How did the Samaritans falsify their Torah?

Summary: Let me count the ways. It turns out, in two or three ways, not just one. And there might be an over-correction or two in the Yerushalmi and Bavli.

Post: This is also tangentially discussed here.

In Sotah 33b:

תנו רבנן (דברים יא, ל) הלא המה בעבר הירדן מעבר לירדן ואילך דברי רבי יהודה (דברים יא, ל) אחרי דרך מבוא השמש מקום שחמה זורחת (דברים יא, ל) בארץ הכנעני היושב בערבה אלו הר גריזים והר עיבל שיושבין בהם כותיים (דברים יא, ל) מול הגלגל סמוך לגלגל (דברים יא, ל) אצל אלוני מורה שכם ולהלן הוא אומר (בראשית יב, ו) ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם עד אלון מורה מה אלון מורה האמור להלן שכם אף כאן שכם תניא אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי בדבר זה זייפתי ספרי כותיים אמרתי להם זייפתם תורתכם ולא העליתם בידכם כלום שאתם אומרים אלוני מורה שכם אף אנו מודים שאלוני מורה שכם אנו למדנוה בגזרה שוה אתם במה למדתום 

Or, in English:

Our Rabbis taught: Are they not beyond Jordan?⁵  [This means] on the other side of the Jordan and beyond; such is the statement of R. Judah. Behind the way of the coming of the sun⁶  — the place where the sun dawns.⁷  In the land of the Canaanites which dwell in the Arabah⁶  — i.e., mount Gerizim and mount Ebal where the Cutheans⁸  dwell. Over against Gilgal⁶  — [this means] near Gilgal.⁹  Beside the terebinths of Moreh⁶  — [this means] Shechem. Elsewhere it states: And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem unto the terebinth of Moreh;¹⁰  as the terebinth of Moreh mentioned in this latter verse is Shechem, so in the former verse it means Shechem.

It has been taught:¹¹  R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said: In this connection I proved the Samaritan Scriptures¹²  to be false. I said to them, 'You have falsified your Torah¹³  but you gained nothing thereby.¹⁴  You declare that 'the terebinths of Moreh' means Shechem; we too admit that 'the terebinths of Moreh' means Shechem. We learnt this by an inference from analogy;¹⁵  but how have you learnt it!'¹⁶

Note that the pasuk in Reeh, in Devarim 11:30, refers to אלוני מורה, in the plural, while the one in Bereishit 12:6 refers to עד אלון מורה, in the singular. It is not necessarily clear that these are the same place, such that we may simply rely on identical place names and the juxtaposition of Shechem in Bereishit informs us about the place in Devarim. (See also Nachalas Yaakov on Rashi, that there were multiple such places, and other meforshei Rashi wondering where he got this idea from.)

In Talmud Yerushalmi, Sota 30b, we have a parallel sugya.

אמר ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון נמייתי לסופרי כותים זייפתם תורתכם ולא הועלתם לעצמיכם כלום.  שכתבתם בתורתכם אצל אלוני מורה שכם.  והלא ידוע שהוא שכם אלא שאין אתם דורשין לגזירה שוה ואנו דורשין לגזירה שוה.  נאמר כאן אלוני מורה ונאמר להלן אלוני מורה.  מה אלוני מורה האמור להלן שכם אף אלוני מורה האמור כאן שכם.

They have the Samaritan Sefer Torah saying "Eitzel Elonei Moreh, Shechem". Thus, the only change in Shechem. But then something strange. The derasha, the gezera shava, is that it says here "Elonei More" and it says there "Elonei Moreh".

But in one of those places (presumably the second one listed), it actually states "Elon Moreh", not "Elonei Moreh". Some scribe over-corrected it would seem.

What do the Samaritans actually have in their present Sifrei Torah? This is where it gets interesting. From Vetus Testamentum:

First, note the additional word מול before Shechem. This indicates that they understand מול הגלגל in the previous statement in a similar manner to the way the gemara understands it.

Second, note that they changed אלוני, in the plural, to אלון, in the singular. They keep the singular, like us, in Lech Lecha. Thus, they did not only add two words, מול שכם, but changed the plural to singular to make the place names match.

I wonder, then, if the Yerushalmi (and Bavli as well) originally had the quote from the Samaritan Pentateuch correct, but scribes corrected it. We see in the Yerushalmi that there was one over-correction of אלון to אלוני. Perhaps this was prompted by an earlier, more straightforward correction, from שכתבתם בתורתכם אצל אלון מורה שכם to אלוני. Though that would then be a faulty correction prompting the over-correction.

Why should Moshe Rabbenu desire the gashmiyus of Eretz Yisrael?

Summary: Maybe indeed he did. Or maybe it represented the completion of his mission. Or maybe the gashmiyus was only means to a spiritual end.

Post: Towards the beginning of vaEtchanan, we read the contents of Moshe's plea to Hashem:

25. Pray let me cross over and see the good land that is on the other side of the Jordan, this good mountain and the Lebanon."

כה. אֶעְבְּרָה נָּא וְאֶרְאֶה אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן הָהָר הַטּוֹב הַזֶּה וְהַלְּבָנֹן:

On a simple peshat level, Moshe wishes to see the good land, the good mountain, and Lebanon. One could understand that, I think. He had worked for the past forty years bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness, and he wanted to see it through, and to see the physical goodness of the promised land.

Still, one could be troubled by the gashmiyus of this. Thus we see in Sotah 14a:

R. Simlai expounded: Why did Moses our teacher yearn to enter the land of Israel? Did he want to eat of its fruits or satisfy himself from its bounty? But thus spake Moses, 'Many precepts were commanded to Israel which can only be fulfilled in the land of Israel. I wish to enter the land so that they may all be fulfilled by me'. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'Is it only to receive the reward [for obeying the commandments] that thou seekest? I ascribe it to thee as if thou didst perform them'; as it is said...

Moshe's concern was the mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz. This becomes more ruchniyus, then, with the gashmiyus as a means to the ruchniyus. I think a similar force impels the midrash in the Sifrei, brought down by Rashi:

		אעברה נא: אין נא אלא לשון בקשה:
		ההר הטוב הזה: זו ירושלים:
		והלבנון: זה בית המקדש:

The good mountain is Yerushalayim and the Lebanon is the Beit Hamikdash, which whitens the sins of Israel. These, then, are spiritual locations he wishes to visit. It is interesting that the Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonatan follow this same path, rather than rendering it literally.

