Geonic kapparot -- based on Adonis gardens / swinging nettles?

Elul is here, and with it, the approach of kapparot. Nowadays people use a chicken. In prior times, people also sometimes used a ram, though presumably did not swing it about their head. For a long time, people have argued about the legitimacy of this practice.

An oft-cited Rashi on Shabbat 81b discusses a Geonic practice:

האי פרפיסא - עציץ נקוב שזרעו בו ובתשובת הגאונים מצאתי שעושין חותלות מכפות תמרים וממלאין אותם עפר וזבל בהמה וכ"ב או ט"ו יום לפני ר"ה עושין כל אחד ואחד לשם כל קטן וקטנה שבבית וזורעים לתוכן פול המצרי או קיטנית וקורין לו פורפיסא וצומח ובערב ר"ה נוטל כל אחד שלו ומחזירו סביבות ראשו שבעה פעמים ואומר זה תחת זה וזה חליפתי וזה תמורתי ומשליכו לנהר:

"This porpisa - a perforated planter in which one plants. And in the teshuvot Hageonim I found that that they make palm-leaf baskets, fill them with dirt and animal manure, and 22 or 15 days before Rosh Hashana, they make each one for each male and female child in the house, plant in it beans or peas, and they call it porpisa, and it grows. Then, on Erev Rosh Hashana, each one takes his own, swings it around his head seven times, and says 'this is in place of this, this is by substitute, this is my replacement' and then casts it into the river."

The Jewish Encyclopedia makes a bold assumption that this is "obviously" a carry over of the pagan Adonis gardens.

Another and apparently an older practise in geonic times was that of planting beans or peas in palm-leaf baskets for each child in the house two or three weeks before the New-Year. Then on the day before New-Year the children would swing the baskets containing the ripened plants around their heads three times, saying, "This be in lieu of me; this be my substitute and my exchange," and would then throw them into the water (Rashi, Shab. 81b). This is obviously a survival of the pagan rite connected with the so-called "Adonis gardens," Ἀδώνιδος κῆποι = "niṭ'e na'amanim" (Isa. xvii. 10; see Marti's and other commentaries). In Solomon b. Adret's time the kapparot ceremony was performed for the youths only (see "Bet Yosef," l.c.). According to S. I. Curtiss, "Primitive Semitic Religion To-Day," p. 203, Chicago, 1902, the Moslems of the villages of the Syrian desert still sacrifice a cock for each new-born son and a hen for each daughter born.

Perhaps. I don't see this as so obvious.

Read here in Wikipedia about Adonis Gardens:

Women in Athens would plant "gardens of Adonis" quick-growing herbs that sprang up from seed and died. The Festival of Adonis was celebrated by women at midsummer by sowing fennel and lettuce, and grains of wheat and barley. The plants sprang up soon, and withered quickly, and women mourned for the death of the vegetation god.

I suppose that the time is approximately right, and the quick-growing herbs are right. But I am not sure about the rest. And we would expect a connection to the month of Tammuz more than Tishrei:

Adonis was certainly based in large part on Tammuz.^{[citation needed]} His name is Semitic, a variation on the word adon meaning "lord". Yet there is no trace of a Semitic deity directly connected with Adonis,^[14] and no trace in Semitic languages of any specific mythemesconnected with his Greek myth; both Greek and Near Eastern scholars have questioned the connection.^[15] The connection in practice is with Adonis' Mesopotamian counterpart,Tammuz:

Women sit by the gate weeping for Tammuz, or they offer incense to Baal on roof-tops and plant pleasant plants. These are the very features of the Adonis legend: which is celebrated on flat roof-tops on which sherds sown with quickly germinating green salading are placed, Adonis gardens... the climax is loud lamentation for the dead god.^[16]

I would also see a connection to the swinging of nettles as a Germanic cure, and using nettles as a replacement for one's person. To cite The Big Bad Book of Botany, pg 36:

Mythology around the prickly nettle plant abounds. The Vikings believed nettles were especially important to the god Thor, and that burning one in a fire could prevent lightning strikes. Germanic cultures used nettles in medicinal rituals, believing that sickness could be cured by grabbing the plant by the roots and waving it over a patient while reciting his (and his parents’) names. According to Greek mythology, these stinging plants arose after a watchful father transformed his beautiful daughter into a prickly plant to prevent the god Apollo from seducing her.

Memes and parshas Re'eh

When looking through parshas Re'eh (starting Devarim 11:26), I thought it might be useful to consider the parsha from the perspective of memes. To cite Wikipedia for a quick definition of meme:

The word meme is a shortening (modeled on gene) of mimeme (from Ancient Greek μίμημα pronounced [míːmɛːma] mīmēma, "imitated thing", from μιμεῖσθαιmimeisthai, "to imitate", from μῖμος mimos, "mime")^[4] coined by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976)^[1][5] as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catch-phrases, fashion, and the technology of building arches.^[6]

Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagateless prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.^[7]

This sort of meme is distinct from but related to Internet memes, the silly pictures with short captions which spread virally on the Internet.

The basic idea is that which ideas which spread are those which can compete successfully with competing ideas, and influence behavior in ways which help them spread.

For an example I've heard as regards to Torah law, consider circumcision. How did this practice become widespread? The argument goes that circumcision decreases penile sensitivity and in such a way that circumcised men would prefer vaginal to anal sex. As a result, those who practice circumcision would have more children than those who are uncircumcised. And those children would carry on the traditions of their parents. Thus, the practice of circumcision (introduced for whatever reason) would spread and compete effectively with the non-practice of circumcision.

Ideas or practices can also mutate, and those mutations will either succeed or fail. It is survival of the fittest of ideas and practices.

We might grapple with some of the laws in parshas Re'eh, especially if we approach it with a modern attitude. For instance, are we comfortable with betray a spouse or kin who secretly entices to idolatry? What of familial loyalty and love? What of the free marketplace of ideas? Is it not extreme to execute a missionary?

