The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT SHELACH

Rav David Silverberg

            The Torah in Parashat Shelach tells the story of the scouts who surveyed Canaan and advised the rest of Benei Yisrael against attempting to conquer the land.  This incident resulted in God's decree that the current generation would perish in the wilderness, and only their children, four decades later, would enter and take possession of their ancestral homeland.

            We read that after Moshe conveyed God's decree to the people, there was an attempt to defy the decree and proceed to Canaan.  An unspecified number of people from Benei Yisrael prepared their weapons and headed towards Canaan, against the stern warnings of Moshe, who cautioned them that God was not accompanying them on this campaign.  Tragically, these men were killed by the indigenous Amalekites and Canaanites (14:45).

            This group of Israelites that attempted to conquer Canaan after the sin of the scouts are commonly known as the mapilim, as the Torah describes their failed excursion with the rare verb va-yapilu (14:44).  Rashi interprets this term to mean "force," and it thus refers to the fierce battle this group attempted to wage.  Seforno explains va-yapilu in a slightly different manner, as a reference to the "strengthening" of one's heart, acting with irrational and stubborn determination, without a proper logical assessment of the situation.  The Midrash Tanchuma, as cited by Rashi, understands this word to mean "darkness," an allegorical expression of the decision to act with bold defiance, without the "light" of God's authorization.  In a generally similar vein, Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary to Parashat Bereishit (4:1-2), interprets the verb hepil to mean "put oneself in opposition," taking a defiant stance.  Here in Parashat Shelach, Rav Hirsch translates va-yapilu to mean "they insisted."

            Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, in his Emet Le-Yaakov, suggests a different approach, based on a verse in Sefer Yeshayahu (32:14) which warns that the nation's "ofel va-vachan" will turn into caves.  The Targum there explains these two terms as "beit tukpena" ("fortress") and "matmorana" ("hiding place").  Based on the implied association between these two words, Rav Yaakov speculates that ofel is perhaps a fortress dug underneath a mountain where operatives would hide from the enemy troops.  The prophet here warns that these fortresses would be exposed and reduced to "caves," easily discovered and raided by enemy forces.  If so, Rav Yaakov suggested, then the word va-yapilu might refer to the digging of trenches and hiding places in preparation for warfare.  The mapilim did not simply march towards Canaan; they devised carefully-planned strategies in a determined effort to conquer the land.

            Rav Yaakov applied this etymological theory to the term apolim used in reference to hemorrhoids (Devarim 28:27, Shemuel I 5:6; in both contexts, the word is read as "techorim," a more refined term).  As this condition affects people in a "concealed" area of the body, it is referred to with the root a.f.l., which, as we saw, refers to something that is hidden from people's view.

******

            Parashat Shelach tells the tragic story of the meraglim, the scouts sent to survey Eretz Yisrael who returned with a warning to the rest of the nation not to attempt to conquer the land.  The people, rather than trusting in God's promise, accepted the scouts' report and announced their decision not to proceed to the land.  In response, God killed the ten scouts who reported negatively about Eretz Yisrael, and decreed that the current generation would perish in the wilderness.

            The Gemara in Masekhet Arakhin (15a) approaches the sin of the scouts in terms of lashon ha-ra, their "negative speech" about the Land of Israel: "Rabbi Elazar ben Parta said: Come see the profound effects of lashon ha-ra!  From where?  From the scouts: If one who speaks libelously about wood and stone [is punished] in this manner, all the more so [will] somebody who speaks libelously about his fellow [be punished]!"  The severe punishment suffered by the scouts thus underscores the gravity of lashon ha-ra, speaking negatively about other people.

            The question immediately arises as to why the Gemara viewed the scouts' sin in such terms.  We may point to several unique features of the scouts' conduct that rendered their sin particularly grievous – more so than other, "standard" cases of lashon ha-ra.  Most obviously, perhaps, the scouts did not merely speak negatively about the land; they actively lobbied against it.  In fact, when the Torah records the scouts' death, it emphasizes the fact that they persuaded the rest of the nation to protest against Moshe ("va-yalinu alav et kol ha-eida" – 14:36; see Or Ha-chayim).  How, then, can the Gemara compare their campaign with standard lashon ha-ra?  How does the gravity of their sin – which included a concentrated effort to arouse resentment and opposition – set a general precedent of lashon ha-ra?

            Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, explains that lashon ha-ra, too, by definition, entails a degree of machati et ha-rabim, causing others to sin.  After all, listening to and accepting lashon ha-ra likewise constitutes a Torah violation, and thus the speaker who shares negative information not only transgresses this prohibition, but also causes the listener to transgress.