Ibn Ezra has a middle ground, I think. I think he makes these places literal, but gives a spiritual reason one would want to express a desire to see them. Thus, at the close of his commentary to the previous pasuk, 3:24, he writes:

וטעם זו הפרשה: לחבב את ארץ ישראל ואם הארץ תהיה חביבה, ישמרו מצות השם שלא יגלו ממנה.

"And the purpose of this parasha {=segment} is to make Eretz Yisrael more desirable. And if the land is desirable, then they will keep the commandments of Hashem, so that they will not be exiled from it."

From a theological perspective, this resolves the problems. We can still take the pasuk on its peshat level, that it is referring to the actual land, and yet still maintain the religious point that it is not about the physical. The gashmiyus is a means to the ruchniyus.

My reservations regarding this is that even if that is the means to the end, all we now understand is why Moshe is relating to the Bnei Yisrael his desire to enter the land -- this way, he makes the land more chaviv. But what about his entreaties to Hashem in this matter? They had to happen in the first place. Obviously, Moshe himself had this desire, to see the land.

Understanding the derasha of כִּי חָזָק הוּא מִמֶּנּוּ as stronger than God

Summary: Rashi based on a gemara understands ממנו as the spies implying a lack of ability of the Almighty. But how shall we understand the derasha, based on not reading ממנו but ממנו, when they are pronounced the same? One can emend the gemara, as Rashi does, or one can find differences in pronunciation, based on analyses by Ibn Ezra.

Post: In Parashat Shelach, a pasuk and Rashi:

31. But the men who went up with him said, "We are unable to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we.		לא. וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר עָלוּ עִמּוֹ אָמְרוּ לֹא נוּכַל לַעֲלוֹת אֶל הָעָם כִּי חָזָק הוּא מִמֶּנּוּ:
as if they said it against the One One High		חזק הוא ממנו: כביכול כלפי מעלה אמרו:

This, based on the ambiguity of ממנו, which could mean 'than us' or could mean 'than him'. See Mekorei Rashi, footnote 29, for a list of sources. One such source is Sotah 35a:

אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דבר גדול דברו מרגלים באותה שעה כי חזק הוא ממנו אל תקרי ממנו אלא ממנו כביכול אפילו בעל הבית אינו יכול להוציא כליו משם

Or, in English:

R. Hanina b. Papa said: A grievous statement did they make at that moment, viz. For they are stronger than we — read not than we but than He;¹²  as it were even the master of the house cannot remove his furniture from there.¹³

אל תקרי usually implies a change in pronunciation, but what is the change in pronunciation between ממנו and ממנו? A footnote in Soncino gives away the game, where we will eventually get:

 [ [ממנו] instead of [ממנו] a difference of pronounciation in the Babylonian Masora, in order to distinguish between the 1st. masc. plur and 3rd. sing, (v. Ges. K. 1910 para. m, n. 1), and cf. Ibn Ezra on Ex. I, 9.]

(One having the dagesh and the other not.)

But Rashi on the daf changes the girsa, because it does not make sense to him:

ממנו - מן הקב"ה:

אל תקרי - לא גרס שאין הפרש קרייה בין ממנו הנאמר על יחיד שנדברים עליו לממנו של רבים שאומרים על עצמן:

אינו יכול להוציא כליו - אם הפקידם שם:

אל תקרי -- don't be gores this, for there is no distinction in reading between ממנו stated on a third person individual ("him") and ממנו stated on a first person plural ("us").

Meanwhile, in a parallel sugya in Arachin 15b, Tosafot writes:

לעיל) אל תקרי ממנו אלא ממנו פירוש אל תקרי ממנו רפי אלא ממנו דגש ואינו כן שכל ממנו שבתורה דגושין ואינו מחליף כלל זה בזה וכן מצינו בסיפרי ולא נס ליחה אין כתיב כאן אלא ולא נס ליחה:

Minchas Shai notes this:

"כי חזק הוא ממנו -- Sotah, perek Elu Neemarim... [and he cites the gemara, as above.] And in the Aruch [from R' Natan ben Yechiel,1030-1106] , entry בעל, he has the gemara as כי חזק הוא ממנו, that מנו is not written but rather ממנו, as if even the homeowner cannot extract his furniture from there. To explain, מנו implies of our own {="us"} while ממנו with a dagesh implies that it talking about Hashem, as if so, since it is not possible to speak such about the Shechina. End quote [of the Aruch].


And in the sefer Maarich [another dictionary], which the scholar Lunzano [also the author of Or Torah, which Minchas Shai heavily relies upon; available at HebrewBooks.org as well] composed, he wrote upon it in the entry בעל that if the author of the Aruch had such a girsa in his gemara, then he merely encountered a corrupted nusach; and if they are his own words, his honor rests in its place, for there is no difference between ממנו whose meaning is ממנהו {=third person singular} such as in לא תאכל ממנו and between ממנו whose meaning is ממננו {=first person plural}, such as in כי עצמת ממנו. Both of them are marked with a dagesh {in the mem} to indicate the dropped letter. And so writes Rashi in Sotah, and this is what he says ... [and here, he quotes Rashi, as above].


And that which I see in this maamar (assuming we are gores it), you need to know what scholars say, and one of them is Ibn Ezra, at the beginning of Sefer Shemot, that there is a variation in reading between the men of the east and the men of the west, in the word ממנו. For men of the east, each plural ממנו has a weak nun {meaning with no dagesh}, while all singular ממנו has a dagesh. And to the men of the west, there is no distinction, for all of them have dagesh. And it is known that the men of the east are the residents of Bavel [who composed Talmud Bavli], and this is what it means to say: 'Don't read ממנו as plural with no dagesh in the nun, but ממנו as singular with a dagesh in the nun. As if, etc.' And it seems to me that this is the explanation of this maamar in its proper place. Praise to the Living God."