There may well be good answers to this sort of moral / ethical question. Obviously we don't actually practically practice these laws nowadays. But in thinking about this, perhaps we should adjust our modern attitude. Perhaps we should say society has changed. Perhaps we should explain it in a way that some would consider apologetics.

But perhaps we should just sidestep this whole like of thinking. We should consider these laws from the perspective of memes.

The Torah contains a core monotheistic idea, as well as a series of religious, legal, and ethical practices. If the Giver of the Torah wanted to ensure that this idea / ideas last, and that the Masorah carried on, what could He do preserve the Torah -- to avoid its adulteration or replacement with other competing ideas?

Devarim 12:2-3:

ב  אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת-כָּל-הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ-שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם--אֶת-אֱלֹהֵיהֶם:  עַל-הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל-הַגְּבָעוֹת, וְתַחַת כָּל-עֵץ רַעֲנָן.	2 Ye shall surely destroy all the places, wherein the nations that ye are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree.
ג  וְנִתַּצְתֶּם אֶת-מִזְבְּחֹתָם, וְשִׁבַּרְתֶּם אֶת-מַצֵּבֹתָם, וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ, וּפְסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תְּגַדֵּעוּן; וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת-שְׁמָם, מִן-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא.	3 And ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods; and ye shall destroy their name out of that place.

Hashem is a "jealous God", but what does He have to be jealous of? One answer is that the best defense is a good offense. Hashem is not really jealous or hurt by people worshiping other, non-existent, gods. However, if people worship other gods, then they will not be monotheistic worshipers of Hashem. And there are other sources of law and determiners of good and evil.

Now consider two Biblical Judaisms. One version plays nice with idolatry. It allows their altars, pillars, and Asherim to remain. The other version commands the destruction of their altars, pillars, and Asherim. Which would be more effective in propagating the core and secondary ideas of Judaism?

ד  לֹא-תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן, לַה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.	4 Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God.
ה  כִּי אִם-אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, מִכָּל-שִׁבְטֵיכֶם, לָשׂוּם אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, שָׁם--לְשִׁכְנוֹ תִדְרְשׁוּ, וּבָאתָ שָּׁמָּה.	5 But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, even unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come;

By making people come to a central location for worship and festivals, one curbs the mutation of the religious idea.

ח  לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן--כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ עֹשִׂים פֹּה, הַיּוֹם:  אִישׁ, כָּל-הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו.

8 Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes;

What is right should be defined by Hashem, not by each individual.

So too, even with permitting of besar taavah as a result of spreading out across the land making making eating meat inconvenient, for ritual sacrificial purposes, one still comes to a central location:

כו  רַק קָדָשֶׁיךָ אֲשֶׁר-יִהְיוּ לְךָ, וּנְדָרֶיךָ, תִּשָּׂא וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר יְהוָה.

26 Only thy holy things which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take, and go unto the place which the LORD shall choose;

When conquering other lands, even though you are being militarily successful, there is a danger of assimilating their religious practices into the worship of Hashem. There is a command to avoid adopting even those aspects which strike you as positive religious innovation and adoption:

כט  כִּי-יַכְרִית ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא-שָׁמָּה לָרֶשֶׁת אוֹתָם--מִפָּנֶיךָ; וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֹתָם, וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בְּאַרְצָם.	29 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest in to dispossess them, and thou dispossessest them, and dwellest in their land;
ל  הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, פֶּן-תִּנָּקֵשׁ אַחֲרֵיהֶם, אַחֲרֵי, הִשָּׁמְדָם מִפָּנֶיךָ; וּפֶן-תִּדְרֹשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר, אֵיכָה יַעַבְדוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֶת-אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, וְאֶעֱשֶׂה-כֵּן, גַּם-אָנִי.	30 take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they are destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying: 'How used these nations to serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.'
לא  לֹא-תַעֲשֶׂה כֵן, לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ:  כִּי כָל-תּוֹעֲבַת ה אֲשֶׁר שָׂנֵא, עָשׂוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם--כִּי גַם אֶת-בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת-בְּנֹתֵיהֶם, יִשְׂרְפוּ בָאֵשׁ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם.	31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God; for every abomination to the LORD, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods.

Next, bal tosif and bal tigra. Devarim 13:

א  אֵת כָּל-הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם--אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ, לַעֲשׂוֹת:  לֹא-תֹסֵף עָלָיו, וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ.  {פ}

1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. {P}

According to the petucha and setuma breaks, this pasuk associates with the previous perek. If so, one could argue (on a peshat level) that this has to do only with the sacrificial rites. It is understood by halachic midrash to refer to all sorts of Torah law. According to the perek boundaries, this pasuk starts a new section, such that it is joined with the laws of false prophet. Thus, a prophet (post-Moshe) is not empowered to innovate new laws.

This is not just anti-innovation. This instruction of don't-add-don't-subtract ties all the laws together, such that they all live or die together. In this way, the law of circumcision, if it is an idea which aids in its own propagation, also aids in the propagation of the law to love one's neighbor.

[Devarim 13:2-6] False prophesy of an idolatrous prophet -- the death penalty is preservational.

[Devarim 13:7-12] A close family who invites to idolatry is exposed and stoned to death by you, followed by all the people -- consider that this is otherwise a great way for foreign ideas to infiltrate. Just convince one member of a family unit of the idolatry, and let the family tolerate it in silence. Eventually, those ideas spread within the family unit.

Make the family and the community at large participate in the sentence, so as to take a physical stand against the outside influence, and to put the fear of God into the people.

יב  וְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל--יִשְׁמְעוּ, וְיִרָאוּן; וְלֹא-יוֹסִפוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת, כַּדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה--בְּקִרְבֶּךָ.  {ס}

12 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee. {S}

[Devarim 13:13-19] The utter destruction of the idolatrous city. Here, the foreign idea and worship has spread even further. More drastic action is called for, entire obliteration. It is unclear if this was ever carried out, or if the very idea was preventative enough.

