Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT SHELACH

By Rav David Silverberg

            Parashat Shelach concludes with the mitzva of tzitzit, and the Torah here explains the reason underlying this mitzva: "It shall be for you as tzitzit, and you will see it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and perform them, and you will not stray after your heart and eyes, by which you are tempted" (15:39).  The tzitzit are intended to serve as a reminder of the mitzvot, to prevent one from "straying" after his "heart and eyes."  Several commentators (Rashbam, Ramban) cite in this context the Gemara's explanation (Menachot 43b) as to how tzitzit remind a person of the mitzvot.  One of the tzitzit strings is to be dyed in tekhelet, a dye whose bluish color resembles the color of the surface of the sea, which itself resembles the sky.  And thus when a person looks at his tzitzit, he is reminded of God's "throne of glory" in the heavens, meaning, the notion of divine kingship.  He will thus recall at all times his status as a subject of the King of kings, and the responsibilities associated with that status.  The Ramban notes that for this reason the Torah shifts to the singular form in describing the function of tzitzit: "you will see IT and remember all the commandments…"  The Torah refers here not to all the tzitzit strings, but rather specifically to the one tekhelet string which reminds a person of God's authority over the world.

            The Keli Yakar elaborates further on the Gemara's explanation of how the tzitzit remind a person of the mitzvot, based on the Sifrei's presentation of the message we are to learn from the sea and heavens.   The Sifrei writes that God wanted Benei Yisrael to contemplate the unwavering obedience of the ocean and the sky, how they never deviate from their respective assignments.  The waves of the sea push against the shore, as if striving to extend beyond its borders, but nevertheless it obediently remains in its designated place, suppressing its desire for expansion.  And the heavenly bodies, the Sifrei comments, faithfully fulfill their duties each day; never does the sun "betray" the Almighty by choosing one day to rise over the western sky.  What more, the Sifrei adds, the heavens performs its tasks "joyfully," without ever deviating one iota from the precise system which it has been assigned to follow.

            According to the Keli Yakar, the tekhelet in the tzitzit is to remind a person of two different levels of avodat Hashem – the "ocean" and the "sky."  The association to the sea is intended to remind a person of the need for restraint, for discipline, to hold back even when one feels the impulse to move beyond his designated area, the realm of permissible activity.  The sky, by contrast, represents the higher level of avoda mei-ahava, serving God with joy and enthusiasm, without even the desire to act differently.  This is the meaning of the progression described in the Gemara.  A person should first contemplate the sea, should be reminded of the importance of restraint and discipline, and then learn the lesson of the heavenly bodies – the higher level of serving God out of love, rather than fear.

            We might add that the association to the ocean and heavens is intended to convey a different message, that of consistency.  They natural elements execute their duties faithfully each day without exception, and in this respect they set an example consistency that we are to follow with regard to our religious duties.

            The next verse reads, "…in order that you remember and perform all My commandments, and you shall be sacred to your God."  The key to being "sacred to your God" is to remember the ocean and heavens, to follow their example of constant and consistent loyalty and devotion.  As the Sifrei comments, never did the sun deviate from its assigned task and rise from the west; it follows the same course each and every day, without fail.  So, too, are Benei Yisrael enjoined to follow the proper direction each day of their lives, without any exception, and never to "rise from the west," to deviate from their assigned task, even for a single day.

******

            Parashat Shelach tells the tragic story of chet ha-meraglim, the sin of the scouts. Upon the scouts' return from their excursion to Canaan, ten of the twelve scouts warn the nation of the military power of the Canaanite peoples.  Kalev, the scout representing the tribe of Yehuda, seeing where his colleagues' report was headed, interrupts their warning and affirms Benei Yisrael's ability to confront and defeat the nations of Canaan.  But the ten scouts then return to the stage and respond, "We cannot go up against the people, for they are mightier than us" (13:31).

            The final word in this verse, mimenu, lends itself to two translations: "than us," and "than him."  Rashi, citing Chazal, explains that the scouts actually described the Canaanite peoples as "mightier than Him" – stronger than even the Almighty.  According to Chazal, this was a statement of heresy, a denial of God's omnipotence, an affirmation of the possibility that humans can overpower God.