You can read this Ibn Ezra on Shemot 1:9 inside here:

ממנו -כל ממנו בספרי אנשי מזרח סימן לרבים הנו"ן רפה. כמשפט להפריש בינו ובין ממנו פנה. שהוא סימן לשון יחיד שאיננו נמצא בפני המדבר, שהוא דגוש כמשפט. וכל ספרי מערב שניהן דגושים בין שהוא סימן לשון יחיד ובין שהוא סימן לשון רבים. והיה כן כי ממנו לשון יחיד דגוש הפך המנהג, כי מלת אני רפה. וכן מלת נחני ה'. והנה מלת מן כפולה. ונדגש הנו"ן ממני לחסרון הנו"ן האחרת כאלו היה ממנני. כי הנו"ן הראשון תבא עם אות המ"ם, כאילו הוא מן נו"ן ני לסימן המדבר. 
אם כן יהיה איש ממנו. שהוא לשון רבים, כאילו הוא ממננו. וטעם נו"ן ממנו דגוש להתבלע הה"א בחסרון. כי יאמר מן ישמור ישמרו. אשר יקראו. אויב ירדפו והוא המעט. כי הרב ישמרהו. רק ישמרו דרך קצרה. כמו: והנהו עושה מלאכה שהוא כמו והנה הוא. והנו נצב. ופעמים יוסיפו הנו"ן ישחרונני ואל ימצאונני. תברכני נפשך. כמו תברכנני. זובח תודה יכבדנני. יסובבנהו יבוננהו יצרנהו. ופעמים יבלעו הה"א בנו"ן ולא ישמרנו בעליו:

Now, in this Chumash with the commentary of Tikkun Soferim, from R' Shlomo Dubno, printed in 1783, he records precisely the words of Minchas Shai, and adds nothing to it:

HaMaamar writes on this subject:

"And see in Tikkun Soferim that he establishes with good discernment and knowlege, based on Ibn Ezra, the nusach of the gemara in Sotah 35 and Arachin 16. And like his words precisely, I have found in an old sefer called Mera Dachya, published in Dardi, in the year 1734."

He apparently did not realize that this answer was not the innovation of R' Shlomo Dubno, writing in 1783, such that Mera Dachya beat him to it, but rather from Minchas Shai, R' Yedidya Shlomo ben Avraham Norzi, who completed this work in 1626. So he should really be giving Minchas Shai credit, and noting that Mera Dachya says something along the same lines, but later.

Mera Dachya says even more, though. He brings down sefer Tzachos, which was attributed to Ibn Ezra. And in the end rejects this and instead posits that it should be ממנו with a cholam rather than a shuruk. If I read it correctly, part of this would be because Ibn Ezra himself says it is an error -- והם טועים כמו שאפרש באות נון. The bnei Mizrach would presumably then not be inclusive the the Amoraim in Bavel, but later, erring, contemporaries of Ibn Ezra. If so, it should not be the true explanation of the gemara.

To bring down the very book, in the very printing Hamaamar mentioned:

All of this operates under an assumption that אל תקרי must imply a different pronunciation. I am not so convinced that this is a requirement. While in general this is the case, perhaps enough instances set up a melitza that can be applied loosely. It is certainly applied rather loosely, in a different manner, in Zevachim: וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי (שמ' כט:מג), אל תקרי בכבודי אלא במכובדיי

Rashi on Asher Zadu

Summary: And peshat and derash.

Post: In parashat Yitro, we read:

11. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the deities, for with the thing that they plotted, [He came] upon them."

יא. עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי גָדוֹל יְ־הֹוָ־ה מִכָּל הָאֱ־לֹהִים כִּי בַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם:

Rashi comments on this with two separate comments:

"For with the thing they they plotted ... upon them" -- in accordance with its Targum -- with water they intended to destroy them, and they were destroyed with water.		כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם: כתרגומו במים דמו לאבדם והם נאבדו במים:
"which they plotted" -- which they intended wickedly. And our rabbis expounded it as the language of (Bereishit 25:29) "and Yaakov cooked a pottage". In the pot which they cooked, they were cooked.		אשר זדו: אשר הרשיעו. ורבותינו דרשוהו לשון (בראשית כה כט) ויזד יעקב נזיד, בקדרה אשר בשלו בה, נתבשלו:

We can see this Targum Onkelos here:

יח,יא עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-גָדוֹל יְהוָה מִכָּל-הָאֱלֹהִים:  כִּי בַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר זָדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם.

כְּעַן יָדַעְנָא, אֲרֵי רָב יְיָ וְלֵית אֱלָהּ בָּר מִנֵּיהּ:  אֲרֵי בְּפִתְגָמָא, דְּחַשִּׁיבוּ מִצְרָאֵי לִמְדָּן יָת יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּיהּ דָּנִנּוּן.

"For in the way that the Egyptians thought to judge (=punish) Israel, so they were judged". The 'trick' here is that עֲלֵיהֶם is taken as "upon the Egyptians" rather than "upon the Israelites". This based on the way that Judaica Press rendered the pasuk. (The translation of Rashi is my own.) I am not absolutely sure that this is what Onkelos is saying. There are two ways of inserting something implicit into this pasuk. It could be:

"For in the way that they Egyptians thought to judge them, [so were they judged]"

or

"For in the way that they Egyptians thought to judge [them], [so it was] upon them."

Is aleihem to be "them" or "upon them". Yet, I would lean towards the former, as that seems to be Rashi's intent, and proof from the Targum.

Can the trup help us choose a parsing, and meaning? Perhaps:

Note how in the second half of the verse, there is a zakef katon upon the word vadavar and a tipcha on the word zadu.

(I am going to explore a bit first, which means that I am about to present an analysis I will ultimately decide is false. Please bear with me.) To focus just for a moment on the tipcha on the zadu, this tipcha is a disjunctive accent, a melech, and so it severs asher zadu from aleihem. So, we could assert that this gives us:

which they intended || upon them

as opposed to

which they intended upon them

Maybe we could then say that this supports the parsing we saw in Rashi and Onkelos, that "upon them" refers to the Egyptians. However, the counter-argument to this is that, as we know from Wickes, there is a continuous dichotomy in which sections and subsections are further and further divided in twain until there are less than three words to a phrase. And given the division that exists in the pasuk, with first ki vadavar being divided off via the zakef katon, there were three words left -- asher zadu aleihem. Where else could we have placed the melech to split this subsection? We cannot separate asher from zadu, and we cannot place it on the last word of the pasuk, which already has a silluq present. Thus, I don't think that this particular bit of trup can aid us in disambiguating the parse. (End of presentation of what I think is ultimately incorrect.)

However, there is another bit of trup which might help us out. On the word zadu is a zakef katon. The alternative would have been a tevir. Since we have a zakef katon, this divides off at the same level as the tipcha, namely, that it divides off a phrase which has been marked with a silluq. This means that first the zakef katon works, and only afterwards does the tipcha work. Thus, the division occurs like this:

ki vadavar  || asher zadu aleihem


and then, once ki vadavar has been divided off, asher zadu aleihem is divided into

asher zadu aleihem.

To me, this means that we have:
"for in the matter || which they attempted upon them."

If the trup were to be as the parse we seem to have in Rashi and Onkelos, that aleihem refers to the Egyptians, then I would have expected a tevir, which subdivides a phrase ending in tipcha. If we had had a tevir, then it would have been divided as:

ki vadavar asher zadu || aleihem


Which would mean: "for in the matter which they attempted || was upon them" Then, within ki vadavar asher zadu, the tevir would have divided:

ki vadavar || asher zadu


Thus, my inclination is to say that this Rashi, and Onkelos, are against the trup, even if they don't know this by dint of having a different theory of trup.