[Devarim 14:1-2] No cutting or baldness because you are a holy people;
[Devarim 14:3-21] A special diet, because you are a holy people. Certain abominable things you may give to the toshav among you, or sell to a gentile, but you may not yourselves eat of it, because you are a holy people. All this serves to set the Israelites aside as special, both in eating habits and in their own minds. This is a good way to prevent assimilation of ideas and practices.

[Devarim 14:22-26] Regular bringing of maasar to a central location of worship, as above. Of course, not every law is towards this aim. There is another thread running through this is support for the Levite, widow, orphan, and so on, until pasuk 29.

Og's Bedstead - Shadal

In parashat Devarim, on the following pasuk [Devarim 3:11], Shadal responds to those who assert that the pasuk is an editorial insertion:

יא  כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים--הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל, הֲלֹה הִוא בְּרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן:  תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אָרְכָּהּ, וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת רָחְבָּהּ--בְּאַמַּת-אִישׁ.

11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל -- "Moshe elaborates a bit in the telling of the greatness of the victory which 
Hashem granted them, for He gave into their hands two mightly kings, Sichon and Og. And all this is to strengthen the nation's heart, so that they would trust in Hashem to give them the land of Canaan. And this is [in line with] what he sums up [in pasuk 21-22] 'so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou goest over. Ye shall not fear them; for the LORD your God, He it is that fighteth for you.'

And with this same intent (to engrave in their hearts the greatness of the salvation which Hashem performed for them) he said earlier [pasuk 4-5] 'there was not a city which we took not from them; threescore cities... All these were fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars...'

And with this same intent he added here that Og was of the Refaim, whose strength and great height was well known in their days, such that they would frighten all who saw them. And he added here as well the matter of his bedstead, which was well-known in their days, and which was kept in Rabbat Benei Amon, for (just as Mendelssohn said) the Amonim kept his bed as a remembrance of their [own] might, when they were victorious over him and took his land. All this was to strengthen the image of the salvation which Hashem granted to Israel.

And there is not here any this which cannot rightly be said that Moshe wrote it. And behold, it is logical that, also in Ashterot, Og had a bedstead of iron, but Moshe did not command to keep it, for it was not his way to place a hand[hold?] within his nation for the kings of the nations, who were idol worshipers, for his Torah still required strengthening, since it was new. However, King David believed that the Torah's roots had already taken root in Israel and required no further strengthening. Therefore, when he took Rabbat Benei Ammon, he did not hold back from taking the crown of their king [מלכם] from upon his head so that it would be upon the head of David [II Shmuel 12:30]. And if the bedstead of Og was still there, it seems to me that he would have undoubtedly brought it to Yerushalayim. And this that this fact isn't mentioned in sefer Shmuel, one can understand that in the span of 400 years, it was already broken and / or lost and was no longer there.

And [so] it is not possible that this pasuk [in Devarim about Og's bedstead] was added in the days of David, as is the position of those who hold themselves clever. And I would ask them: who added it, and from where was it added? Behold, even if you just seek to say that what was added was כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים -- 'For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim', since the remembrance of the Refaim was already forgotten in the days of David, then that Og remained from the remnants of the Refaim was something that was quite old in his [David's] generation, and it is far-fetched that it would arise in someone's mind to add this matter in a sefer, which wouldn't aid or benefit.

Besides this, David and his friends, it would have been better for them to erase these words from sefer Yehoshua [12:4 -- וּגְבוּל, עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, מִיֶּתֶר, הָרְפָאִים and 13:12 -- הוּא נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים] and not to add them in the Torah. For behold, David and his servants smote the children of Rafah [II Shmuel 21:22, I Divrei Hayamim 20:4]. And would it not be for greater honor to David and his servants were it said that they were the ones who slew the remnants of the Refaim. And for what cause would the people of that generation relate to a later generation that only Og remained from the remnants of the Refaim, in such manner that the children of the Rafa could not be from this trunk famed for its might and great height?

Now if it is granted that the words כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים are not added, but were rather written by whoever wrote the sefer, behold I will ask: is it possible that this was the language of the author [with the words above included as those of the initial author but with other words allegedly by an editor missing]?

י  כֹּל עָרֵי הַמִּישֹׁר, וְכָל-הַגִּלְעָד וְכָל-הַבָּשָׁן, עַד-סַלְכָה, וְאֶדְרֶעִי--עָרֵי מַמְלֶכֶת עוֹג, בַּבָּשָׁן.	10 all the cities of the plain, and all Gilead, and all Bashan, unto Salcah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan.--
יא  כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים--הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל, הֲלֹה הִוא בְּרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן:  תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אָרְכָּהּ, וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת רָחְבָּהּ--בְּאַמַּת-אִישׁ.	11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

יב  וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת יָרַשְׁנוּ, בָּעֵת הַהִוא...

12 And this land we took in possession at that time...

Then what connection and what relation is there to the middle pasuk [11] with what precedes and with what follows?"

__________

I have some thoughts on this, but will keep them for (hopefully) a follow-up post.

Charging Yehoshua

The Samaritans have a curious insertion towards the end of parashat Pinchas:

That is, after Bemidbar 27:23, they insert the command portion of Devarim 3:21-22:

כא  וְאֶת-יְהוֹשׁוּעַ צִוֵּיתִי, בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר:  עֵינֶיךָ הָרֹאֹת, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לִשְׁנֵי הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה--כֵּן-יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לְכָל-הַמַּמְלָכוֹת, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹבֵר שָׁמָּה.	21 And I commanded Joshua at that time, saying: 'Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings; so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou goest over.
כב  לֹא, תִּירָאוּם:  כִּי ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, הוּא הַנִּלְחָם לָכֶם.  {ס}	22 Ye shall not fear them; for the LORD your God, He it is that fighteth for you.' {S}

(Except they left off the Elokeichem from pasuk 22.)

