From:          "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To:            yhe-parsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject:       PARSHA -37: Parashat Shelach


                   YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
      ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

                           
                    PARASHAT SHELACH
                           
*********************************************************

                           
                 The Sin of the "Spies"
                           
                  By Rav Elchanan Samet


I. COMPARING THE TWO HALVES OF THE STORY

      In introducing his discussion of our parasha, Prof.
M.Z. Segal writes (Masoret U-Bikoret, p. 90):
   "The  sin  of  the nation in the matter of  the   spies
   was, like the sin of the golden calf, an enormous  act
   that  changed the whole course of the history of  that
   generation.  For  just as the sin of the  golden  calf
   involved  a  breach  of  the covenant...  so   the  sin
   involving  the spies was a breach of the covenant  and
   a  rejection of God's promise that the land of  Canaan
   would  be  an  inheritance for Israel... Therefore  we
   find  that only in the case of these two sins did  God
   desire    to   punish   the    nation   with   complete
   annihilation,  and to establish a new generation  from
   the  seed of Moshe... (Bamidbar 14:12; Shemot  32:10).
   Likewise,  only  in  relation to these  two  sins   did
   Moshe   claim   in  his  prayer...  that    this   (the
   destruction   of   the   nation)    would   involve   a
   desecration of God's name...
   The  results of these two sins differ: In the case  of
   the  sin of the golden calf Moshe managed, through his
   great  efforts, to obtain forgiveness for  the  nation
   and  to  remove their punishment, as well as to  renew
   the  covenant that was breached because  of  the  sin.
   Through   the   building  of  the  mishkan    and   the
   acceptance  of the statutes, he restored the  previous
   relationship  that  had existed between  God  and   His
   nation.   But   after  the  sin  of   the   spies   the
   forgiveness  was  not complete, and the  sinners  were
   not  absolved of their punishment. It was decreed that
   they  would  die  in  the desert, and  only   the  next
   generation  would achieve a renewal  of  the  intimate
   relationship between God and His nation,  Israel,  via
   Moshe, God's servant."

      Many  questions  have  been  asked   throughout  the
generations concerning the narrative itself, its  mention
in  other places in Tanakh, and - particularly -  Moshe's
description  of  the  event at the  start  of  his   great
monologue  in  Sefer Devarim (1:20-2:2). We  shall  focus
here  on  the  story  as  told  in  the  parasha   itself.
Methodologically  it  would seem proper  to  analyze  our
story  independently without any relation to its  mention
elsewhere.  Only when studying those sources  should  the
student  address the difficulties presented  there,  with
the analysis of the narrative in our parasha serving as a
basis for further discussion.

     The story is divided into two halves as follows:
Part A: "the sin" (13:1-14:10);
Part B: "the punishment" (14:11-45).
Let us examine the composition of the narrative according
to  the  breakdown of its units, which  will  reveal  its
structure:

a. 13:1-20     God's command to Moshe, and the entrusting
of the mission to the princes.
b. 13:21-25 The princes' journey in the land and return.
   c.  13:26-33  Their  report and the  argument   between
   them and Kalev.
       d. 14:1-10 The nation's rebellion.

Turning  point:  "And God's glory appeared  in  the  Ohel
Mo'ed to all of Bnei Yisrael."

       e.   14:11-25  The  proposed   punishment,  Moshe's
       prayer  and its acceptance, punishment   that  they
       would not inherit the land.
       f.   14:26-35  Specification  of   the  punishment:
       forty  years  of wandering in the desert   and  the
       death of that entire generation.
   g. 14:36-38 Punishment of the spies: death by plague.
h. 14:39-45 The defeat of the "ma'apilim."

      At  the  heart  of the story we find   the  parallel
between  unit  d. - the nation's sin - and  units  e.-f.,
which both deal with the nation's punishment. These three
units together constitute the bulk of the story and  also
its most historically significant section.

      The  nature  of the next parallel -  i.e.,   between
units  c.  and  g.  - is similar: the sin  of  the   spies
themselves in contrast with their punishment. Their  sin,
in  having led the nation astray, is more grave than  the
sin   of   the   nation,   and   their    punishment    is
correspondingly  more serious: they will die  immediately
in a plague.

     The outermost parallel, between units a.-b. and unit
h.,  is unlike its predecessors. Here there is no sin and
punishment, cause and effect, as existed in the  previous
parallels.  This time there is an inverse  correspondence
between  a  positive "ascent" to the  land,  executed   by
God's  command  and concluding in peace, and  a  negative
"ascent"  executed  in opposition to  God's  command   and
concluding in disaster. The root "a-l-h" (ascent) appears
four times in each half.