Ibn Ezra seems to say something in accordance with the trup:

וטעם כי בדבר -
בעבור הדבר שזדו המצרים על עם ישראל. וכן הזכיר למעלה ידעתי כי גדול ה' מכל האלהים - ה' שעושה דין על שהעבידו אותם בפרך.
וכן כתוב: כי ידעת כי הזידו עליהם, כאדם שיעשה בזדון רצונו וכבר כתוב: כי ידעתי את מכאוביו וארד להצילו מיד מצרים.

since he does not insist that aleihem means "upon the Egyptians", as far as I can see. Rather, upon the Israelites. So too Ramban:

(יא): כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם - פירושו בדבר אשר הזידו המצרים על ישראל ידעתי שהוא גדול מכל האלוהים. וטעם זה, מפני שהשם גזר על ישראל ועבדום וענו אותם (בראשית טו יג): ולא היה על המצרים בזה העונש הגדול, אבל הזידו עליהם וחשבו להכרית אותם מן העולם, כמו שאמר (לעיל א י): הבה נתחכמה לו פן ירבה, וצוה למילדות להמית הבנים, וגזר עליהם כל הבן הילוד היאורה תשליכהו (שם כב), ומפני זה היה עליהם העונש המשחית אותם לגמרי, וזהו שאמר וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי (בראשית טו יד), כמו שפרשתיו (שם ולעיל יב מב). והנה השם ראה מחשבתם, ונקם מהם על זדון לבם. וכן אמר הכתוב עוד כי ידעת כי הזידו עליהם (נחמיה ט י), כי העונש בעבור הזדון שחשבו לעשות להם. והנה ה' רואה ללב ועושה משפט העשוקים, ונוקם ובעל חמה, ואין מוחה בידו. ואונקלוס שאמר ארי בפתגמא דחשיבו מצראי למידן ית ישראל ביה דנינון, ירצה לומר כי היה ענשם על טביעת הילדים ביאור שאיננו בכלל ועבדום וענו אותם, ועל כן אבדם במים:

Back to analyzing this Rashi, we encounter the following Mizrachi on this Rashi.

He doesn't know where Rashi gets the idea that the derasha is based on a reinterpretation of the word zadu, since the midrash in Shemos Rabba makes no such assertion, but just states: בקדרה אשר בשלו בה, נתבשלו. Perhaps, then, this is just middah keneged middah, and they seized upon this idiom. The idiom itself contains no word nzd!

I cannot find the midrash in our Midrash Rabba. And Mekorei Rashi tells us that we can find the source for this in Pesikta deRav Kehana on Beshalach, there, on pasuk 7, as well as in Sota daf 11a. If we look at the gemara in Sotah, we find that this connection is made explicit by the setama degemara, which is where Rashi then gets it from:

והיינו דא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (שמות יח, יא) כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם בקדירה שבישלו בה נתבשלו מאי משמע דהאי זדו לישנא דקדירה הוא דכתיב (בראשית כה, כט) ויזד יעקב נזיד

Or in English:

This is what R. Eleazar said: What means that which is written: Yea, in the thing wherein they zadu [dealt proudly] against them?²⁶  In the pot in which they cooked were they cooked. Whence is it learnt that 'zadu' means cooking? — Because it is written: And Jacob sod [wa-yazed] pottage.²⁷

I would add slightly more. The derasha is such that not does zadu mean cooking, but badavar is what refers to the item used for cooking and asher/she is constant throughout. Thus:
ki badavar asher zadu, aleihem
ki bakedeira asher bishlu bah, aleihem


My strong suspicion is that the Onkelos / Rashi syntactic parse is identical to the syntactic parse in the gemara in Sotah.

The Gra's theory of two hornets fighting in Canaan

Summary: It creates a nice elu ve'elu, and works out nicely with the pesukim, but does it reflect original intent of the midrash?

Post: As a followup to the previous post about tzir'ah as hornet, here is what the Gra (in Aderet Eliyahu) has to say about צרעה, mentioned in parashat Ekev.

וגם את
הצרעה • שני צרעות היו אחת של משה ואחת
של יהושע • של משה לא עברה את הירדן
ושל יהושע עברה הירדן ושני צרעות היו משמשות
כמו שאמר הכתוב הנשארים והנסתרים שהנשארי׳
הם שברחו מפליטי המלחמה וישבו בבתים
בהתגליא וזה היה צרעה של משה משמשת שזרקה
ארס כו׳ וננגד הנסתרים שטמנו את עצמם
לזה שימשה של יהושע בחפשה אותם ולכך אמר
וגם את הצרעה כנגר שני צרעות

This is exceptionally novel, yet well-founded on existing midrashim and pesukim. To provide a rough summary, the Vilna Gaon states that there were two types of hornets, which addressed the two types of Canaanites the Israelites encountered in the conquest at the time of Yehoshua. To the nisharim, who fled but were in the open, hornets which were the same as in the time of Moshe Rabbenu shot their poison, etc.. And to those who had hidden themselves after fleeing, the nistarim, there were the hornets unique to the time of Yehoshua, which attacked them. And thus the ribuy of גם, which includes, to indicate these two types of hornet, both of which attacked in the time of Yehoshua.

This represents a very clever reworking of the sources in a way that allows for elu ve'elu between Rav Pappa and Resh Lakish. Even so, I don't believe it accords with the intent of the midrash of the brayta, nor with Rav Pappa's intent, nor with Resh Lakish's intent. Rather, it is neo-midrash, which makes use of existing midrashim in fairly novel ways.

Why do I think that this insight of Gra does not reflect original intent? Let us examine the gemara in Sotah 36a:

A Tanna taught: The hornet did not pass over [Jordan] with them; but behold it is written: And I will send the hornet before thee! {Shemot 23:28, referring to the land of Canaan!}  — R. Simeon b. Lakish said: It stood by the bank of the Jordan and injected a virus [into the Canaanites] which blinded their eyes above and castrated them below; as it is said: Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above and his roots from beneath etc. {Amos 2:9} R. Papa said: There were two hornets, one in the period of Moses and the other in the period of Joshua; the former did not pass over [Jordan] but the other did.