This is a typical Samaritan modification and harmonization. Since Devarim asserts that Yehoshua was commanded this 'at that time', the command to Yehoshua should ideally also appear in that earlier text. (Meanwhile, it is obviously an insertion and tampering with the text. Indeed, the very point of mentioning this Devarim is to add information, to let them know what they otherwise would not have known from the earlier text.)

I don't know that this charging of Yehoshua regarding Sichon and Og is best inserted here of all places. There might well be better guesses. But I suspect the decision to insert it here is the link (gezeira shava) formed by וְאֶת-יְהוֹשׁוּעַ צִוֵּיתִי in Devarim 3 and ויצוהו in Bemidbar 27:23.

Listen up, morons!

In a parsha sheet I read last Shabbos (Chukas), I saw the following:

Someone at my table in shul expressed dissatisfaction with this Rashi. How would klal Yisrael know Greek? or that Moshe was specifically choosing a Greek word here, rather than the Hebrew word morim [to mean, say, סרבנים, rebellious ones, as Rashi says earlier]? Was there even a Greek language at that time?

I suggested that there may well have been a Greek language (yaft Elokim leyefet) or some precursor thereof, and that perhaps Rashi (or whatever midrash he is channeling) was doing comparative linguistics, and explaining the meaning of a Biblical Hebrew word on the basis of its Greek cognate. And that the Hebrew term got its meaning from the Greek, as a loan word, or vice versa.

I had my own problem with this devar Torah, at least as written. It is internally inconsistent! If the Greek expression morim indeed means:

"fools who instruct their mentors"

then this indicates that within Greek culture at that time, they regarded someone who instructed his mentor to be a fool. If so, how can Rav Trunk turn around and say that Moshe used this Greek term in order to highlight the contrast of Torah studies with secular studies:

"[exemplified by Greek culture and influence]. Each subsequent generation improves and adds to the advances of the previous generation, and it is likely that students can attain greater heights than their mentors."

? The Greeks themselves considered such a student who would presume to instruct his mentor to be a fool!

I think the answer here was a hasty translation in this parsha sheet, and one with which Rav Trunk would not have agreed.

Rashi was actually giving three separate translations of the word morim, in quick succession:
1) סרבנים -- rebellious ones. Compare morim with mordim.
2) Greek cognate - morim, meaning fools.
3) A Hebrew play on words, morim, those who presume to teach those who are their teachers.

So there is a period or comma between לשון יוני שוטים and מורים את מוריהם. And so the Greeks themselves would not regard such a person who taught his teachers to be a fool. And Rav Trunk was connecting items (2) and (3). This is my guess and reconstruction of what Rav Trunk meant, but then I didn't hear the dvar Torah firsthand[1].

Looking now at Judaica Press, I see that they possibly render this Rashi similarly:

Shall we draw water… from this rock?: Since they did not recognize it, for the rock had gone and settled among the other rocks when the well departed. The Israelites said to them,“What difference is it to you from which rock you draw water for us?” Therefore, he said to them, הַמּוֹרִים, obstinate ones; in Greek, ‘fools,’ those who teach (מוֹרִים) their teachers. [He said,] “Can we draw water from this rock regarding which we were not commanded?” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 9, Num. Rabbah 19:9]

המן הסלע הזה נוציא: לפי שלא היו מכירין אותו, לפי שהלך הסלע וישב לו בין הסלעים, כשנסתלק הבאר, והיו ישראל אומרים להם מה לכם מאיזה סלע תוציאו לנו מים, לכך אמר להם המורים סרבנים, לשון יוני שוטים, מורים את מוריהם, המן הסלע הזה שלא נצטוינו עליו נוציא לכם מים:

At any rate, we can look at Greek dictionaries and figure out what the likely Greek word was. We can determine whether it just meant "fools" or "fools who instruct their mentors".

And we quickly arrive at the Greek word μωρός. That is, moros, foolish, or μωρὸν, moron, foolishness, or Μωρέ, more, fool, or μωροὶ, moroi, fools. The word just means "fools",  not "fools who instruct their mentors".

Note that this Greek word is the root of the English word "moron". Which means that Rashi is actually rendering this phrase uttered by Moshe as "Listen up, morons!"


_________________

Footnotes:

[1] The above might be unfair to Rav Blum. After all, Rav Trunk was interpreting the Greekness of the expression plus the message of 'those who instruct their mentors' specifically as of Greek origin, so this might just be an inconsistency in the dvar Torah itself.

Torah Codes vs. Acronyms

In a recent comment, a commenter compared modern Torah Codes to acronyms noted by some traditional Torah scholars of generations past, such as the Arizal and Rav Nachman of Breslav.

I don't believe in the veracity of finding current political events hidden in verses of Tanakh but there is something to equidistant letter skips, especially when they answer the simple meaning of a verse:

“A major principle, according to the Gaon [of Vilna], appears in Sifra de-Tsni’uta, [and that is] everything that was, is, and will be in all the upper and lower worlds, as well as all the general and particular things that will happen in every generation—all these are hinted at in the Torah [cf. M Avot 5:26: Ben Bag-Bag said: Turn it [Torah] over and over for everything is in it; BT Ta’anit 9a: Is there anything written in the Writings to which allusion cannot be found in the Torah?]… every person can find his name and mission in verses” (Qol ha-Tor 1:1; 3:11).

Some compelling examples:

אִם-לַלֵּצִים הוּא-יָלִיץ וְלַעֲנָוִים יִתֶּן-חֵן But to the humble he grants favor (Proverbs 3:34)—אֱלִיָּהוּ חי, Elijah lives, is spelled out by the initial letters of the verse (Arizal).

אוֹר זָרֻעַ לַצַּדִּיק וּלְיִשְׁרֵי-לֵב שִׂמְחָה Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright of heart (Psalms 97:11)—ר עֲקִיבַה, R. Akiva, is spelled out in the final letters of the verse (Arizal).

עִיר וְקַדִּישׁ מִן-שְׁמַיָּא נָחִת And behold, a watcher, a holy one came down from heaven (Daniel 4:10)—שׁמעוֹן, Shim’on, is spelled out by the initial letters of the verse (Rebbe Naḥman of Bratslav, Lekhu Hazu).

