עַל־זֹ֖את הֱקִיצֹ֣תִי וָאֶרְאֶ֑ה וּשְׁנָתִ֖י עָ֥רְבָה לִּֽי׃ (ס)
Karena hal itu aku terbangun dan melihat, dan tidurku terasa manis bagiku.
Ibn Ezra
[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].