Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk 1 Tawarikh 3:2

הַשְּׁלִשִׁי֙ לְאַבְשָׁל֣וֹם בֶּֽן־מַעֲכָ֔ה בַּת־תַּלְמַ֖י מֶ֣לֶךְ גְּשׁ֑וּר הָרְבִיעִ֖י אֲדֹנִיָּ֥ה בֶן־חַגִּֽית׃

yang ketiga, Absalom, anak Maakha, putri Talmai, raja Gesur; yang keempat, Adonia, anak Hagit;

Ibn Ezra

ולשרים And princes. The ל has no meaning as far as I know. Comp. לאבשלום (1 Chr. 3:2), למן (Ex. 9:18).1Comp. Sepher Harikmah, 100:6: ל is used sometimes to indicate the subject; e.g., Is. 31:1; 1 Sam. 15:22; Deut. 24:5; 1 Chr. 29:6; Ezr. 1:5; Gen. 1:15; or the predicate, e.g., 1 Chr. 1:13; 21:12; 2 Chr. 3:12; 5:12; Jer. 30:12, 15.
Tanya RabiBookmarkShareCopy

Ibn Ezra

ללבושך Thine apparel.8A. V., In thine apparel. Comp. c. xxxii., Note 1. The preposition ל is pleonastic as in 1) לאבשלום Chr. 3:2). Like him that treadeth in the winefat. Blood is in colour similar to wine.
Tanya RabiBookmarkShareCopy

Chizkuni

לחפשי, some commentators claim that the letter ל at the beginning of this word, meaning “to” is superfluous, just as that letter is superfluous in Chronicles I 3,2: והשלישי לאבשלום, which means nothing other than והשלישי אבשלום, “the third: Absalom.” Here too the Torah had to write only: יצא חפשי, “will go free.” The letter י in the word חפשי, is a preposition just as in the word: הקדמוני in Ezekiel 10,19, which converts that word to mean: “which is at the eastern gate.” It is similar to the words: שלישי, רביעי, “third, fourth, etc. Other commentators understand the prefix letter ל in לחפשי as converting its meaning to a noun: “לחופש, to freedom.” They compare it to expressions such as “to דרור.” If so, then the letter י at the end of the word: לחפשי would be superfluous, just as the letter י in the words: ,היושבי, המגביהי המשפילי in Psalms 23,1, 113,5 and 113,6 are superfluous. [seeing that there we deal with poetic form of expressions, it is not fair to declare these words as superfluous. Ed.] The word: חנם, “without compensation to the master,” is the Torah‘s way of informing us of this condition. חנם, without bureaucratic delays such as a document proving that the “slave” had been released by his master. Neither did he have to compensate the master for any hours of work not actually served during any part of those six years (such as the time when he was sick).
Tanya RabiBookmarkShareCopy