כִּי לֹא תִשָּׁכַח מִפִּי זַרְעו For it shall not be forgotten in the mouth of his seed (Deuteronomy 31:21)—יוֹחַאי, Yoḥai, is spelled out in the final letters of the verse (Rebbe Naḥman of Bratslav, Liqqutei Moharan, cf. BT Shabbat 138b: The Torah is destined to be forgotten from Israel).

לְמַעַן) רְבוֹת מוֹפְתַי בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם) (So that) My portents may be multiplied in the land of Egypt (Exodus 11:9)—רמבּם, Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon), is spelled out by the initial letters of the verse.

נַחַל נֹבֵעַ מְקוֹר חָכְמָה A flowing stream, the wellspring of wisdom (Proverbs 18:4)—נַחמָן, Naḥman, is spelled out by the initial letters of the verse (Rebbe Naḥman of Bratslav, Liqqutei Moharan, Ḥayei Moharan, 189).

וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם-יְהוָה מוֹת יוּמָת And he who invokes YHWH’s name shall be doomed to die (Leviticus 24:16). יֵשׁוּ (Yeshu), Jesus, is spelled out in reverse, indicating judgment, by the first three letters of the first three words (Rabbi Meir Paprish [Poppers], Ohr Ner).

I don't believe in the significance of these first-letter-of-word encodings either, so perhaps I am not the one to best argue this. However, I see no one else prepared to do so, and so will take on the task.

There is a major qualitative and quantitative difference between these examples of yours and Torah Codes.

Yirmeyahu said (23:28):

כח  הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר-אִתּוֹ חֲלוֹם, יְסַפֵּר חֲלוֹם, וַאֲשֶׁר דְּבָרִי אִתּוֹ, יְדַבֵּר דְּבָרִי אֱמֶת:  מַה-לַתֶּבֶן אֶת-הַבָּר, נְאֻם-ה.

28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath My word; let him speak My word faithfully. What hath the straw to do with the wheat? saith the LORD.

Just because prophecy and dreams bear similarities does not make them equals. One is chaff and the other is wheat.

In short:

The qualitative difference
In works of literature produced by humans, authors employ acronyms as a literary device. Thus, interpreters of that literary text might be expected to look for such messages and (since dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam) it is not surprising for a Divine author to likewise employ it. Utilizing the last letters of words, rather than the first letters, is a simple extension of this.

In contrast, the use of equal skip letters throughout a text, backwards and forwards, with overlapping words in a grid formed by those letters was not historically used as a literary device. It is more like a cipher or steganography than a literary device. The claim is that this message could be intended and deployed alongside the plaintext by someone with Divine Powers. Sure, but a "could" is not the same as a "would".

The quantitative difference
First-letter-encodings: There are 79,847 words in the Torah, which means the corpus formed by first letters of words is of size 79,847. Similarly, the corpus formed by last letters of words is of size 79,847.

If one searches and finds a message, this is looking for and finding a needle in a haystack. 

Torah codes: There are 304,805 letters in the Torah. That means that the corpus for an ELS (skip length) of 1 is 304,805. 

What about for an ELS of 2? Well, the corpus size would be half of 304,805 letters, because we are only looking at only every other letter. But there are two such corpora -- one beginning with the Bet of Bereishit (and looking at every odd letter) and one beginning with the Resh of Bereishit (and looking at every even letter). So we have a total corpus, for ELS of 2, of 304,805.

What about for an ELS of 3? Each corpus is a third the size, but there are three such corpora. So, total length of of 304,805.

ELS of 4? Each corpus is a quarter the size, but there are four such corpora. So, total length of 304,805.

And so on and so forth. That means that the total length of the corpus, considering every positive number ELS, 304,805 squared. That is 92,906,088,025 letters. That is 92 billion letters. And if we consider negative ELS as well, it is twice that, 185,812,176,050. That is 185 billion letters.

Compare 185 billion letters to search through for Torah codes vs. 79 thousands letters to search through for first-letter acronyms. Of course you are going to find something. Given how many instances there will be, of course in a few of them you will be able to convince yourself that there is some significant tie-in to the enclosing verses.

This is searching for hay in a haystack and declaring it to be a needle!

There is only one ELS that I am persuaded carries an intended message. That is an ELS of +1.

Update: As Joe in Australia pointed out in the comment section, many of these "compelling" examples are not just acronyms but also anagrams. This makes a match much more likely. His rough calculation was that, for a 5 letter word, since there were 5! permutations, this multiplies the corpus size by at least 120.

My updated response is then this: First, it makes these compelling examples much less compelling. I had focused on the three that did not involve (any or much) permuting - Eliyahu, Rambam, and Rabbi Akiva. But indeed, ones which involve acronyms bring the literary form slightly closer to the steganography of Torah Codes. In terms of quantitative difference, though, if we do have this rough estimate of multiplying by a constant of 120, this is still a far cry from squaring the corpus size.

Shelach: Why specifically the ripening of the grapes?

I'll start this with a quote, in full, of a post on Shirat Devorah, which in turn is a quote from the Chumash Kol Menachem, page 102, from the commentary Toras Menachem:

"It was the season when the first grapes ripen..." [Shelach 13:20 ]

Moses did not command the spies to bring back grapes in particular, but just "fruit", and we find that they brought back various fruits - grapes, pomegranates and figs [v.23]

So why does the Torah stress that "It was the season when the first grapes ripen" and not simply, the time when fruit was ripening?

The process of spying out the Land to conquer it represents our daily mission of evaluating how to advance the "conquering" of this physical world for G-d, through the most effective use of time and resources for Torah.  Verse 20 concludes that the goal of this process is represented by grapes: grapes are unique in that their seeds are visible through their skins, and this teaches us that the goal of our observance is to make the physical "skin" of this world transparent to its higher, spiritual purpose.