            Of course, the straightforward "peshat" reading of the verse is, as we translated it above, "for they are mightier than us."  What compelled Chazal to advocate a homiletic reading of the scouts' remark, particularly in light of the fact that it casts them as outright heretics?  Furthermore, why would the scouts advance this kind of argument in their attempt to persuade the nation not to proceed to Canaan?  Would anyone believe their claim, that God is powerless against the armies of Canaan?

            Professor Nechama Leibowitz noted that Chazal's homiletic reading of this verse provides a clear example of the relationship between the exegetical levels of peshat (the straightforward interpretation) and derash (the homiletic interpretation), of how very often these two levels do not contradict one another, but rather complement each other.  Of course, the scouts meant that the Canaanite nations were more powerful than Benei Yisrael.  Chazal, however, sought to emphasize the far-reaching implications of this conclusion.  Benei Yisrael were most certainly aware of God's ancient promise to their patriarchs to bring their offspring to Canaan and grant them possession of the Land.  Therefore, to deny Benei Yisrael's ability to capture the Land essentially amounts to a denial of the Almighty's ability to allow them to do so.

            Thus, the scouts did not actually declare the Canaanites' military superiority over God; they claimed only that Benei Yisrael lack the capabilities to defeat them.  The homiletic reading of this verse comes to give us some perspective on this claim, noting that it in effect constitutes an outright denial of God's omnipotence.

******

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Shelach the Torah lists the names of the twelve scouts, identifying from which tribe each scout hailed.  Curiously, when the Torah introduces Gadi Ben Susi, the representative of the tribe of Menashe, it makes a point of mentioning the name of Yosef: "For the tribe of Yosef – the tribe of Menashe, Gadi Ben Susi" (13:11).  This in itself would not be surprising had the Torah made mention of Yosef also when introducing Hoshea (or Yehoshua) Bin Nun, the scout from Efrayim, the tribe that emerged from Yosef's other son.  Why does the Torah here describe only the tribe of Menashe as "the tribe of Yosef," but not the tribe of Efrayim?

            Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, in his Emet Le-Yaakov, posits a novel theory to explain this distinction between the tribes of Efrayim and Menashe.  Efrayim and Menashe are, of course, the only grandsons of Yaakov who formed independent tribes.  This resulted from Yaakov's declaration to Yosef before his death, "Efrayim and Menashe – they shall be for me like Reuven and Shimon" (Bereishit 48:5).  Yaakov here declares that Yosef, unlike any of his brothers, would form two tribes, one from Efrayim and the other from Menashe.  In the next verse, Yaakov adds that the children born to Yosef after Efrayim and Menashe "shall be called by the name of their brothers with regard to their inheritance."  Meaning, the younger children of Yosef will be included under one of the older brothers' tribes.  Rav Yaakov speculates that Yosef made the decision to include his subsequent offspring with the tribe of Menashe, his firstborn.  If so, then Menashe is understandably considered the primary tribe of Yosef, as it includes not only the descendants of Menashe, but also the descendants of all Yosef's other sons, with the sole exception of Efrayim.

            For this reason, Rav Yaakov suggests, the tribe of Menashe is referred to as mateh Yosef, or benei Yosef.  We find this reference not only here, in Parashat Shelach, but later in Sefer Bamidbar, as well (36:1,5).  Since Menashe was the "default tribe" of Yosef, as it consistent of all Yosef's descendants other than the progeny of Efrayim, it is referred to with the more generic term of "the descendants of Yosef."

******

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Shelach, we read of Moshe's dispatching of the twelve scouts to Canaan, and the list of instructions he conveys to them before their departure.  The final of his instructions, as the Torah records, is: "ve-hitchazaktem u-le-kachtem mi-peri ha-aretz" – "you shall gird yourselves with strength and take from the fruits of the land" (13:20).  We indeed read in the ensuing narrative that the spies took samples of fruit from Canaan and showed them to the rest of the nation (13:23, 26).  But why did Moshe precede this instruction by commanding the spies, "you shall gird yourselves with strength"?  Why would taking fruit require strength and determination?