            We might elaborate a bit further on this notion.  Speaking lashon ha-ra­ has the effect of drawing the listener's attention specifically to the negative qualities of the person under discussion.  Until the defamatory information is shared, the listener may have had a generally positive attitude toward, and perception of, the given individual.  But once he hears lashon ha-ra, he will now associate that individual with the negative report that was conveyed, which naturally overshadows or even neutralizes whatever fond impression he previously had.

            In this sense, then, the sin of the scouts indeed serves as a prototype of lashon ha-ra.  The scouts' plan was to draw attention to specifically the less encouraging aspects of Eretz Yisrael, which they achieved by dwelling on the military risks involved and by spreading false information about the alleged dangers of living in Eretz Yisrael.  Like the scouts, one who speaks lashon ha-ra attempts to defame the subject by spreading damaging information about him, and thus the severe consequences of the scouts' campaign accurately exemplify the gravity of the sin of lashon ha-ra generally.

******

            We read in Parashat Shelach of the catastrophe of chet ha-meraglim, the sin of the scouts, which resulted in God's decree that Benei Yisrael would remain in wilderness for forty years, until the current generation perishes.  Only their children would be privileged to enter into and settle Eretz Yisrael.  God informed Moshe that the decree applied to everyone aged twenty and above.  Those who had yet to reach their twentieth year were excluded from this decree and were allowed to enter the land.

            At first glance, we might perhaps explain this age limit on the basis of the famous notion that "dinei shamayim," divine punishment, affects only those aged twenty and above.  Although the rabbinical courts hold violators accountable already from age thirteen, "heavenly decrees" are issued only from the age of twenty.

            The Gemara, however, in Masekhet Bava Batra (121b), comments that God's decree was limited to those between the ages of twenty and sixty.  Not only were the youngsters under the age of twenty excluded, but so were the older members of the nation, those aged sixty and above.

            Apparently, as Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky concludes in his work Emet Le-Yaakov, the age restriction had nothing at all to do with whether a person had reached the age of culpability.  This range – from twenty to sixty years – likely signified the ages at which men would participate in the nation's battles.  Rav Yaakov thus suggests that it was specifically those eligible to take part in the conquest of Canaan who accepted the meraglim's warnings and decided not to proceed to the land.  Those who were too young or too old to join the military were not affected by these warnings, and remained faithfully committed to the plan to take possession of Eretz Yisrael.  Hence, the harsh decree included only those within the range of twenty and sixty years of age, those who paid heed to the scouts and decided against proceeding to Canaan.

            If we accept this theory, we might consider possible explanations for why this was the case.  Seemingly, a failed conquest would have spelled disaster not only for the soldiers, but for the entire country, including non-combatants.  A quick review of the nation's complaints reveals that they were concerned not only about soldier fatalities, but that the entire nation – including women and children – would be exterminated by the Canaanite armies (14:3).  Why, then, would the scouts' ominous report frighten only the military men?

            One fairly simple answer, perhaps, is that only those involved in the military campaign were keenly aware of the dangers and complexities entailed in this endeavor.  The others could easily rely on God's guarantee that the conquest attempt would succeed, but the troops themselves were involved firsthand in the planning and strategizing of the campaign.  A technician understands the inner workings of a machine and thus recognizes more than others just how complex a procedure is required for the pressing of the button to achieve the desired result.  Similarly, those who would take part in the battles for Canaan, to a much greater degree than the others, recognized the dangers involved and were therefore rattled by the scouts' report.  Unfortunately, they failed to recognize that this complex procedure would be performed under the protection and guidance of the Almighty, who had ensured its success.  This lack of faith rendered them unworthy of entering and successfully capturing the land, a privilege that was reserved for their children forty years later.

******

            The Torah presents in Parashat Shelach the mitzva of chala, which requires separating a portion of dough before baking and giving it to a kohen (15:17-21).  In describing this obligation, the Torah (15:20) draws analogy between chala and terumat goren, the teruma that one separates from his annual agricultural yield.

            Rashi cites from the Sifrei a halakhic explanation for this analogy.  Namely, the Torah here indicates that no specific shiur (quantity) is assigned to chala, just as it did not specify any shiur with respect to teruma.  A person fulfills his obligation of chala by separating even a slight amount of dough from his batter, just as he satisfies the requirement of teruma by giving even a single stalk of grain.