The brayta claims that hornets only acted in Moshe's time, but not in Yehoshua's time. This is the simple meaning of the brayta, and it is likely based on Yehoshua 24:12:

יב וָאֶשְׁלַח לִפְנֵיכֶם אֶת-הַצִּרְעָה וַתְּגָרֶשׁ אוֹתָם מִפְּנֵיכֶם שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי לֹא בְחַרְבְּךָ וְלֹא בְקַשְׁתֶּךָ:

where the two kings of the Emorites would be taken to be Sichon and Og, from the time of Moshe. Now, this is debatable, in that we can understand it as talking about two different Emorite kings, but let us say we accept the traditional explanation, as offered by the classic meforshim, that this is Sichon and Og. Then, as per the brayta, hornets attacked, but they never crossed over the Yarden river and aided the Israelites in fighting the Canaanites. Yehoshua seems to be contrasting these actions of hornets in Moshe's time to what the Israelites had to do, which was fight using only swords and bows.

The gemara (and Amoraim) asks that this seems to contradict the plain meaning of a pasuk in Shemot 23:28, which states that in the time of Yehoshua Hashem will send hornets to attack the Canaanites. Similarly, in this week's parasha, Eikev, there is such a promise:

20. And also the tzir'ah, the Lord, your God, will incite against them, until the survivors and those who hide from you perish.

כ. וְגַם אֶת הַצִּרְעָה יְשַׁלַּח יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּם עַד אֲבֹד הַנִּשְׁאָרִים וְהַנִּסְתָּרִים מִפָּנֶיךָ:

A straightforward answer is that they did not merit it, for some reason. Just as they did not dispossess all the Canaanites in Yehoshua's time, so too it seems they did not merit this special Divine assistance, from these hornets. This would be theologically difficult but, it seems to me, resolvable. And I claim that that is what the midrash in this brayta is claiming. But for this post to go forward, accepting this reading of the brayta is not at all necessary. We can accept Rav Pappa or Resh Lakish's resolution as accurate, if we wish.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish makes a clever diyuk into the language of the brayta. The brayta just said that the hornets didn't pass over. So keep the hornets on the other side of the Jordan, and let them spray their poison from a distance! It works out with the language, and is quite clever -- yet I think it cleverly undermines the very intent of the brayta while adding a fantastic element to the proceedings.

Rav Pappa follows his general Pappaitic pattern of harmonizing and allowing for both to hold true. A sort of eilu ve'eilu between the assertion of the brayta and the straightforward reading of the pesukim in the Torah. They both are true, because they are dealing with different sets, or types, of hornets. The ones described in the last perek of sefer Yehoshua as the hornets of Moshe did not pass over. But another type of hornet did, either by physically passing over or, more to the point, existing in the land of Canaan and being sent before the Israelites. While this is a clever harmonization, it undermines what I believe is the original intent of the brayta. I would still understand the brayta's assertion to be that no hornets aided the Israelites in the time of Yehoshua.

Regardless, that is Rav Papa and Reish Lakish. They argue with one another as to how to resolve the pesukim and the brayta.

But now the Gra comes and harmonizes the two of them! But we don't need to harmonize. According to Resh Lakish, the resolution of the brayta is that the hornets didn't physically pass over the river, but still aided the Israelites. And according to Rav Papa, those of Moshe didn't pass, and who cares? We don't need those specific hornets, when we have a different set of hornets.

But the Gra wants both of them to be true. But if so, the brayta is resolved in two ways simultaneously. I do not believe that this was intended by the Amoraim, who were engaged in dispute. Nor is it driven by anything in the gemara itself -- just a desire to harmonize the two opinions such that they are both right. The connection to remnants and hidden, and the derasha on the word gam, while clever and sensitive to the nuances of the language, are not mentioned anywhere by Resh Lakish or Rav Pappa. Indeed, the pasuk in Ekev is not even brought up at all.

It works as a nice neo-drasha, which is good so long as one distinguishes it from Chazal's original intent.

What is the tzir'ah?

Summary: Hornet or sickness? Rashi, along with midrash, and Ibn Ezra.

Post: From parashat Eikev, with Rashi, about how Hashem will aid the Israelites in conquering the Canaanites once they cross over the Yarden:

20. And also the tzir'ah, the Lord, your God, will incite against them, until the survivors and those who hide from you perish.		כ. וְגַם אֶת הַצִּרְעָה יְשַׁלַּח יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּם עַד אֲבֹד הַנִּשְׁאָרִים וְהַנִּסְתָּרִים מִפָּנֶיךָ:
The tzir’ah: Heb. הַצִּרְעָה, a species of flying insect which injected poison into them [the Canaanites], making them impotent and blinding their eyes wherever they hid. — [Sotah 36a]		הצרעה: מין שרץ העוף, שהיתה זורקת בהם מרה ומסרסתן ומסמאה את עיניהם בכל מקום שהיו נסתרים שם:

(Also from Midrash Aggadah.) Midrash Aggadah's version:

וגם את הצרעה.  מלמד שהצרעה עברה עמהם בירדן ׳ וכל אותם
אורבים שהיו מטמינים עצמם במערות כדי להרוג, היתה הצרעה נכנסת לשם ומכה
אותם בעיניהם והיו מתים

That is, there was already a hornet that aided them in the time of Moshe. The gam is perhaps inclusive, telling us that Hashem will also send the tzir'ah. And the known tzir'ah that they have already seen.

The version in Sotah states that the tzir'ah, this special hornet, did not pass over the Yarden with them. Rather, this only happened in the time of Moshe. The reference seems to be to Yehoshua 24:12:

יב וָאֶשְׁלַח לִפְנֵיכֶם אֶת-הַצִּרְעָה וַתְּגָרֶשׁ אוֹתָם מִפְּנֵיכֶם שְׁנֵי מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי לֹא בְחַרְבְּךָ וְלֹא בְקַשְׁתֶּךָ:

where the two kings of the Emorites would be taken to be Sichon and Og, from the time of Moshe. If this is contrasted with the wars the Israelites must wage, with sword and bow, then it didn't pass.

At any rate, in Sotah 36a:

A Tanna taught: The hornet did not pass over [Jordan] with them; but behold it is written: And I will send the hornet before thee! {Shemot 23:28, referring to the land of Canaan!}  — R. Simeon b. Lakish said: It stood by the bank of the Jordan and injected a virus [into the Canaanites] which blinded their eyes above and castrated them below; as it is said: Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above and his roots from beneath etc. {Amos 2:9} R. Papa said: There were two hornets, one in the period of Moses and the other in the period of Joshua; the former did not pass over [Jordan] but the other did.

I am unsure what the basis is for saying that the hornet did not pass, as in that brayta, such that this needs resolution. If anyone knows, please drop me a comment. Otherwise, I will leave it as an open question. The answer is alternatively separate hornets or that the hornets attacked but did not pass over.