            Many of the peshat-oriented commentators explain that the scouts were reminded not be fearful of the indigenous population, who might grow suspicious of foreigners filling their bags with fruits.  Chizkuni, along generally similarly lines, explains that Moshe here enjoins the scouts not to be fearful of the landowners, who would naturally object to trespassers helping themselves to the fields' fruits.  He adds that for this reason the verse concludes, "these were days of the first blossoming of grapes," which is a time when the guards vigilantly protect the fields from trespassers and thieves.  Moshe guarantees the spies that they may take fruit samples from Canaan without any fear.

            The Ba'al Shem Tov is cited as explaining this verse much differently, suggesting that Moshe bids the scouts to take a penetrating look at the land's fruits and "take" the profound lesson that emerges from the agricultural process.  Fruits do not grow by themselves.  Considerable time, effort and patience are required before the final product emerges, before one can pluck a fruit off a tree and enjoy its taste.  The lesson of peri ha-aretz, the fruit of the land, is the need for patience and indulgence while working towards any cause.  A student spends many grueling years in school before he can begin "reaping the fruits" of his hard work; entrepreneurs must exert time, money and effort before the profits begin coming in.  And this is true of virtually every human endeavor, from child-rearing, to Torah study, to character refinement, to community building, and so on.  According to the Ba'al Shem Tov, Moshe instructs the scouts to "gird yourselves with strength," to build within themselves the ability to look beyond the superficial qualities of the grapes and figs of Canaan, and extract the powerful, practical lessons that can be derived by simply observing the natural world.

            It seems questionable whether Moshe indeed had this intent when giving his instructions to the scouts, and one might argue that the Ba'al Shem Tov himself never posited this reading as the actual interpretation of the verse.  In any event, it very likely shed light on the essential problem that led to the debacle of the spies.  The spies, and, following their lead, the rest of Benei Yisrael, perhaps anticipated an effortless campaign across the Jordan River.  They had assumed that they would enter Canaan and possess the land without intense military conflict, without any serious confrontation.  This is why they felt so discouraged, and reacted with such panic, upon hearing of the military power of the Canaanite peoples.  At that point they realized that the conquest of Canaan would not transpire overnight, that they would have to mobilize an army, train soldiers, devise strategy, and launch a fierce campaign against their enemies across the river.  And so they panicked.  When a person works on the assumption that a given task could be executed without effort, and then realizes how much time and work is really entailed, he will often lack the patience or inner strength to change gears and exert himself as required.  Benei Yisrael therefore decided to return to Egypt.  They were willing to continue towards the future and destiny that Moshe had promised them if it could be achieved quickly and effortlessly – but not if entailed patience and hard work.

            The profound message of the fruits, as developed by the Ba'al Shem Tov, thus accurately depicts the underlying misconception that resulted in chet ha-meraglim.  The scouts saw only the fruits, but not the grueling labor that went into producing the fruit.  They could see the beautiful colors and enjoy the luscious taste, but they wrongly assumed that this could be attained swiftly and effortlessly.  When they beheld the towers and fortresses of Canaan, when they saw the giants of Chevron, they buckled and decided the enterprise was not worth the cost.

            This approach towards the underlying basis of chet ha-meraglim is of particular significance in the technological age, when we have grown accustomed to yielding instantaneous results.  We cannot expect to produce any meaningful result – in any area of life – without being prepared to exert the effort and show some patience.  There can be no success without hard work and patience, and we should therefore never expect to accomplish our goals instantaneously or effortlessly.

******

            In narrating the scouts' return from their forty-day excursion in Canaan, the Torah writes in Parashat Shelach (13:26), "Va-yeilkhu va-yavo'u el Moshe ve-el Aharon…" – "They went and they came to Moshe and Aharon…"  Addressing the obvious difficulty arising from the seemingly inapt term "va-yeilkhu," the Gemara (Sota 35a), cited by Rashi, explains that the Torah here seeks to draw a comparison between the scouts' yetzi'a – initial departure to Caanan to scout the land – and their bi'a – their return to the Israelite camp.  Just as they returned to the camp with an eitza ra'a, with the sinful intention of dissuading the nation from proceeding to Canaan, so did they initially embark on their excursion with this evil plot in mind.  In other words, the ten scouts who spoke negatively about Eretz Yisrael had, according to the Gemara, intended to do so from the outset, from the moment they left the camp to scout the land.