II. WHAT WAS THE SPIES' SIN?

      According  to the Ramban (13:1 and 13:27)  and   the
Akeidat  Yitzchak (77) it appears that  the  sin  of  the
spies  lay in overstepping the bounds of their authority,
in their transition from being faithful reporters - which
was  the  mandate  given to them  - to becoming  advisors
with  their own independent views and evaluations - which
lay  outside the bounds of their mission. Indeed, such  a
distinction  exists in modern intelligence bodies,  where
the function of the information gatherers is to report on
what   they  have  seen  or  heard,  and  that    of   the
intelligence  evaluators is to evaluate the situation  or
even to provide advice, on the basis of that information.
In the transition from one function to the other they did
indeed overstep their authority, but ultimately this  was
no   more  than  a  formal  sin.  Is  this   really   what
constituted the true sin of the spies?

      The  Ramban's explanation is based on an assumption
he  makes at the beginning of the parasha (13:2)  -  that
the  purpose  of  sending  the  spies  was  for   military
reconnaissance. Thereafter the Ramban explains the series
of questions which Moshe presents to the spies (verses 17-
20)  in  terms  of  this assumption - all  are  aimed   at
preparing  for  the military conquest of  the  land.  The
first report of the spies is therefore mainly within  the
framework of their mission, as Ramban explains, and  only
with  the  word  "only" (efes - 13:28) do they  start   to
overstep their authority (although it is still a military
report,  but  of  a  different type).  Let  us,   however,
reexamine the Ramban's assumption that the entire mission
was military in nature.

III. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "TARIM" AND "MERAGLIM"

     There are some literary units in Tanakh possessing a
singular  linguistic  feature: a  word  may  be  repeated
within that unit many times in close succession, while it
may  be  rare - or non-existent - in the rest of  Tanakh.
The  appearance  of  this word in that  literary  unit  -
usually  serving  as a "leading word" -  gives  it   added
significance,  sometimes even critical significance,  for
an  understanding of the literary unit  as  a  whole.  In
other  words, because that word is generally so rare,  it
cannot  always  be  easily interpreted  just  within  the
context  of that literary unit without reference  to  its
appearance in other, more varied contexts.

      This  is the case in our parasha: the root   "t-u-r"
(to tour, survey) appears twelve times, corresponding  to
the  number  of  the princes sent to tour the  land.  The
significant   number  of  its  appearances,   its    equal
distribution throughout the story (it is absent only from
units  e. and h., where we would not expect it to  occur)
and its rarity indicate that this root indeed serves as a
"leading word" in our narrative.

      This  root  appears in three other  places   in  the
Torah,  in each case connected directly or indirectly  to
our  story.  We find it later on in parashat Shelach,  in
the mitzva of tzitzit:
   (15:39)  "And you shall not seek (taturu)  after  your
   hearts  and  after  your  eyes,  after  which   you  go
   astray."
The  connection  between the mitzva of  tzitzit  and  the
story  that  preceded  it  arises  not  only  from   their
juxtaposition  in the parasha. The sin of the  generation
is defined in our narrative as "going astray" (zenut):
   (14:33)  "And your children will wander in the  desert
   for forty year and will bear your going astray...."
The  mitzva  of tzitzit therefore hints that  the  spies,
sent  to seek after THE LAND, in fact sought after  THEIR
HEARTS AND THEIR EYES, after which they went astray.  The
mitzva  of  tzitzit  is a correction  for  the  sin   that
preceded it and protection against it repeating itself.

     In parashat Beha'alotekha, in the description of the
first  journey  from Har Sinai, the root "t-u-r"  appears
for the first time in Tanakh:
   (10:33)  "And they traveled from God's mountain  on  a
   journey  of three days, and the ark of God's  covenant
   traveled before them at a three-day distance, TO  SEEK
   REST FOR THEM."
The ark of God's covenant is therefore the first "seeker"
that  travels  before Israel in the desert,  even  before
they reach the border of the land.

