Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Mikha 2:4

[Daniel 2:1] Vatitpaʿem (וַתִּתְפָּעֶם - His spirit was agitated): [This root פ-ע-ם relates to being struck or agitated,] like [David says]: “I was agitated (nifʿamti - נִפְעַמְתִּי) and could not speak” [Psalms 77:5)]. And their derivation is [related to the striking action in] “striking (holem - הוֹלֵם) the anvil (paʿam - פַּעַם)” [Isaiah 41:7] – like a person who is struck/crushed and struck/crushed again. The Gaon [Saadia Gaon] said: that Pharaoh knew the dream but did not know its interpretation, therefore it is written concerning Pharaoh “and his spirit was agitated” (vattippaʿem rucho - וַתִּפָּעֶם רוּחוֹ, Genesis 41:8), which is from the Nifal conjugation. But [regarding] Nebuchadnezzar, who did not know the dream or the interpretation, it is written concerning him “and his spirit became agitated” (vatitpaʿem rucho - וַתִּתְפָּעֶם רוּחוֹ, Daniel 2:1), [using the Hitpael conjugation]. If so [Ibn Ezra challenges Saadia], what will he do [with the fact] that he [Nebuchadnezzar himself later] says “my spirit was agitated” (vatipaʿem ruchi - וַתִּפָּעֶם רוּחִי) [Daniel 2:3], [using the Nifal form even though he didn't know the dream]? And it is possible that the dagesh [doubling dot] in the Pey [פ] of vatipaʿem (וַתִּפָּעֶם - Nifal form) is instead of the Nun [which typically characterizes] the Nifal conjugation [indicating assimilation]. Because a verb which is transitive [in Qal/Piel] can be [expressed passively/reflexively in the] Nifal – like “and he fought (vayilachem - וַיִּלָּחֶם, Nifal) against Israel” [Numbers 21:1]. Or [alternatively, explaining the Hitpael form וַתִּתְפָּעֶם in this verse, Daniel 2:1], the dagesh in the Pey is due to the assimilation of the Tav [ת] of the Hitpael conjugation [a common feature of this conjugation with certain root letters]. And thus, “his spirit became agitated” (vatitpaʿem rucho) would be like [saying] “his strength became agitated/stirred” (vatipaʿem kocho - וַתִּפָּעֶם כֹּחוֹ). [This is perhaps] in the way of [the grammatical structure in] “And the one being purified (ha-mitaher - הַמִּטַּהֵר, Hitpael participle) shall wash (v'kibbes - וְכִבֶּס, Piel) his clothes” [Leviticus 14:8]. [Regarding the phrase] And his sleep was upon him (וּשְׁנָתוֹ נִהְיְתָה עָלָיו - u-shnato nihyetah alav): The meaning of “was upon him” (nihyetah alav - נִהְיְתָה עָָלָיו) is the opposite of “and my sleep was sweet (arvah - עָרְבָה) to me” [Jeremiah 31:26]; [meaning] in the sense of being disturbed/disrupted (shibbush - שִׁבּוּשׁ). And similar to it is [Daniel's statement]: “I was undone/faint (nihyeiti - נִהְיֵיתִי) and sick” [Daniel 8:27]. And it is close in meaning to [the concept expressed by the similar-sounding root for lamentation, as in] “a lamentation shall be” (n'hi nihyah - נְהִי נִהְיָה) [cf. Micah 2:4].

וַיִנָּהוּ' is an expression of drawing; in Aramaic, 'תִּתְּנֵהוּ לְפוּלְחָנִי' [they were drawn after My worship]. And similarly 'וְלֹא נֹהַּ בָּהֶם' it is no use to attract them to good.¹ Yechezkeil 7:11. Menachem classifies 'וַיִנָּהוּ' as an expression of lamentation, as in 'נְהִי נִהְיָה' [a lament has come to be].²Michoh 2:4. And similarly 'וְלֹא נֹהַּ בָּהֶם' [is rendered as, 'and they will have no remorse']. And the meaning of 'וַיִנָּהוּ אַחֲרֵי ה' is, "they lamented their evil deeds, and returned after 'ה." Another explanation is that 'וַיִנָּהוּ' means 'and they gathered,' as in, "And all the nations will be gathered into it [Yerusholayim]"³Yirmiyohu 3:17. which the Targum renders, "And all nations will gather into it to worship." In this manner, the verse 'וְלֹא נֹהַּ בָּהֶם' may be rendered לֹא מֵהֶם "neither from them," וְלֹא מֵהֲמוֹנָם "nor from their multitude וְלֹא [מִ]נֹהַּ [שֶׁ]בָּהֶם meaning nor from their gathering.

Gerade das Entgegengesetzte ist המיר, es bezeichnet durchweg den Tausch eines Guten gegen ein Schlechteres: ההמיר גוי אלהים וגו׳ (Jirmija 2, 11), כבודם בקלון אמיר (Hosea 4, 7), וימירו את כבודם (Ps. 106, 20) חלק עמי ימיר (Micha 2, 4).