Onkelos translates it as ערעיתא, hornet.

Ibn Ezra understands it as a type of sickness of the body, along the lines of צרעת. So does Ibn Janach, that it is כליון ודבר. Perhaps this makes more sense in context, of killing off the remnants in hiding. See also Ibn Ezra on parashat Mishpatim, on Shemot 23:28, as well as Yahel Or and Karnei Or there.

Digressing to a Radak I saw on that pasuk in sefer Yehoshua:

[כד, יב]
שני מלכי האמורי -פירש: וגרשה שני מלכי האמרי גם כן, והם סיחון ועוג.

וכן אמרו רבותינו ז"ל:

שתי צרעות היו חדא דמשה וחדא דיהושע והצרעה היא מין זבוב רע מטיל ארס.
ואמרו: כי הייתה הצרעה מכה בעיניה ומסמא עיניהם ולא היו יכולין להלחם ובאין ישראל והורגין אותם, כמו שאמר: לא בחרבך ולא בקשתך .

ותרגום:

צרעה ארעיתא.

ואמר למה נקרא שמה ארעיתא?
שעומדת לקראת אדם ומכה בפניו.
כדמתרגמינן:

אשר קרך דארעך.

This is a bit strange. In our Onkelos, tzir'ah is consistently translated as ערעיתא with a leading ayin rather than aleph. This is an extremely straightforward translation. It is near transliteration. That is, there are two ayins in Aramaic, one corresponding to the ayin of Hebrew and one corresponding to a tzadi of Hebrew. (Or rather, when this strong letter was to be encoded, it was mapped in Hebrew to the letter tzadi and in Aramaic to the ayin.) Thus, the leading ע in Aramaic is equal to the leading צ, and so it is the word צרעה. If there is indeed a Targum which renders it with a leading aleph, this would come from a relaxing and switching of these two gutturals, not from דארעך. Our version of Targum local to sefer Yehoshua does not have this, but I suppose Radak did.

Although interestingly, from the language of ארעא as mishap, occurrence, there is the masculine plural ארעייא which means evils, diseases. (See Jastrow, pg 125.) This is just coincidence, though.

I would also note Shadal. He does not take the two kings of sefer Yehoshua to be Sichon and Og. Therefore, it is rather fulfillment of the promise in Chumash, in the land of Canaan, even though the specifics are not found elsewhere:

וגם את הצרעה : יהושע כ " ד י " ב הזכירה לישראל , א " כ בהכרח נתאמת הדבר , אע " פ שלא נזכר המאורע הזה בפירוש הסיפור כיבוש הארץ .

Was Pinchas descended from Yisro or Yosef?

Summary: Or both? Should we indeed follow the gemara's harmonization? A study in Rashi, and in approaches to midrash aggada.

Post: In praising Pinchas, Hashem gives his lineage through his father Eleazar and his grandfather Aharon:

11. Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen has turned My anger away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging Me among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel because of My zeal.

יא. פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא כִלִּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי

Rashi explains:

Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen:Since the tribes were disparaging him, saying, Have you seen the son of Puti, whose mother’s father [Jethro] fattened (פִּטֵּם) calves for idols (See Rashi, Exod. 6:25), and who killed a chieftain of an Israelite tribe? For this reason, Scripture traces his pedigree to Aaron. — [Sanh. 82b, Num. Rabbah 21:3, Mid. Tanchuma Pinchas 2]

פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן: לפי שהיו השבטים מבזים אותו, הראיתם בן פוטי זה שפיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודה זרה והרג נשיא שבט מישראל, לפיכך בא הכתוב ויחסו אחר אהרן:

But how could Rashi state categorically that Yisro was his mother's father? After all, there is a conflicting midrash that understands Putiel as Yosef, and a gemara in Sotah which harmonizes it? Gur Aryeh writes all this.

Thus, he explains that mother's father is not necessarily precise. In Sotah 43a they said that either the mother's father was of Yitro and his mother's mother was of Yosef, or the reverse. And furthermore, in Sifrei on pasuk 31:6, it states "why did Pinchas go to take vengeance upon Midian? For he went to take vengeance for Yosef his mother's father." And if so, his mother's father was from Yosef. Rather, its explanation is either "mother's father" or "mother's mother's father", for even the mother's mother's father is called "mother's father, as is written (Shemot 2:16) "and they came to Reuel their father."

I don't know whether any of this entered Rashi's mind. Though likely if he were pressed or challenged on the point, he would give this answer, which is the answer the gemara in Sotah more or less gives.

Indeed, Rashi does give the harmonized peshat of the gemara Sotah. For on parashat Ve'ara, the pasuk, Shemot 6:25, stated:

כה  וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן לָקַח-לוֹ מִבְּנוֹת פּוּטִיאֵל, לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ, אֶת-פִּינְחָס; אֵלֶּה, רָאשֵׁי אֲבוֹת הַלְוִיִּם--לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם.

25 And Eleazar Aaron's son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife; and she bore him Phinehas. These are the heads of the fathers' houses of the Levites according to their families.

And Rashi wrote:



[one] of the daughters of Putiel-: Of the seed of Jethro, who fattened (פִּטֵּ ם) calves for idolatry (see Rashi on Exod. 2:16) and [who was also] of the seed of Joseph, who defied and fought (פִּטְפֵּט) against his passion [when he was tempted by Potiphar’s wife]. — [from B.B. 109b]מבנות פוטיאל: מזרע יתרו שפטם עגלים לעבודה זרה. ומזרע יוסף שפטפט ביצרו:

(See my discussion of the pasuk and Rashi here). So certainly he would agree to a harmonized peshat here. It was not on Rashi's mind, and isn't necessary to bring up here, because only the negative etymology is necessary for the point in context, which was Hashem's defense via genealogy.

Yet I would disagree with this harmonization, for three reasons.

(1) The individual sources make no mention of the other position. That is, Tanchuma only has the Yitro genealogy and Sifrei only has the Yosef genealogy. Tanchuma has:

פנחס בן אלעזרמה ראה הקדוש ברוך הוא ליחס פנחס אחר מעשה זה?שבשעה שנדקר זמרי עם כזבי, עמדו השבטים עליו ואמרו, ראיתם בן פוטי זה שפטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודה זרה, הרג נשיא שבט מישראל. לפיכך בא הכתוב ליחסו, פנחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן. 

but it makes no claims, anywhere I can find, as to Pinchas descending from Yosef. And the Sifrei has, regarding the war against Midian:
מפני
מה הלך פינחס ולא הלך אלעזר לפי שהלך
פינחס לנקום נקמת אבי אמו שנאמר
והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים

but it makes no claims, anywhere I can find, as to Pinchas descending from Yisro. When we have two distinct sources, which make two claims of genealogy regarding the same person, the אבי אמו, and are interpreting the word Putiel, there is absolutely no reason to try to harmonize! This is a clear case of machlokes between midrashic sources, Sifrei and Tanchuma, just as we can have a machlokes between Rav and Shmuel, or between Rashi and Ibn Ezra.

