Rashi writes:
the bitter [They were called bitter] because of their effects, for they will prove bitter for her. — [Sifrei Naso 1:47]I would note that the alliteration in the three words because of repetition of mem and resh -- mei hamarim hamearerim suggests that these words were chosen for poetic effect, and therefore I would be more prone to viewing the phrase idiomatically. Thus, they can be bitter because of their effect.
Rashi does not cite Sotah 20a, which states
Samuel's father said: It is necessary to put something bitter into the water. What is the reason? Scripture declares, The water of bitterness — i.e., [water] which had been previously made bitter.Rather, he goes with the idiomatic interpretation.
Meanwhile, Ibn Ezra (right) maintains that they were actually "bitter," and they put things into the water to make it "bitter."מי המרים. לפי דעתי שמלת מי סמוך ומלת המרים תאר השם אם כן סודו ידוע גם יתכן שנקראו על שם סופם כמו ובגדי ערומים תפשיט והעד ובאו בה המים המאררים למרים להורות כי האלות הנקראות המאררים ישימו המים מרים אחר היותם מתוקים
Well, he doesn't actually say that.
Rather, he says that they are waters of bitterness, and if so, their "secret" is known.
Ibn Ezra likes to couch controversial statements as sod. The "secret" in this case really seems to that the kohen puts poisonous herbs into the water, which will cause death, rather than the death being miraculous. If this is so, what about the innocent woman? Perhaps the idea is that Hashem will cause the poison to either take effect or not. And this is a secret, which either the kohanim keep secret or Ibn Ezra is keeping secret.
Avi Ezer (above, right), the supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, often tries to tame Ibn Ezra, and make his statements less controversial. And since Ibn Ezra does not state things outright, Avi Ezer's job is that much easier. Here, he writes:
"mei hamarim -- if so, their secret is known". See parashat Korach {on Bemidbar 17:11}, where the Rav {=Ibn Ezra} wrote {that the pasuk states} וְשִׂים קְטֹרֶת and not haketores, and the intelligent person will understand." {I will digress to address that, before returning to Avi Ezer.}
That Ibn Ezra, and the associated Avi Ezer, is pictured to the right. That pasuk statedThe implication of Ibn Ezra's words are that, since it just says ketores, incense, and not the incense, even though it said the fire-pan, is that this was special, different incense, perhaps with natural properties which would halt the plague.
Avi Ezer continues, first by not explaining, either here or in parshat Korach, the intent of Ibn Ezra's words. Rather, he contrasts the words Ibn Ezra uses to conceal his meaning. There, he says that the "maskil" will understand, whereas here in parshas Naso he says its secret is known. Thus, everyone knows it.
And what it is they know? The kohanim and the nation know that this water does not have in some substance which can kill, but rather it was as wondrous aspect of it.
Thus, Avi Ezer negates what Ibn Ezra was implying, and makes it seem like this negation was in fact what Ibn Ezra was implying. Obviously, I do not think he is correct in this assertion. Rather, in both instances Ibn Ezra talks cagily, so that the frummies, or the hamon am who cannot process it, won't get overly upset by his controversial statements.
I should note here that the Karaite scholar Aharon ben Yosef cites this position of Ibn Ezra in order to reject it.
Shadal also reject Ibn Ezra's position. He writes:
יח] מי המרים : לא נקראו בשום מקום המים המרים, כי באמת לא היו מרים, ורק אם חטאה אז היו נעשים בקרבה מרים (כלומר מזיקים וארסיים), כמו שכתוב ( פסוק כ"ד ) ובאו בה המים המאררים למרים, והיו נקראים מרים על שם סופם (כדברי רז"ל ספרא נשא פיסקא י"א) מפני שאם היתה טמאה היו מרים לה, ואע"פ שאם לא נטמאה לא היו מרים, לא נקראו מתוקים או מי תרופה וכיוצא בזה, כי באמת אם לא נטמאה לא היו המים מחדשים בה שום דבר ( עיין למטה פסוק כ"ח) . והנה מי המרים ענינו המים הנקראים מרים, וכיוצא בזה נהר פרת, הנהר הנקרא פרת, ואחרים כמוהו, וכמו שפירשתי ( בראשית א' י"ד ) רקיע השמיים, הרקיע הנקרא שמים. אבל הסוד שרמז הראב"ע (שהיה הכהן נותן במים סמים ממיתים, אם היה נראה לו שהאישה חטאה), הבל הוא ושיגעון, שהרי אם היה זה בדע המחוקק, היה מוסר הענין לכהנים מפה לאוזן, ולא היה כותב בתורה מליצה שתגלה סודו. והנה משה לא נמנע מלכתוב מליצה, שייתכן להבין ממנה כי כל מעשיו וכל תורותיו לא היו אלא בכוח אנושי, וכן חכמי התלמוד לא נמנעו מאמור שהכהן היה נותן במים דבר מר (סוטה כ' ע"א), כי כן היה נראה להם משמעות המילות, ולא חששו כלל שמא מזה ישפטו התלמידים שהיה העניין בתחבולה ובלא מעשה ניסים; כי מי שהוא נאמן בכל דבריו אין דרכו להיות דואג שמא יחשבוהו שקרן, ולא יעלה על לבו שיהיו דבריו צריכין חיזוק.
