וָאָק֣וּם ׀ לַ֗יְלָה אֲנִי֮ וַאֲנָשִׁ֣ים ׀ מְעַט֮ עִמִּי֒ וְלֹא־הִגַּ֣דְתִּי לְאָדָ֔ם מָ֗ה אֱלֹהַי֙ נֹתֵ֣ן אֶל־לִבִּ֔י לַעֲשׂ֖וֹת לִירוּשָׁלִָ֑ם וּבְהֵמָה֙ אֵ֣ין עִמִּ֔י כִּ֚י אִם־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֖י רֹכֵ֥ב בָּֽהּ׃
Lalu pada malam hari aku bangun, aku bersama beberapa orang saja. Aku tidak memberitahukan kepada siapa pun apa yang ditaruh Allahku dalam hatiku untuk dilakukan bagi Yerusalem. Tidak ada hewan tunggangan bersamaku selain hewan yang kutunggangi.
Rabbeinu Bahya
בבגדו בה, “seeing he has betrayed her.” He would have betrayed her if he sold her to a Gentile master. He can only sell her to someone who can wed her in accordance with Jewish law.
There is a disagreement between the two scholars Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva (Kidushin 18) on the precise meaning here of the words בבגדו בה, “seeing he has betrayed her.” One of the scholars traces the word בבגדו to the word בגד, “garment,” whereas the other scholar understands is as בגידה, “betrayal.” Rabbi Akiva who holds that it is connected to בגד bases himself on the principle of יש אם למקרא that the reading of the text is more authoritative when it conflicts with the spelling. The reading is based on the word לו as we read the word לא as if it had been spelled with a ו, meaning the master had designated her for himself. By becoming betrothed to her master at the time she entered his service he had placed her under the protection of his mantle, figuratively speaking. Once her master had done this he is no longer free to sell her. Rabbi Eliezer, on the other and, believes that the spelling is of greater weight whenever there is an ambiguity in the meaning of the words, a principle known as יש אם למסורת. In our case the spelling of the word לא is with the letter א meaning “no” i.e. he had not betrothed her to himself. Rabbi Akiva sees an ambiguity even in the word בבגדו-בה itself, being convinced it means “when his garment was on her,” seeing that if it were derived from בגידה, betrayal, the vowel under the second letter ב should have been a chataf kametz instead of a chirik which is proof that it is derived from בגד, a word in which the basic vowel segol always turns into a chirik when it appears in the possessive form. The word בה is to be understood as עליה, “upon her.” The word בה also means עליה in Nechemyah 2,12 הבהמה אשר אני רוכב בה, “the beast which I ride on.” Rabbi Eliezer understands the word as derived from בגידה even though the vowel pattern does not appear to support his theory. The reason is that he considers the word not as a possessive form but as an infinitive. The vowel chirik as such would be perfectly in place. A Biblical example supporting his theory would be Leviticus 26,26 בשברי לכם מטה לחם, “when I break for you the staff of bread.” The reason the Torah writes בה, (according to Rabbi Eliezer) is that the preposition used with the word בגד, betray, is always the letter ב. To quote but two examples: (Malachi 2,14 and Malachi 2,15) אשת נעוריך אשר בגדת בה, “the wife of your youth whom you have betrayed; or ובאשת נעוריך אל יבגוד, “and let no one break faith with the wife of your youth.” On that same folio of the Talmud Rabbi Shimon holds that we pay halachic attention to both the spelling and the reading so that we can derive two rulings from the verse.
There is a disagreement between the two scholars Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva (Kidushin 18) on the precise meaning here of the words בבגדו בה, “seeing he has betrayed her.” One of the scholars traces the word בבגדו to the word בגד, “garment,” whereas the other scholar understands is as בגידה, “betrayal.” Rabbi Akiva who holds that it is connected to בגד bases himself on the principle of יש אם למקרא that the reading of the text is more authoritative when it conflicts with the spelling. The reading is based on the word לו as we read the word לא as if it had been spelled with a ו, meaning the master had designated her for himself. By becoming betrothed to her master at the time she entered his service he had placed her under the protection of his mantle, figuratively speaking. Once her master had done this he is no longer free to sell her. Rabbi Eliezer, on the other and, believes that the spelling is of greater weight whenever there is an ambiguity in the meaning of the words, a principle known as יש אם למסורת. In our case the spelling of the word לא is with the letter א meaning “no” i.e. he had not betrothed her to himself. Rabbi Akiva sees an ambiguity even in the word בבגדו-בה itself, being convinced it means “when his garment was on her,” seeing that if it were derived from בגידה, betrayal, the vowel under the second letter ב should have been a chataf kametz instead of a chirik which is proof that it is derived from בגד, a word in which the basic vowel segol always turns into a chirik when it appears in the possessive form. The word בה is to be understood as עליה, “upon her.” The word בה also means עליה in Nechemyah 2,12 הבהמה אשר אני רוכב בה, “the beast which I ride on.” Rabbi Eliezer understands the word as derived from בגידה even though the vowel pattern does not appear to support his theory. The reason is that he considers the word not as a possessive form but as an infinitive. The vowel chirik as such would be perfectly in place. A Biblical example supporting his theory would be Leviticus 26,26 בשברי לכם מטה לחם, “when I break for you the staff of bread.” The reason the Torah writes בה, (according to Rabbi Eliezer) is that the preposition used with the word בגד, betray, is always the letter ב. To quote but two examples: (Malachi 2,14 and Malachi 2,15) אשת נעוריך אשר בגדת בה, “the wife of your youth whom you have betrayed; or ובאשת נעוריך אל יבגוד, “and let no one break faith with the wife of your youth.” On that same folio of the Talmud Rabbi Shimon holds that we pay halachic attention to both the spelling and the reading so that we can derive two rulings from the verse.
Ibn Ezra
In addition, Sa‘adya Gaon has brought numerous other proofs, from simple common sense, that Scripture could not mean a fracture for a fracture literally. For example, since the original wound was not precisely calculated, how could one duplicate it exactly? If not, and if the wound is in a sensitive area, one might kill the guilty party inadvertently! If someone removed one-third, say, of another person’s eyelid, how could one possibly give the guilty party precisely that wound? Accordingly, the words of the tradition [Bava Qama 83b] must be correct. The true explanation in all these cases is that the guilty party deserves to lose an eye, but instead, he pays its monetary equivalent. If people should ask, “what if the guilty party is poor?” we answer that the law deals with the cases that are likely to occur. Besides, we can throw the question back at the questioners: What if the guilty party is blind? At least a poor person can conceivably become rich! [see also comment on Exodus 21:24] so it shall be given upon him [literally: with him] [to “give upon” someone in Hebrew means to fine him — Translator] Often, the letter bet [“with”] takes the place of the preposition “upon”. Compare, “upon [literally: with] which I rode” [Nehemiah 2:12]. Many other examples exist. or so it shall be given in him — i.e., so shall it be done to him — if he does not compensate his victim.