Source: Based on Sicha of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shabbos Parshas Shelach 5750

That is, Bemidbar 13:20 -- the last pasuk of the first aliyah -- reads:

וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים:

Such that Moshe instructs them to take 'of the fruit', מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ, without specifying type of fruit. And the pasuk ends וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים, that the season was when the first grapes ripen. Yet, three pesukim later:

וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל וַיִּכְרְתוּ מִשָּׁם זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד וַיִּשָּׂאֻהוּ בַמּוֹט בִּשְׁנָיִם וּמִן הָרִמֹּנִים וּמִן הַתְּאֵנִים:

they take a branch and on it a cluster of grapes, זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים, but they also take from the pomegranates and figs.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe asks a question based on this, and derives an important life lesson. And this is good drash, or drush, even if we eliminate the question on the basis of realia or close analysis of the narrative on a peshat level.

On a peshat level, though, how can we resolve this question?

The obvious answer is that not all fruits ripen at the same time. It could well be the יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים, the season of the ripening of the first grapes, and not yet the season of the full ripening of pomegranates or figs. Those fruits might still exist on the trees, but not fully ripe. Or they could have already have been ripe for a while, and still exist on the trees.

We can point to this chart, taken from Agriculture in Iron Age Israel [Oded Borowski, 1987, page 7], which tries to fix the seasons in Ancient Israel on the basis of harvesting in modern Israel, under the theory that the climate in the same geographical location would be the same across eras:

As you can see from the chart, the time of harvest of figs and pomegranates is about a month after the time of harvest for grapes. This handily answers the Lubavitcher Rebbe's question -- it was indeed not the time of harvest for pomegranates and figs.

From a peshat perspective, there is still an issue in need of resolution. Moshe indicated fruits in general, and indeed, they took other fruits besides grapes, so why even bother to mention that it was the יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים?

The answer is that this יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים is anticipating the stress placed in a later pasuk on the abundance of the size of the grapes. Thus,

וַיִּכְרְתוּ מִשָּׁם זְמוֹרָה וְאֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים אֶחָד וַיִּשָּׂאֻהוּ בַמּוֹט בִּשְׁנָיִם

they cut off a single branch with grapes, and carried it on a pole using two people to carry it. See how great the produce of the land was. (And how dare they criticize it?) This was in spite of it being only the beginning of the first ripening of the grapes? Or, if bikkurim are more abundant than later growth, this יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים accounts for the abundance.

לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא קָרָא נַחַל אֶשְׁכּוֹל עַל אֹדוֹת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל אֲשֶׁר כָּרְתוּ מִשָּׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

And these grapes were so impressive that they named the place after that cluster of grapes.

Yes, they also took samples of other canonical fruits of the land, מִן הָרִמֹּנִים וּמִן הַתְּאֵנִים, which was part of Moshe's instruction.

--------------------

Question: I've only eaten, and purchased, seedless grapes recently. Are the seeds of non-seedless grapes indeed visible through the skin? I would guess that it depends on the specific type of grape -- some grapeskins are thinner or more translucent than others -- and whether the sun in shining behind them. There is a book, Illustrated Descriptive Catalogue of American Grape Vines: A Grape Growers' Manual, which described different species of grapes, with some of them having translucent skin. And here is a picture of grapes, where I think you can see some dark seeds through the skin:

Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part v

The last post in the series. See also parts one, two, three, and four.

The last difference described and explained by Ibn Ezra is that the number of Yishai's sons. In I Divrei Hayamim 2:12-16, Yishai has seven sons and David is the seventh.

יב  וּבֹעַז הוֹלִיד אֶת-עוֹבֵד, וְעוֹבֵד הוֹלִיד אֶת-יִשָׁי.	12 and Boaz begot Obed, and Obed begot Jesse;
יג  וְאִישַׁי הוֹלִיד אֶת-בְּכֹרוֹ, אֶת-אֱלִיאָב--וַאֲבִינָדָב, הַשֵּׁנִי, וְשִׁמְעָא, הַשְּׁלִשִׁי.	13 and Jesse begot his first-born Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third;
יד  נְתַנְאֵל, הָרְבִיעִי, רַדַּי, הַחֲמִישִׁי.	14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth;
טו  אֹצֶם, הַשִּׁשִּׁי, דָּוִיד, הַשְּׁבִעִי.	15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh.
טז  וְאַחְיֹתֵיהֶם, צְרוּיָה וַאֲבִיגָיִל; וּבְנֵי צְרוּיָה, אַבְשַׁי וְיוֹאָב וַעֲשָׂהאֵל--שְׁלֹשָׁה.	16 And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.

Meanwhile, in I Shmuel 16:6-12, Yishai sets out his seven sons before Shmuel -- see pasuk 10 -- and only after that brings out David, which would make David the eighth.

ו  וַיְהִי בְּבוֹאָם, וַיַּרְא אֶת-אֱלִיאָב; וַיֹּאמֶר, אַךְ נֶגֶד יְהוָה מְשִׁיחוֹ.  {ס}	6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he beheld Eliab, and said: 'Surely the LORD'S anointed is before Him.' {S}
ז  וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-שְׁמוּאֵל, אַל-תַּבֵּט אֶל-מַרְאֵהוּ וְאֶל-גְּבֹהַּ קוֹמָתוֹ--כִּי מְאַסְתִּיהוּ:  כִּי לֹא, אֲשֶׁר יִרְאֶה הָאָדָם--כִּי הָאָדָם יִרְאֶה לַעֵינַיִם, וַה' יִרְאֶה לַלֵּבָב.	7 But the LORD said unto Samuel: 'Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have rejected him; for it is not as man seeth: for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.'
ח  וַיִּקְרָא יִשַׁי אֶל-אֲבִינָדָב, וַיַּעֲבִרֵהוּ לִפְנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל; וַיֹּאמֶר, גַּם-בָּזֶה לֹא-בָחַר ה'.	8 Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said: 'Neither hath the LORD chosen this.'
ט  וַיַּעֲבֵר יִשַׁי, שַׁמָּה; וַיֹּאמֶר, גַּם-בָּזֶה לֹא-בָחַר ה'.	9 Then Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said: 'Neither hath the LORD chosen this.'
י  וַיַּעֲבֵר יִשַׁי שִׁבְעַת בָּנָיו, לִפְנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל; וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל-יִשַׁי, לֹא-בָחַר ה' בָּאֵלֶּה.	10 And Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse: 'The LORD hath not chosen these.'
יא  וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל-יִשַׁי, הֲתַמּוּ הַנְּעָרִים, וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד שָׁאַר הַקָּטָן, וְהִנֵּה רֹעֶה בַּצֹּאן; וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל-יִשַׁי שִׁלְחָה וְקָחֶנּוּ, כִּי לֹא-נָסֹב עַד-בֹּאוֹ פֹה.	11 And Samuel said unto Jesse: 'Are here all thy children?' And he said: 'There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep.' And Samuel said unto Jesse: 'Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he come hither.'
יב  וַיִּשְׁלַח וַיְבִיאֵהוּ וְהוּא אַדְמוֹנִי, עִם-יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רֹאִי;  {פ} וַיֹּאמֶר ה' קוּם מְשָׁחֵהוּ, כִּי-זֶה הוּא.	12 And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of beautiful eyes, and goodly to look upon. {P} And the LORD said: 'Arise, anoint him; for this is he.'