(2) The first to harmonize is the setama de-gemara, which is post-Ravina and Rav Ashi. And this harmonization is part of a general harmonizing trend by the setammaim.

In Sanhedrin 82b, where we only have the Yitro genealogy, there is no harmonization:

 התחילו שבטים מבזין אותו ראיתם בן פוטי זה שפיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודת כוכבים והרג נשיא שבט מישראל בא הכתוב ויחסו פנחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן

The tribes now began abusing him: 'See ye this son of Puti [= Putiel] whose maternal grandfather fattened [pittem] cattle for idols,  and who has now slain the prince of a tribe of Israel!' Therefore Scripture detailed his ancestry: Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the Priest.

Where we have mention of the Yosef genealogy, they bring up Yisro and harmonize. Thus, in Sotah 43a:

תנא לא לחנם הלך פינחס למלחמה אלא ליפרע דין אבי אמו שנאמר  (בראשית לז, לו) והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים וגו' למימרא דפינחס מיוסף אתי והא כתיב  (שמות ו, כה) ואלעזר בן אהרן לקח לו מבנות פוטיאל לו לאשה מאי לאו דאתי מיתרו שפיטם עגלים לעבודת כוכבים לא מיוסף שפיטפט ביצרו והלא שבטים מבזין אותו ראיתם בן פוטי זה בן שפיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודת כוכבים יהרוג נשיא מישראל אלא אי אבוה דאימיה מיוסף אימיה דאימיה מיתרו ואי אימיה דאימיה מיוסף אבוה דאימיה מיתרו דיקא נמי דכתיב מבנות פוטיאל תרי משמע שמע מינה:

A Tanna taught: Not for naught did Phinehas go to the battle [against Midian] but to exact judgment on behalf of his mother's father [Joseph]; as it is said: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt etc. 

Is this to say that Phinehas was a descendant of Joseph? But behold it is written: And Eleazar Aaron's son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife; [and she bare him Phinehas]!  Is it not to be supposed, then, that he was a descendant of Jethro who fattened [pittem] calves for idolatry? — No; [he was a descendant] of Joseph who mastered [pitpet] his passion. But did not the other tribes despise him [saying], 'Look at this son of Puti, the son whose mother's father fattened calves for idolatry; he killed a prince in Israel!' But, if his mother's father was descended from Joseph, then his mother's mother was descended from Jethro; and if his mother's mother was descended from Joseph, then his mother's father was descended from Jethro. This is also proved as a conclusion from what is written: 'One of the daughters of Putiel', from which are to be inferred two [lines of ancestry]. Draw this conclusion.

There is a division between the brayta, and the setama digmara's analysis and harmonization. And the dual derivation from "of the daughters of Putiel", indicating that there are two daughters of Putiel, one the daughter of Yisro, and one the daughter of Yosef; and Eleazar took of both of them, one as his wife, and one because the wife was descended from the other, is clever, but not found in earlier sources. There is no indication that the Tannaim or Amoraim maintained this.

(3) But most of all, the harmonization seems to go against the simple meaning of one of the Tanaaim. In Bava Batra 109b - 110a, there is a similar harmonization:

אמר רבי אלעזר לעולם ידבק אדם בטובים שהרי משה שנשא בת יתרו יצא ממנו יהונתן אהרן שנשא בת עמינדב יצא ממנו פנחס ופנחס לאו מיתרו אתי והא כתיב  (שמות ו, כה) ואלעזר בן אהרן לקח לו מבנות פוטיאל לו לאשה מאי לאו דאתי מיתרו שפיטם עגלים לע"ז לא דאתי מיוסף שפטפט ביצרו והלא שבטים מבזים אותו ואומרים ראיתם בן פוטי זה בן שפיטם אבי אמו עגלים לע"ז יהרוג נשיא שבט מישראל אלא אי אבוה דאמיה מיוסף אמה דאמיה מיתרו אי אבוה דאמיה מיתרו אמה דאמיה מיוסף דיקא נמי דכתיב מבנות פוטיאל תרתי שמע מינה

R. Eleazar said: One should always associate with good [people]; for behold, from Moses who married the daughter of Jethro,  there descended Jonathan  [while] from Aaron, who married the daughter of Amminadab, there descended Phinehas. But did not Phinehas descend from Jethro? Surely it is written, And Eleazar Aaron's son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife;  does not this mean that he descended from Jethro who crammed calves for idol worship? — No; [it means] that he descended from Joseph who conquered  his passions. Did not, however, the tribes sneer at him and say. 'Have you seen this Puti-son? A youth whose mother's father crammed calves for idol-worship should kill the head of a tribe in Israel!' But [this is really the explanation], if his mother's father [descended] from Joseph, his mother's mother [descended] from Jethro; if his mother's father [descended] from Jethro, his mother's mother [descended] from Joseph. [This may] also [be confirmed by] deduction, for it is written, of the daughters of Putiel, from which two [lines of ancestry] are to be inferred.

Again, a harmonization when someone suggested that his maternal grandfather, Putiel, was Yosef. The "problem" is that all this started by Rabbi Eleazar talking about associating with the wicked and getting wicked descendants. Thus, Moshe married the daughter of Yisro while Aaron married the daughter of Aminadav. But if Pinchas indeed was descended from the daughter of Yisro, much closer, as his mother, then it disproves this thesis. That is why a rejection that he came from Yisro is in order. And this is what the gemara first provides. But then, in the interest of harmonization, they agree that the midrash which argues is simultaneously true. If so, then there is the association with the wicked! This makes no sense, and in fact Rabbi Eleazar would be very upset at the mangling of his midrashic statement. For now Pinchas is at least as distant from Yisro as is Yonatan, whose father's mother's father was Yisro. (At least, if Yisro is his mother's mother's father. But the gemara actually gives the flipside as a possibility, that he is more closely related to Yisro.)