     A comparison of our narrative with Moshe's monologue
in  Sefer Devarim reveals many obvious discrepancies. One
of  the most important is that the root "t-u-r" does  not
appear in connection with the twelve spies sent by Moshe.
Other words appear there instead:
   (Devarim  1:22) "Let us send men before us  that  they
   may search out (yachperu) the land for us..."
   (ibid  25)  "And  they came as far  as  the   river  of
   Eshkol and spied it out (va-yeraglu)."
Strangely, it is this root "r-g-l," which appears only in
this  speech of Moshe - and only once - that  gives  this
story  its name (the story of the spies - meraglim),  and
that  forever  labels  the  twelve  emissaries,  in    the
discussions  of  all  the  commentaries,  as   "spies"   -
meraglim. But this root does not appear even once in  our
narrative!   It   seems  that  this  results    from   two
unconscious   processes:  one  is   the    difficulty   in
interpreting  the  root  "t-u-r,"  which  -  as   we  have
mentioned - is rare in Tanakh; it is much less clear than
the  root  "r-g-l,"  which appears in various  places   in
connection   with  revelations  of  enemy   secrets    and
preparation  of  battles of conquest. The  other  process
involves  an  attempt  at creating  harmony  between  our
narrative and the story as retold in Moshe's monologue in
Sefer  Devarim. This attempt facilitates  a  transfer  of
words  and  terms  from one place to the  other.  But  in
truth,  the distinction between "spying" in Sefer Devarim
and  "seeking out the land" in Sefer Bamidbar is  a  very
important  one for the clarification of the  relationship
between the two sources.

      The  root "t-u-r" does appear in Moshe's speech  in
Sefer   Devarim,  but  not  in  relation  to  the   twelve
emissaries  and  their function. Rather,  in  appears  in
relation to God:
   (Devarim  1:29-33) "And I said to you,  do  not   dread
   nor  be  afraid  of them. Hashem your  God,  Who   goes
   before  you,  He  shall fight for you...  And  in   the
   desert,  as you have seen, that Hashem your God  bears
   you  as a man carries his son, in all the way that you
   have  walked until you came to this place. But in this
   matter  you  did not believe in Hashem  your  God   Who
   walks  before you on the way, TO SEEK YOU OUT  (la-tur
   lakhem) A PLACE TO ENCAMP...."

     These words are clearly connected, both thematically
and  linguistically,  to the verse at  the  beginning  of
parashat  Beha'alotekha, and connect this  verse  to  our
narrative.  What may be hinted at in this  connection  is
that God, who has "sought out" for Israel their places of
encampment  and  rest  in  the  desert  thus  far,    will
certainly "seek out" the land of Canaan as the  place  of
their  prolonged rest at the conclusion of their  journey
through  the desert, and therefore Israel need  not  fear
the  nations  currently dwelling in the land.  (See  also
Yechezkel 20:6.)

     What, then, is the significance of the root "t-u-r"?
Is  it  identical - or similar - to the root "r-g-l"?  It
cannot be, for in the parshiot that deal with spying this
root does not appear. There are other words: "r-g-l," "ch-
f-r,"  "ch-k-r."  It  cannot  be  coincidental   that  our
narrative  systematically avoids any use of  these  verbs
commonly used in an instance of spying and chooses rather
to use a specific verb that is special and rare.

      In  Akkadian the root "taru" means "to wander" (le-
shotet).  This, or something close to it, is  indeed  the
intention  in  the  parasha of tzitzit:  "You  shall   not
wander after your hearts and after your eyes...." But  it
seems that this root also has other more varied and  more
specific meanings as used in Tanakh.

     The ark of God which travels at a three-day distance
before Israel to "seek them out rest," and God, Who "goes
before  you  on  the  way  to  seek  you  out   place  for
encampment," are not merely "wandering": they move before
Israel  in order to locate the best place to serve  as  a
place  to encamp and rest. Thus we find that even if  the
significance of the word "la-tur" is related to movement,
it  does not refer to movement in general, but rather  to
an   action  aimed  at  the  purpose  of   choosing.   The
significance  of  God's command at the beginning  of  our
parasha, "Send you men that they may seek out the land of
Canaan which I give to Bnei Yisrael" could be, "that they
may  walk  in the land and choose it," or "that they  may
select it for Israel."

      This  command involved neither military preparation
for  conquest nor a preparation for the division  of  the
land  and  its  settlement, but  rather  something  quite
different: this command reveals God's wish that His  gift
to Israel, "the land which He sought out for them," which
He  chose for them as an inheritance, should be given  to
them  according to their mortal choice as well.  Hundreds
of years had passed since the forefathers of Bnei Yisrael
had  left the land, and the generation that had now  left
Egypt, even though they heard about it from their fathers
and  from Moshe (who likewise had not seen it with  their
own  eyes), was not familiar with it. This generation was
familiar with different scenery: the landscapes of  Egypt
and of the desert, and these were very different from the
scenery and nature of Canaan.