            Rav Menachem Bentzion Saks, in his Menachem Tziyon, adds another possible reason for this association drawn between chala and teruma.  Rav Saks insightfully notes that teruma marks the first donation that a farmer gives upon harvesting his yield, whereas chala is taken at the very conclusion of the process, just prior to baking the dough.  The Torah perhaps seeks to impress upon the individual that he should donate chala – the final gift given from his produce – just as he had donated teruma, with the same zeal, enthusiasm and goodwill with which he made his first gift.  In between the donations of teruma and chala, the farmer had to make several other donations (ma'aser rishon, ma'aser sheni/ani, leket, shikhecha, pei'a, etc.).  The comparison drawn between teruma and chala alludes to the ideal of consistent enthusiasm and generosity, the emotion and conviction which should characterize the entire process of charitable donations from one's crop.

            This ideal, of course, applies to all mitzvot, which entail some kind of "donation," be it of time, energy or other resources.  One's ongoing commitment to mitzva observance should be fueled with the same level of conviction and excitement that a person naturally senses when he performs a mitzva for the first time.  The enthusiasm of the "teruma" must remain intact even when one reaches the "chala," even after making numerous "donations" through the performance of many mitzvot.  Rather than become fatigued and weary, a person should draw inspiration and strength from each mitzva he performs that will fuel his energy and passion for further growth in avodat Hashem.

******

            We read in Parashat Shelach of the catastrophe of chet ha-meraglim, the sin of the scouts, who surveyed Eretz Yisrael and brought a negative, discouraging report to the rest of the nation.  The Torah tells that as the scouts began warning Benei Yisrael of the military might of the Canaanite peoples, one dissenter, Kalev, interjected in an attempt to reassure the nation.  He proclaimed, "We shall surely ascend and inherit it [the land], for we can surely take it!" (13:30).  Rashi comments, "Even [if the land were] in the heavens, and He would say to us, 'Make ladders and go there,' we would succeed in whatever He says!"

            Rashi's remark is based upon a passage in Masekhet Sota (35a), which gives a slightly different account of Kalev's proclamation: "He [Moshe] took us from Egypt, split the sea for us, and fed us manna; if he would say, 'Make ladders and ascend to the sky,' we would not listen to him?"

            What exact message did Kalev seek to convey through this image, of Benei Yisrael "making ladders," and how did he respond to the contentions of the spies?

            The Ben Ish Chai, in his Ben Yehoyada commentary, explains this image as a reference to a mystical, supernatural means of conquest.  The concept of "ascending to the heavens" can at times refer to a kind of prophetic revelation, as in the famous story of Rabbi Yishmael Kohen Gadol, who recited one of the divine Names and then "ascended to the heavens" ("ala la-marom"), where he received quasi prophetic insight.  Kalev argued that undoubtedly, if the same Moshe who performed so many miracles ("He took us from Egypt, split the sea…and fed us manna") would instruct the people to defeat the Canaanites "magically," such as by reciting some kind of incantation, they would listen.  Just as they heeded his command not to save any manna for the following day, and went to sleep each night with nothing other than Moshe's assurance that manna would once again fall from the sky, so would they accept his guarantee concerning the conquest of Eretz Yisrael through the declaration of a Name of God.  Thus, Kalev admonished, the people should similarly accept Moshe's promise when he orders them to take up arms to dispossess the Canaanites.  If they would trust his command to wage a "magical" battle, then they should likewise have faith in his leadership when it comes to a natural means of conquest.

            It emerges from this approach that chet ha-meraglim resulted from a certain misconception regarding the miracles performed in the wilderness.  The nation's supernatural existence in the desert was intended to develop their faith in the Almighty, which they would carry with them as they built their country in Eretz Yisrael.  The desert experience would remind them that even as they live a "normal" life of agriculture and industry, they do so under God's authority and protection.  It seems, however, that the people began sensing that they can only live a miraculous existence.  They would trust Moshe if would tell them to "ascend to the heavens," but not when he instructed them to mobilize an army.  Benei Yisrael thus displayed an unwillingness to make the transition from the supernatural realities of the wilderness to the "down-to-earth" life that awaited them in Eretz Yisrael.  They perceived God's protection and blessing as something that could be manifest only in "otherworldly" forms, through miraculous events.  They failed to realize that God runs the universe primarily within the context of the natural laws, and not by reversing those laws.  He was capable of providing for them not only in the context of the manna and the splitting of the sea, but also – and mainly – as they lived a natural existence in the Land of Israel.

******

            Yesterday, we discussed Kalev's response to the other scouts, who sought to dissuade Benei Yisrael from attempting to conquer Eretz Yisrael.  Kalev insisted that with God's help, the land can easily be captured regardless of the military prowess of its inhabitants.  He exclaimed, "We shall surely ascend and inherit it [the land], for we can surely take it!" (13:30).  The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (35a), as we saw, explained Kalev's remark to mean, "He [Moshe] took us from Egypt, split the sea for us, and fed us manna; if he would say, 'Make ladders and ascend to the sky,' we would not listen to him?"  Kalev told the people that just as God performed numerous other miracles for them, so would He guarantee their success in waging battle against the Canaanite nations, even had this entailed "ascending to the sky."