Ibn Ezra writes:

[Divrei Hayamim] דָּוִיד הַשְּׁבִעִי, he [the anonymous grammarian with whom Ibn Ezra is arguing] says that it should have been הַשְּׁמִנִי, for so is written [in sefer Shmuel] וַיַּעֲבֵר יִשַׁי שִׁבְעַת בָּנָיו [before bringing out David]. 

And many have answered that one of them died, and they are not saying anything [of substance], for in the days of the author of Divrei Hayamim, none of them were alive. 

Rather, it is possible that Yishai had another wife who bore him a son, and so the first pasuk [namely, the 10'th pasuk which gave a figure of seven sons] listed sons from whichever wife there was, while in Divrei Hayamim they were listed as they were from one womb. And like it is [I Divrei Hayamim 8:1] בֶּלַע בְּכֹרוֹ אַשְׁבֵּל הַשֵּׁנִי.

With this, Ibn Ezra ends his discussion of Lower Biblical Criticism, and moves on to the question of whether Biblical Hebrew has contranyms.

Perhaps some analysis in a follow-up post, but I should explain his reference to בֶּלַע בְּכֹרוֹ אַשְׁבֵּל הַשֵּׁנִי.

In  I Divrei Hayamim 8:1-5, the author describes the sons and grandsons of Binyamin:

א  וּבִנְיָמִן--הוֹלִיד, אֶת-בֶּלַע בְּכֹרוֹ; אַשְׁבֵּל, הַשֵּׁנִי, וְאַחְרַח, הַשְּׁלִישִׁי.	1 And Benjamin begot Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third;
ב  נוֹחָה, הָרְבִיעִי, וְרָפָא, הַחֲמִישִׁי.	2 Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.
ג  וַיִּהְיוּ בָנִים, לְבָלַע--אַדָּר וְגֵרָא, וַאֲבִיהוּד.	3 And Bela had sons, Addar, and Gera, and Abihud;
ד  וַאֲבִישׁוּעַ וְנַעֲמָן, וַאֲחוֹחַ.	4 and Abishua, and Naaman, and Ahoah;
ה  וְגֵרָא וּשְׁפוּפָן, וְחוּרָם.	5 and Gera, and Shephuphan, and Huram.

Meanwhile, in Bereishit 46:21, we see these sons of Binyamin:

כא  וּבְנֵי בִנְיָמִן, בֶּלַע וָבֶכֶר וְאַשְׁבֵּל, גֵּרָא וְנַעֲמָן, אֵחִי וָרֹאשׁ; מֻפִּים וְחֻפִּים, וָאָרְדְּ.

21 And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.

These lists don't match, and Ibn Ezra asserts that the same explanation could apply here as there.

Knowing when to speak up and when to shut up

In honor of the upcoming holiday of Shavuot, this piece by the Vilna Gaon about the difference between taam elyon and taam tachton in the Aseres HaDibros.

Let me preface this with a peshat explanation of any and all differences between the two sets of trup. In one version -- the taam elyon, each of the Ten Commandments is given its own pasuk, except for the short ones. Here is an image, though in general (without looking carefully at this), there are many corruptions in the elyon and tachton so one should get it from a better source:

As you can see, Anochi starts the first pasuk, and there is no silluq or sof pasuk until Mitzvotai, five lines down. Interestingly, though, the short Lo Tirtzach until Ed Shaker are grouped together.

Meanwhile, the taam tachton has regular pasuk divisions, without real regard towards separating the Dibros. See here in in a Mikraos Gedolos.

Here is an interesting image, which I think shows the elyon / tachton with variations alongside one another:

This image appears to have (as the elyon variant) pasuk terminations pauses at the end of Lo Tirtzach alone and Lo Tinaf alone, and the dagesh kal / refeh and patach / kametz variations to match.

A natural consequence of this difference in approach to division is a difference in both trup and nikkud. There is a mechanical (though also probabilistic) process, based on logical and syntactic division, number of words in the current phrase or subphrase, and distance from the end of the next disjunctive trup mark, which defines what trup marks go where. And this will in turn define nikkud because certain trup marks (such as etnachta and silluq, and sometimes zakef) will transform the pronunciation of the word into its pausal form (where e.g. a patach will become a kametz). The trup will also affect the presence or absence of dagesh kal in the letters bet, gimel, daled, kaf, peh and tav. Following a disjunctive trup mark, there will be a dagesh kal even if the previous word ended in aleph, heh, vav or yud. Following a conjunctive trup mark, there will not be a dagesh kal if the previous word ended in aleph, heh, vav or yud. 

In sum, this is a mechanical process set in motion by the choice in pasuk length.

