Exodus 23:5
כִּֽי־תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ מֵעֲזֹב לוֹ עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּֽוֹ׃ ס
✦ Hebrew interlinear
Tap a word to see its entry
✦ The same verse in five languages
כִּֽי־תִרְאֶ֞ה חֲמ֣וֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ֗ רֹבֵץ֙ תַּ֣חַת מַשָּׂא֔וֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ֖ מֵעֲזֹ֣ב ל֑וֹ עָזֹ֥ב תַּעֲזֹ֖ב עִמּֽוֹ׃ ס
ἐὰν δὲ ἴδῃς τὸ ὑποζύγιον τοῦ ἐχθροῦ σου πεπτωκὸς ὑπὸ τὸν γόμον αὖ· τοῦ, οὐ παρελεύσῃ αὐτό, ἁλλὰ συναρεῖς αὐτὸ μετ’ αὐτοῦ.
Greek text from Swete's edition, CC BY-SA 4.0
Latin (Vulgate)
Si videris asinum odientis te jacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo.
Si ves que el burro de alguien que te cae mal se ha caído bajo el peso de su carga, no lo dejes ahí tirado. ¡Ayúdalo a levantarlo!
Classic Spanish (Reina-Valera 1909)
Si vieres el asno del que te aborrece caído debajo de su carga, ¿ le dejarás entonces desamparado? Sin falta ayudarás con él á levantarlo.
If you see the donkey of one who hates you fallen under its load, do not leave it there; you must help him with it.
✦ What the text says
Summary
Exodus 23:5 presents a conditional case: if someone encounters the donkey belonging to a person who hates them, lying down under its load, that person must not ignore the situation but must act with the owner to release the animal. The verse contains an internal repetition of the same root (עזב) used with two different nuances, which the word-by-word data captures but single-word translations flatten.
Key words
- chamor ("donkey of", H2543) — masculine singular construct, opening a chain that binds the animal to its owner: "donkey of [your hater]."
- sona'akha ("hater of you", H8130+H9031) — qal participle in construct with a 2ms suffix; describes the owner not by name but by an ongoing hostile relationship ("the one hating you").
- rovets ("lying down", H7257) — qal participle, masculine singular, absolute; presents the donkey's state as a durative fact observed by the passerby, not a completed single event.
- chadalta ("you will refrain", H2308) — sequential perfect continuing the narrative chain begun by ki ("if"); marks the expected/required response after the initial "seeing."
- azov ta'azov ("certainly...you will let loose", H5800C twice) — infinitive absolute followed by the same verb in imperfect; this doubling is the standard Hebrew emphatic construction, intensifying the imperfect verb.
What the text says
The sentence is built as a legal-style conditional: ki ("if") introduces the protasis with tir'eh ("you will see"), governing an object clause — chamor sona'akha rovets tachat massa'o ("the donkey of your hater lying under its load"). The construct chain chamor sona'akha fuses animal and owner into a single grammatical unit, while the participle rovets freezes the scene as an observed state rather than a narrated event.
The apodosis has two movements built on the same root, עזב (H5800): first ve-chadalta me-'azov lo ("and you will cease from leaving/abandoning it"), using the infinitive construct of עזב in the sense of "to abandon"; then azov ta'azov immo ("you will surely let loose with him"), using the infinitive absolute plus imperfect of the same root, here functioning in the sense of "releasing/freeing the load." The data's glosses ("leaving" vs. "let loose") reflect this shift in the root's semantic range within the same verse — the surface repetition of עזב carries opposite functional values (holding back from abandonment vs. actively releasing the load), a wordplay that a smooth translation cannot preserve. The final immo ("with him," H5973A + H9033) specifies that the release is a joint action performed together with the donkey's owner, not a substitute action performed alone.
Differences between versions
The LXX renders the second occurrence of עזב with a different verb, synareis ("you shall lift up together"), and the first clause as ou pareleusē ("you shall not pass by"), losing the Hebrew's root repetition. The Vulgate similarly uses two distinct verbs, pertransibis ("you will pass through") and sublevabis ("you will lift up"), also not reflecting the single Hebrew root עזב used twice with different senses.
This explanation describes the text using linguistic data; it adds no doctrine or confessional interpretation.