I do not really agree with Shadal's understanding of Ibn Ezra. While it is a possible reading, I think that the reason he calls it a "sod" is not because the general populace subject to the waters of Sotah would see this as a trick, and the whole point was to fool them. Rather, I would read this sod as something that they were not ashamed of, but which many of the people in Ibn Ezra's day were not ready to accept. To avoid criticism from these people, and perhaps not to be cast in cherem, he called it a sod.
Furthermore, nowhere do I see that Ibn Ezra said that the kohen decided the woman's guilt or innocence and put poison or did not put poison as a result. I would instead understand this as a trial by ordeal.
In a trial by ordeal, they made someone carry a hot iron a long distance, or made a woman plunge her hand in hot water. The natural course of order was that one would be burned, and if one was burned, this was a sign of guilt. If one was innocent, God would intervene and the person would remain unharmed.
My guess is that Ibn Ezra does not favor the idea that all these symptom (of swollen belly and falling thigh) were caused by entirely miraculous causes, with no natural basis whatsoever. And so he had the kohen but herbs into the mix. But I don't think that he was saying that the kohen only put the herbs into the water if he thought the woman was guilty. Rather, the kohen always put the herbs in the water, and perhaps they would act in this way and perhaps not. Then, under Hashem's guidance, they either reacted in the woman's body or not, depending upon her guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, I am not sure whether Ibn Ezra thought that the hamon am subject to the mei Sotah was aware of these herbs being placed in the water -- it can work either way.
Thus, Shadal agrees with Rashi's translation. He maintains that the waters were not bitter in test, but rather they have bitter effects if she committed adultery. And so they are called this even if in fact she did not commit adultery, such that they do not have bitter effects.
He understands mei hamarim as the waters which are called bitter, just as Nehar Perat is the river which is called Perat.
Shadal cites Ibn Ezra and his "sod," explained as that if it appears to the kohen that the woman is guilty, the kohen puts poison into the water, and calls this nonsense and insanity. Of course they would not have done this! And if this was in fact a trick, they would not have written it in the Torah, but the "secret" would have been transmitted Orally from mouth to ear among the kohanim. Moshe though, does not refrain from writing this melitza of mei hamarim, nor does the father of Shmuel (and the Talmud) refrain from suggesting that they made the water bitter, because they never imagined someone would suggest based on this that the death of the adulteress was done via trickery and strategems, rather than via a miracle and thus Divine intervention.
He understands mei hamarim as the waters which are called bitter, just as Nehar Perat is the river which is called Perat.
Shadal cites Ibn Ezra and his "sod," explained as that if it appears to the kohen that the woman is guilty, the kohen puts poison into the water, and calls this nonsense and insanity. Of course they would not have done this! And if this was in fact a trick, they would not have written it in the Torah, but the "secret" would have been transmitted Orally from mouth to ear among the kohanim. Moshe though, does not refrain from writing this melitza of mei hamarim, nor does the father of Shmuel (and the Talmud) refrain from suggesting that they made the water bitter, because they never imagined someone would suggest based on this that the death of the adulteress was done via trickery and strategems, rather than via a miracle and thus Divine intervention.
I do not really agree with Shadal's understanding of Ibn Ezra. While it is a possible reading, I think that the reason he calls it a "sod" is not because the general populace subject to the waters of Sotah would see this as a trick, and the whole point was to fool them. Rather, I would read this sod as something that they were not ashamed of, but which many of the people in Ibn Ezra's day were not ready to accept. To avoid criticism from these people, and perhaps not to be cast in cherem, he called it a sod.
Furthermore, nowhere do I see that Ibn Ezra said that the kohen decided the woman's guilt or innocence and put poison or did not put poison as a result. I would instead understand this as a trial by ordeal.
In a trial by ordeal, they made someone carry a hot iron a long distance, or made a woman plunge her hand in hot water. The natural course of order was that one would be burned, and if one was burned, this was a sign of guilt. If one was innocent, God would intervene and the person would remain unharmed.
My guess is that Ibn Ezra does not favor the idea that all these symptom (of swollen belly and falling thigh) were caused by entirely miraculous causes, with no natural basis whatsoever. And so he had the kohen but herbs into the mix. But I don't think that he was saying that the kohen only put the herbs into the water if he thought the woman was guilty. Rather, the kohen always put the herbs in the water, and perhaps they would act in this way and perhaps not. Then, under Hashem's guidance, they either reacted in the woman's body or not, depending upon her guilt or innocence. Meanwhile, I am not sure whether Ibn Ezra thought that the hamon am subject to the mei Sotah was aware of these herbs being placed in the water -- it can work either way.
No comments:
Post a Comment