The Vilna Gaon says, in Kol Eliyahu on parashat Yitro :

"Lo Tirtzach: Behold, in the taam elyon it is read with a kametz and in the tachton it is read with a patach under the tzadik.
And there is to say that this hints to that which our Sages za'l said in the gemara in Masechet Avodah Zara (daf 19b)[1] upon the pasuk [in Mishlei 7:26] כי רבים חללים הפילה - This is a student who has not reached the level of ruling yet rules [from the language of nafal indicating that he will not fill out his days], ועצומים כל הרוגיה - this is a student who has reached the level of ruling yet does not rule [from the language of otzem einav], see there in Rashi's commentary. And Chazal referred to both of them as murderers, this one by opening [petichat] his mouth to rule and this one with the closing [kemitzat] his mouth and averting his eye from the people of the generation, such that he does not give them the benefit of his ruling. And to this the kametz and patach hint, for they indicate that both the opening [petichat] of the mouth and its closing [kemitzati] are within the realm of lo tirtzach."

I don't have the kamatz in the taam elyon picture above, but he must have had it in this way -- it is one of the alternates given in the second image.

Footnotes:
[1]
Avodah Zarah 19b
אמר רבי אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב מאי דכתיב (משלי ז, כו) כי רבים חללים הפילה זה תלמיד שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה ועצומים כל הרוגיה זה תלמיד שהגיע להוראה ואינו מורה 

Ibn Ezra on Lower Biblical Criticism, part iv

See part one, part two, and part three.

The context for the next suggested swap is as follows, in Shofetim 14:

יב  וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְשׁוֹן, אָחוּדָה-נָּא לָכֶם חִידָה:  אִם-הַגֵּד תַּגִּידוּ אוֹתָהּ לִי שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, וּמְצָאתֶם--וְנָתַתִּי לָכֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִפֹת בְּגָדִים.	12 And Samson said unto them: 'Let me now put forth a riddle unto you; if ye can declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty changes of raiment;
יג  וְאִם-לֹא תוּכְלוּ, לְהַגִּיד לִי--וּנְתַתֶּם אַתֶּם לִי שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִיפוֹת בְּגָדִים; וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ--חוּדָה חִידָתְךָ, וְנִשְׁמָעֶנָּה.	13 but if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of raiment.' And they said unto him: 'Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.'
יד  וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, מֵהָאֹכֵל יָצָא מַאֲכָל, וּמֵעַז, יָצָא מָתוֹק; וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לְהַגִּיד הַחִידָה, שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים.	14 And he said unto them: Out of the eater came forth food, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days declare the riddle.
טו  וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְאֵשֶׁת-שִׁמְשׁוֹן פַּתִּי אֶת-אִישֵׁךְ וְיַגֶּד-לָנוּ אֶת-הַחִידָה--פֶּן-נִשְׂרֹף אוֹתָךְ וְאֶת-בֵּית אָבִיךְ, בָּאֵשׁ; הַלְיָרְשֵׁנוּ, קְרָאתֶם לָנוּ הֲלֹא.	15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson's wife: 'Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire; have ye called us hither to impoverish us?'
טז  וַתֵּבְךְּ אֵשֶׁת שִׁמְשׁוֹן עָלָיו, וַתֹּאמֶר רַק-שְׂנֵאתַנִי וְלֹא אֲהַבְתָּנִי--הַחִידָה חַדְתָּ לִבְנֵי עַמִּי, וְלִי לֹא הִגַּדְתָּה; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ, הִנֵּה לְאָבִי וּלְאִמִּי לֹא הִגַּדְתִּי--וְלָךְ אַגִּיד.	16 And Samson's wife wept before him, and said: 'Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not; thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and wilt thou not tell it me?' And he said unto her: 'Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell thee?'
יז  וַתֵּבְךְּ עָלָיו שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים, אֲשֶׁר-הָיָה לָהֶם הַמִּשְׁתֶּה; וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיַּגֶּד-לָהּ כִּי הֱצִיקַתְהוּ, וַתַּגֵּד הַחִידָה, לִבְנֵי עַמָּהּ.	17 And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted; and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she pressed him sore; and she told the riddle to the children of her people.
יח  וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בְּטֶרֶם יָבֹא הַחַרְסָה, מַה-מָּתוֹק מִדְּבַשׁ, וּמֶה עַז מֵאֲרִי; וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם--לוּלֵא חֲרַשְׁתֶּם בְּעֶגְלָתִי, לֹא מְצָאתֶם חִידָתִי.	18 And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down: What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them: If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

That is, in pasuk 12, Shimshon gives them a deadline of the seven days of the feast to solve the riddle. In pasuk 14, in three days they could not arrive at the answer. In pasuk 15, on the seventh day they spoke to Shimshon's wife. In pasuk 17, she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted, and finally elicits the answer from Shimson. In pasuk 18, they answer the riddle before the sun goes down on the seventh.

The difficulties are why they only approach her on the seventh day rather than the fourth. Further, how she is able to cry before Shimshon for all seven days when they only approach her after seven (or at least after the first three days).

The anonymous grammarian suggests that in pasuk 15, it should read fourth rather than seventh. This would be a simple switch of a resh for a shin. Ibn Ezra's words follow:

"[Shofetim 14:15]
וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְאֵשֶׁת-שִׁמְשׁוֹן - it is appropriate to be, according to the opinion of the mahavil [speaking of vanity and striving after wind] to be הָרְבִיעִי, since he found above [in pasuk 14] וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לְהַגִּיד הַחִידָה, שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים [for three days, such that this would be the fourth].

And he is not saying anything, and here is its explanation: They engaged and strove for three days to solve the riddle and were not able, and when they say this, they gave up on it. And once it was the seventh day, they said to Shimshon's wife, 'entice your husband', and because she pressed him sore on the seventh day because of the things they said, so that he would relate it to her, for so it written.

[Meanwhile], the meaning of 'and she wept to him for seven days', Scriptures is relating that she, by her own initiative, was crying all seven days in order that he relate to her the [answer to the] riddle, even though no one has asked her to do this."