      Israel had therefore just reached the border of  an
unknown land that was about to be given to them, and  God
commanded  them to send representatives,  "one  man  from
each  tribe of their forefathers shall you send, each  of
them  a  prince,"  in order that they would  confirm  the
goodness  of God's gift and so that they would choose  it
themselves on behalf of the nation whom they represented.
The  mission of the twelve princes sent to seek  out  the
land  of  Canaan  "which  I give  to  Bnei   Yisrael"  was
therefore entirely religious in nature. What was required
was  neither a report nor an evaluation, but rather their
human enthusiasm for the Divine choice.

      The sin of these representatives, and thereafter of
the  nation as a whole, lay in their deviation  from  the
Divine  choice  and their rejection of it. No  exegetical
hair-splitting  is needed to understand their  sin:  they
simply  rebelled  against their  mission  and  turned  it
upside  down. Instead of "seeking out the land" to choose
it,  they  sought a way to reject this gift of  God  with
various   excuses,  diverting  the  course  of    Divinely
ordained history from its planned course. Could there  be
any sin greater than this?

IV. THE PARALLEL TO THE OPENING OF SEFER BAMIDBAR

      A sensitive reading of the beginning of the parasha
reveals ceremonial, festive opening, reminiscent  of  the
beginning of Sefer Bamidbar:

Bamidbar 1:
(1) And God spoke to Moshe... saying
(2)  Count all the congregation of Bnei Yisrael by  their
families,  by  their fathers' houses, by  the  number  of
names, every male...
(4)  With  you  there shall be one man from every  tribe,
each one the head of the house of his fathers.
(5)  And  these are the names of the men who shall  stand
with you... (list of names until verse 15)
(16)  These  were the respected men of the  congregation,
the  princes  of  the tribes of their fathers,  heads  of
thousands in Israel.

Parashat Shelach, Bamidbar 13:
(1) And God spoke to Moshe saying:
(2)  Send  you  men that they may seek out  the  land  of
Canaan which I give to Bnei Yisrael,
one  man  from each tribe of his fathers shall you  send,
each of them a prince
(4)  And these are their names (list of names until verse
15)
(16)  These are the names of the men whom Moshe  sent  to
seek out the land.

      The  similarity is not coincidental: in both   these
places  we  find ourselves at a historical crossroads  in
the  history  of the generation that left Egypt.  At  the
beof Sefer Bamidbar we find ourselves a few days prior to
the first journey from Chorev towards Canaan. The purpose
of  the  census is as preparation for their departure  on
this  journey. This is a ceremonial census in  which  the
entire   nation  participates,  and  the  twelve   princes
represent the participation of the twelve tribes  in  the
preparations already underway for the journey.

      And then the journey reaches its conclusion, at the
borders  of Eretz Canaan, at Kadesh Barnea. A new chapter
is  beginning  in  the history of that  generation:  here
start  the preparations for the imminent entry  into  the
land.  The  most important preparation at this moment  is
that Israel should receive a realistic idea of the nature
of  the land in order that they will appreciate it. Again
a  ceremonial  an  public  act is  undertaken  (like   the
previous  census), in which the twelve princes are  sent,
representing  the twelve tribes, in order to  familiarize
themselves   with   the  land  and  to    transmit   their
impressions  to their brethren so that all  of  them  may
willingly choose the land with joy as they enter into it.

      The  princes are not sent "secretly," as would have
been  proper had they been spies (see Yehoshua 2:1).  And
twelve  men  in  any  case are not  a  reasonable   spying
delegation.  It  is  too large a group;  they  could  not
easily  hide  if  necessary when faced  with  danger  (as
Yehoshua's two spies did). It seems that because  of  the
very  size  of  the group and the fact that  they  walked
innocently  on  the highways, quite unlike secret  spies,
they did not arouse attention or suspicion.

      When  Israel again completed their journey, at   the
end of forty years, and again encamped on the borders  of
the  land (this time in a different place - on the plains
of Moav), they were similarly commanded:
   (34:16-29) "And God spoke to Moshe saying,  These  are
   the  names of the men who will share out the land  for
   you...  one  prince for each tribe shall you  take  to
   divide  the  land.  And these are  the  names   of  the
   man...  (here follows a list of names of the princes),
   those  whom  God  commanded to divide (the  land)   for
   Bnei Yisrael in Eretz Canaan."

