erected for borders of countries (u). But it is not probable that this custom obtained in Solomon's time; and yet some Jewish writers interpret it to this sense, as if he that gives honour to a fool is like him that casts a stone to Mercury; and Jarchi in the text observes it as the sense of some of their Rabbins,
"that he that teacheth the law to a disciple that is not fit, is as he that casts a stone to Mercury;''
and to cast a stone to Mercury is with them the same as to commit idolatry (w); but either of the former senses is best;
so is he that giveth honour to a fool; it is all thrown away and lost, as a stone out of a sling; or as unseemly as to put a precious stone among a heap of stones, or a common stone in purple; See Gill on Proverbs 26:1.
(o) Ebr. Comment. p. 777. (p) D. Herbert de Chefbury d. Relig Gent. c. 7. p. 58. (q) Suidas in voce (r) Phurnutus de Natura Deorum, p. 33. (s) Vid. D. Herbert de Cherbury, ut supra, p. 59. (t) Cornel. Nepot. Vit. Alcibiad. l. 7. c. 3. (u) Pausan. Corinth. sive, l. 2. p. 157. (w) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 7. s. 6. & Maimon. in ib.

A stone, bound in a sling, is useless; so honor, conferred on a fool, is thrown away.

This proverb presents to us a new difficulty.
As one binds a stone in a sling,
So is he who giveth honour to a fool.
This translation is warranted by tradition, and is in accordance with the actual facts. A sling is elsewhere called קלע; but that מרגּמה also in the passage before us signifies a sling (from רגם, to throw with stones = to stone or to throw stones = to sling, cf. Targ. Esther 5:14 רגּם, of David's slinging stones against Goliath), is supported by the lxx, Syr., and Targ. on the one side, and the Jewish Glossists on the other (Rashi: fronde, Ital. frombola). Rightly the lxx renders כּצרור as a verb: ὡς ἀποδεσμεύει; on the contrary, the Syr. and Targ. regard it as a substantive: as a piece of stone; but צרור as a substantive does not mean a piece, as one would put into a sling to use as a weapon, but a grain, and thus a little piece, 2-Samuel 17:13; cf. Amos 9:9. Erroneously Ewald: "if one binds to the sling the stone which he yet seeks to throw, then all this throwing and aiming are in vain; so it is in vain to give to a fool honour which does not reach him." If one seeks to sling a stone, he must lay the lapis missilis so in the sling that it remains firm there, and goes forth only by the strong force of the slinging; this fitting in (of the stone), so that it does not of itself fall out, is expressed by צרר בּ (cf. Proverbs 30:4; Job 26:8). The giving is compared to the binding, the stones to the honour, and the sling to the fool: the fool is related to the honour which one confers on him, as the stone to the sling in which one lays it - the giving of honour is a slinging of honour. Otherwise (after Kimchi) the Venet. ὡς συνδεσμὸς λίθου ἐν λιθάδι, i.e., as Fleischer translates: ut qui crumenam gemmarum plenam in acervum lapidum conjicit. Thus also Ralbag, Ahron b. Josef, and others, and lastly Zckler. The figure is in the form of an address, and מרגּמה (from רגם, accumulare, congerere, vid., under Psalm 67:1-7 :28) might certainly mean the heaping of stones. But אבן is not used in the sense of אבן יקרה (precious stone); also one does not see why one precious stone is not enough as the figure of honour, and a whole heap is named; but in the third place, כּן נותן requires for כצרור a verbal signification. Therefore Jerome translates: sicut qui mittit lapidem in acervum Mercurii; in this the echo of his Jewish teacher, for the Midrash thus explains literally: every one who gives honour to a fool is like one who throws a stone on a heap of stones consecrated to Mercury. Around the Hermes (ἑρμαὶ), i.e., pillars with the head of Mercury (statuae mercuriales or viales), were heaps of stones (ἕρμακες), to which the passer-by was wont to throw a stone; it was a mark of honour, and served at the same time to improve the way, whose patron was Mercurious (מרקולים). It is self-evident that this Graeco-Roman custom to which the Talm. makes frequent reference, cannot be supposed to have existed in the times of Solomon. Luther translates independently, and apparently rendering into German that in acervum Mercurii: that is as if one threw a precious stone on the "Rabenstein," i.e., the heap of stones raised at the foot of the gallows. This heap of stones is more natural and suitable to the times of Solomon than the heap of stones dedicated to Mercury, if, like Gussetius, one understands מרגמה of a heap of stones, supra corpus lapidatum. But against this and similar interpretations it is enough to remark that כצרור cannot signify sicut qui mittit. Had such a meaning been intended, the word would have been כּהשׁליך or כּמשׁליך. Still different is the rendering of Joseph Kimchi, Aben Ezra, and finally Lwenstein: as when one wraps up a stone in a piece of purple stuff. But ארגּמן, purple, has nothing to do with the verb רגם; it is, as the Aramaic ארגּון shows, a compound word; the supposition of a denom. מרגּמה thus proceeds from a false etymological supposition. And Hitzig's combination of מרגמה with (Arab.) munjam, handle and beam of a balance (he translates: as a stone on the beam of a balance, i.e., lies on it), is nothing but refined ingenuity, since we have no need at all of such an Arab. word for a satisfactory clearing up of מרגמה. We abide by the rendering of the sling. Bttcher translates: a sling that scatters; perhaps מרגמה in reality denotes such a sling as throws many stones at once. Let that, however, be as it may: that he who confers a title of honour, a place of honour, and the like, on a fool, is like one who lays a stone in a sling, is a true and intelligibly formed thought: the fool makes the honour no honour; he is not capable of maintaining it; that which is conferred on him is uselessly wasted.

Bindeth - Whereby he hinders his own design of throwing the stone out of it. So - No less absurd is he that giveth to a fool that honour which he is not capable of using aright.