            The Gemara's interpretation of Kalev's exhortation to the people brings to mind a somewhat similar Talmudic explanation of a different verse.  In Moshe's address to the people before his death, he makes the famous declaration of "Lo va-shamayim hi" – "It is not in the heavens."  (According to most commentators – the Ramban being the notable exception – Moshe refers here to general Torah observance).  The Gemara comments in Masekhet Eruvin (55a) regarding this verse, "If it is in the heavens – you must then go up after it."  According to the Gemara, Moshe's assurance to the people that Torah observance is within every person's grasp also contains a subtle hint to a different message – that one must strive for excellence in Torah regardless of what this entails.  Had the Torah been in the heavens, then we would have been required to find some way of retrieving it; even if Torah seems beyond our capabilities, we must muster every bit of strength and resolve in an effort to observe it.

            In these two contexts, the Gemara speaks of Eretz Yisrael and the Torah as goals that we are called upon to achieve even if this entails "ascending to the heavens," doing the impossible.  These two values – our homeland and our religious creed – are so central to our national identity that they must be preserved regardless of the circumstances, despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles that stand in the way.

            These Talmudic passages might also indicate that there would, indeed, be occasions when both the possession of Eretz Yisrael and the observance of Torah appear to demand "ascending to the heavens."  Herculean efforts have often been necessary for Am Yisrael to retain its loyalty to the Torah, and to assert its right to its homeland.  We have frequently found ourselves pressured to forsake our faith and our country, the two primary defining characteristics of our national identity.  The Sages have taught us, however, that these values must be preserved and perpetuated even when this seems to require our "ascent to the heavens," when the odds appear hopelessly stacked against us.

******

            We read in Parashat Shelach (13:16) that before dispatching the twelve scouts chosen to survey Eretz Yisrael, Moshe changed the name of one of the scouts.  His disciple Yehoshua, who represented the tribe of Efrayim on this expedition, was originally named Hoshea.  The Torah tells that Moshe added the letter yod to the beginning of this name to yield the name Yehoshua.

            The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (34b), as Rashi cites, explains this name change as a form of prayer on Yehoshua's behalf.  By adding the letter yod, Moshe transformed the name into a combination of the words, "Y-ah yoshi'akha" – "the Almighty shall save you."  This name change thus expressed Moshe's hopes and prayers that his loyal disciple would be saved from the dangers that loomed.  Moshe suspected that the other spies might conspire to speak negatively about the land, and so he uttered a prayer that Yehoshua would succeed in withstanding the pressure of his peers.

            Elsewhere, in Masekhet Sanhedrin (107a), the Gemara presents what appears to be a different explanation of this change.  The Gemara comments that the yod appended to Hoshea's name originated from the name Sarai, the original name of our matriarch Sara.  God changed Sarai's name to Sara, which required dropping the letter yod from her name.  The letter yod expressed its indignation at being removed from the righteous matriarch's name, and God compensated the yod by appending it to the name Hoshea to yield "Yehoshua."

            Some have explained this seemingly peculiar passage as conveying a similar idea to that which the Gemara presents in Masekhet Sota.  Moshe's prayer for Yehoshua was that he should be imbued with a "letter" from our matriarch Sara, a certain aspect of her character.  Targum Yonatan comments on this verse that Moshe was concerned because of his disciple's humility.  Yehoshua's humble, soft-spoken, non-confrontational demeanor made him susceptible to the scouts' influence, which Moshe feared he would be unable to oppose, given his lack of assertiveness.  Moshe therefore blessed his student with a letter from Sara's name.  Chazal, as Rashi cites (Bereishit 18:9), noted Sara's uniquely modest, unassuming character.  Yet, upon seeing the dangers that Yishmael – her maidservant's son – posed to her son, Yitzchak, she took the bold initiative of urging Avraham to send Yishmael away from the home.  Avraham was understandably reluctant to resort to this drastic measure, but Sara nevertheless persisted and ultimately received God's explicit approval.

            Moshe's hope for his student was that his unassuming nature would not prevent him from taking a bold, unpopular stance to oppose evildoing.  He prayed that Yehoshua would follow the example of Sara, whose conviction was not compromised as a result of her generally humble nature.  Indeed, Yehoshua succeeded in standing his ground and, together with Kalev, expressed firm opposition to the sinful campaign of the other spies.