Both Rashi and Tosafot offer answers to this profound difficulty. Tosafot:

אלא אי אבוה דאמיה מיוסף אמה דאמיה מיתרו. וא"ת א"כ היאך פנחס בן טובים טפי מיהונתן שהרי אימיה דאמיה דפנחס מיתרו אתיא כי היכי דאמיה דאבוה דיהונתן מיתרו אתיא וי"ל משום שיהונתן היה מצד האב שהיה אביו בן בת יתרו ופנחס מצד האם

That is, as the mother's mother's father, it comes from the mother's side, for Pinchas's mother was such a descendant. But for Yonatan, his father was the descendant of Yisro. This is somewhat arbitrary. Besides, the gemara doesn't resolve whether Yosef or Yisro was the closer grandfather.

And Rashi:

אלא אי אבוה דאמיה כו' - אלא לעולם לאו מבת יתרו ממש נולד פנחס שהרי גם מיוסף היה כדדרשינן לקמן פוטיאל שני פיטפוטין משמע מיוסף שפיטפט ביצרו ומיתרו שפיטם עגלים והלכך אי אפשר שתהא אמו בת יתרו ממש דמה ענין בת יתרו אצל שבט יוסף אלא ה"ק ואלעזר לקח לו אשה מבנות פוטיאל כלומר שאשתו נולדה מיתרו ומיוסף ומהשתא מצינן למימר שדור רביעי או דור חמישי היה פנחס לבת יתרו ולא היה קרוב ליתרו כיהונתן בן גרשם ולהכי אהני מה שדבק אהרן בטובים ואותו זקינו של פנחס מצד האם שדבק ביתרו ואעפ"כ יצא ממנו פנחס ליכא לאקשויי מיניה למאי דבעינן למילף ממשה שיצא ממנו יהונתן שהרי פנחס היה רחוק מיתרו יותר מיהונתן:

He adds a few generations to make it even more distant. Both explanations are rather forced, but Rashi and Tosafot are forced into this because they are trying to explain the gemara as written.

I would rather simply recognize that the setama is harmonizing where it should not, where we see disparate sources which were unaware of the other interpretation, and where the harmonization is rather late. Let us leave them as midrashim which argue with one another, and thus keep the meaning of these midrashim at their truest.

Ibn Kaspi and the (poisonous?) bitter waters

Summary: Ibn Kaspi, perhaps, sheds light on the Ibn Ezra I discussed last year, that the kohen put poisonous bitter herbs into the water.

Post: Two years ago, as well as last year (here and here) I discussed an Ibn Ezra on Naso in which he made grammatical comments about the mei sotah and hinted as to a secret, a sod. I feel that I understood the sod, just as many of Ibn Ezra's supercommentators understood it, and that it was that the kohen put bitter material into the waters of the Sotah -- and furthermore, as several of those supercommentators understood it, that that bitter material was poisonous. Alas, I was not able to convince everyone of this. (In a DovBear thread.) I would maintain that this is not because I am wrong, or because of the weakness of my argument, but because when it comes to grammatical points, not everyone is ready to grasp the grammatic points and the fine nuances involved in Ibn Ezra's hints.

But I found another Rishon who might also say it. He certainly says the "bitter" portion of it, but I am not so certain of the poisonous part of it. Perhaps reading both of them together, it becomes clearer just what each of them means.

Ibn Caspi, on Naso, writes as follows, on the pasuk in Bemidbar 5:

18. Then the kohen shall stand the woman up before the Lord and expose the [hair on the] head of the woman; he shall place into her hands the remembrance meal offering, which is a meal offering of jealousies, while the bitter curse bearing waters are in the kohen's hand.

יח. וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה וּפָרַע אֶת רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן עַל כַּפֶּיהָ אֵת מִנְחַת הַזִּכָּרוֹן מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הִוא וּבְיַד הַכֹּהֵן יִהְיוּ מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים:

מי המרים , כבר דברנו בזה בספר הסוד וזכרנו שם מה שנודע בקבלה

שדבר מר היה נותן לתוכה

 המאררים. תאר למים מצד מה שיאמר

עליהם האלה שיזכור אח״כ, וגם שימחו האלות בם 

Bitter water: We already wrote in Sefer HaSod about this, and mentioned there what is known in tradition, that {as per one position in the gemara}something "bitter" he put into it.
Which was Accursed: This is an adjective to the water, by aspect of the curse which is said upon it and mentioned later, and also because they dissolve the curses in it.

He continues on pasuk 24, where the order of the adjectives are reversed:

24. He shall then give the bitter, curse bearing waters to the woman to drink, and the curse bearing waters shall enter her to become bitter.

כד. וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶת מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרֲרִים לְמָרִים:

והשקה את האשה וכו. הנה מבואר בזה, .כי טרם

שתשתם האשה יקראו מי המרים המאררים לסבות שזכרנו, ואחר

שתשתם יתוארו בחלוף הסדור. שהמים המאררים יבואו  לתוכה

 למרים , כי הטעמם מרים ומהם תהיה מרת נפש, וזה אם נטמאה, כמו

שבאר עוד ובאו בה המים המאררים למרים וצבתה בטנה ,

אבל אם נקתה, שב המר למתוק מצד שלא נזוקה ולא תהיה מרת נפש

And he shall give the woman to drink, etc.: Behold it is made clear in this that before the woman drinks them, it is called waters of bitterness and accursedness for the reasons we mentioned. And after she drinks them, they are described in adjectives in a reversal of the order. For the accursed waters go into her as bitterness, for their taste is bitter and from them is bitterness of spirit. And this is if she is sullied, as is explained further, "and the accursed waters enter her to bitterness, and her belly distends." But if she is innocent, the bitter turns to sweetness by aspect that they do not injure her and that she is not bitter of spirit.

The Sefer HaSod he referred to earlier was his sefer Tiras Kesef. There, we read:

Now, Ibn Caspi certainly knows the comment of Ibn Ezra in question. He often enough references Ibn Ezra in his commentary. And indeed, wrote a whole sefer explaining the sodos of Ibn Ezra on chumash. (Though he skips this particular sod.)

Ibn Caspi's words seem interpretable in one of two ways. Either they put in these bitter herbs and they merely made them bitter, and separate from this, they are called bitter because they are a source of מרת נפש in bringing her downfall; or their taste is bitter and associated with this (bitterness) will be the מרת נפש in bringing about her downfall. When he says שב המר למתוק based on effects, that it does not damage her and is not מרת נפש, this could be simply expectation vs. final results; or that it should have naturally damaged her, but its effects changed because of her innocence and did not damage her.

I can see two ways of reading it. I prefer this poisonous reading, just because I am convinced that this is how Ibn Ezra understands it, and thus believe that Ibn Ezra provides this background. Ultimately, though, I don't know that this, by itself, would convince.

More to come, bli neder, on Ibn Ezra, with the explanation of a few supercommentators I did not mention in previous posts.