V. MOSHE'S CHARGE TO THE SPIES

      One  of  the  main justifications for defining  the
mission  of  the  twelve princes  as  a  military   spying
mission  is the list of questions presented by  Moshe  to
the  emissaries as they depart to seek out the  land,  in
verses 17-20:
   "Go  up  here  from  the  south,  and   go  up  to  the
   mountains  and  see  the land, what  it  is,   and  the
   people  who dwell therein: a. whether they are  strong
   or  weak, b. whether they are few or many, c. and what
   the land is that they dwell in: is it good or bad,  d.
   and  what are the cities in which they dwell: are they
   in tents or in fortifications?
   And  what  is the land: a. Is it fat or lean?  b.  Are
   there   trees   in  it  or  not?  c.   And   strengthen
   yourselves a take of the fruit of the land."

      The  instruction begin with a double heading   which
includes  both components that they need to  view  during
their  trip:  the  land, and the nation dwelling  in  it.
Thereafter  follows  a  list of  the  specific  questions
relating to each component. What is the purpose of  these
questions?  The numerous questions regarding the  nation,
and  particularly  the nature of the opening  question  -
"are they strong or weak," and of the concluding question
- "do they dwell in tents or in fortifications," give the
impression that the intention is in the direction of  the
war  of  conquest. The questions regarding the land  must
also  be  related to the plan of conquest - such as  from
which  area  to  begin  the conquest  and  what   economic
possibilities exist for survival during the war.

      However,  the literal meaning of the questions   can
lead  us in another direction. Bnei Yisrael are not about
to  enter  a country empty of inhabitants, but  rather  a
country  that at this point is already mostly  inhabited.
This  is something of a blessing, as Moshe points out  in
his speech in Sefer Devarim:
   (Devarim  6:9-11) "And it shall be when God  your  God
   brings you to the land which He promised... great  and
   good  CITIES which you did not build. And HOUSES  full
   of  all good things which you did not fill, and  hewn-
   out  WELLS which you did not dig, VINEYARDS AND  OLIVE
   TREES  which you did not plant, and you shall eat  and
   be satisfied."

      Therefore someone who wishes to know the land, from
the   point  of  view  of  both  its  strength   and   its
appearance, must describe it using a description  of  the
situation of the "nation dwelling upon it." The situation
of  the  NATION - whether strong or weak, few or  many  -
reveals the quality of the LAND and its influence on  the
size of the population and their physical properties.

      In any event, the response of the emissaries - (28)
"The  nation that dwells in the land is powerful"  -  has
nothing to do with what they were asked, "Are they strong
or  weak?" They turned the discussion to the question  of
war, which had not been mentioned until then.

      At  this point we should refer to the Ramban at the
beginning   of  the  parasha,  suggesting   a    different
interpretation than the one he discusses  at  first,  and
which accords with what we have suggested so far:
   "The  people  requested ... a military spying  mission
   (Devarim 1:22), ... but God commanded, 'that they  may
   seek  out  Eretz Canaan,' meaning to choose  it,  like
   people who come to buy something, as in the verse  (II
   Divrei   Ha-yamim  9:14),  'besides  that   which   the
   TRADERS  (tarim) and merchants brought' ...  Therefore
   Moshe  told  them to specify whether 'it  is  good   or
   bad... fat or lean,' etc. - all in order to make  them
   rejoice,  for it is 'an ornament for all  the  lands,'
   so that they would ascend to it with great fervor."

VI. REJECTING THE LAND

     The sin of the emissaries and of the generation that
left  Egypt  lay not only in their fear of  war.  In  the
words of the Akeidat Yitzchak:
   "It  was  not  fear  alone, but a  rejection   (of  the
   land),  as  the  text  explains  (14:31),  'And    your
   children,  concerning whom you  said,  "They  will   be
   prey"  - I will bring them in, and they will know  the
   land   THAT  YOU  HAVE  REJECTED.'  And   in   Tehillim
   (106:24)  we find, 'They despised the pleasant  land.'
   This  (the  rejection of the land) was  what  troubled
   their  Father  in Heaven, leading Him  to  swear   that
   [that  generation] would not enter the land, for  they
   were not worthy."

      It is unheard of for a nation to despise and reject
its  land  even  before  entering  it,  and  we   need  to
understand  the meaning of this. Lest we  say  that  this
quality  existed only in the generation that left  Egypt,
who  had  never lived in their land, the Ba'al  Ha-Akeida
continues as follows:
   "Crying   was   established   for    Israel   for   all
   generations, for the rejection of the land was  as  we
   have  described; it is the reason for  which  we  face
   destruction in all generations, and because of  it  we
   were  exiled  from  our  land  and  removed   from  it,
   becoming  a mockery to our neighbors and a  source  of
   derision to those around us. There is no other way  of
   returning  to  our completion other than by  returning
   to it..."


(Translated by Kaeren Fish)

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved

********************************************************************