            This assumption underlies as well a different comment there in the Gemara (Sota 34b), regarding the change of Yehoshua's name from "Hoshea" to "Yehoshua."  Yehoshua is initially introduced as Hoshea (13:8), but throughout the rest of this narrative the Torah refers to him as Yehoshua.  The Gemara, as Rashi cites, explains that his original name was Hoshea, but before he left with the other scouts on the excursion to Canaan, Moshe offered a prayer that God protect his disciple from the negative influence of his peers.  As part of Moshe's prayer, he added the letters yud-hei, a Name of God, to Hoshea's name, yielding "Yehoshua," as an expression of his wish that the Almighty protect Yehoshua from the pressure that the ten sinful scouts would undoubtedly exert.  Here, too, the Gemara clearly assumes that even before the scouts left the Israelite camp, they had conceived of their plan to dissuade the nation from proceeding to Canaan.

            The obvious question arises, if Moshe was aware of this intention, how did he allow this to begin with?  Why would he send the spies if he knew that they had planned on gathering information for the specific purpose of frightening the people and shattering their hopes of capturing Canaan?

            The answer, perhaps, is that when the Gemara speaks of eitza ra'a, it refers not to the actual plot to dissuade the people, but rather to the root and origins of that plot.  Several scholars, including Rav Soloveitchik (see Rav Avraham Besdin's Reflections of the Rav, vol. 1, chapter 11), identify the source of chet ha-meraglim in the scouts' mistaken perspective on this entire mission.  Moshe dispatched these men la-tur et eretz Canaan – "to have a look at the land of Canaan" (13:17).  This was not to be a spy mission in the conventional sense, of gathering information necessary for a successful attack.  Rather, God had intended for Benei Yisrael to familiarize themselves with the land before taking possession of it.  Rav Soloveitchik compared the intended goal of the scouts with the halakha requiring a bride and groom (even in situations of arranged marriages) to become acquainted with one another before their wedding.  But the scouts, and, eventually, the rest of the people, approached this mission as an ordinary reconnaissance tour taken before launching an attack.  The scouts were never asked to voice their opinion on the practical feasibility of the land's conquest – something that was, in Moshe's mind, an elementary presumption.  But they embarked on their tour of Canaan with the perspective of an actual military spy mission, and therefore found it necessary to warn Benei Yisrael of what they perceived to be the assured failure of this campaign.

            It is in this sense, perhaps, that the scouts' initial departure on their mission paralleled their arrival.  Chazal perhaps intended to emphasize that the scouts' negative report was a direct result of their inherently flawed attitude towards this entire mission, whereby they perceived it as an ordinary situation of military intelligence work, rather than a means of becoming acquainted with God's special land before possessing and settling it.

******

            Parashat Shelach tells the tragic story of chet ha-meraglim, the sin of the scouts, who returned from their excursion into Canaan and dissuaded Benei Yisrael from proceeding into the land.  After the scouts present their initial report, warning the people of the formidable military power of the Canaanite nations, Kalev, who, along with Yehoshua, dissented from the majority view, interrupts and exclaims, "We shall surely ascend and possess it [the land] – for we are surely capable [of possessing] it!" (13:30).  The ten scouts then argue their case, claiming that Benei Yisrael are incapable of defeating the Canaanites.  They add, "The land that we passed through to scout it is a land that consumes its inhabitants…" (13:32).  After casting this allegation against the land of Canaan, the scouts return to their principal claim, describing the seemingly insurmountable power of the peoples in the land.

            The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (35a) cites two views in explaining what precisely the scouts had in mind when they described Eretz Yisrael as "a land that consumes its inhabitants."  According to one view, which Rashi adopts in his Torah commentary, God saw to it that many Canaanites would die during the scouts' forty-day excursion, so that the people would be too preoccupied with their bereavement to take note of the suspicious foreigners.  The scouts noticed the scores of funerals held during these weeks, and concluded that the land "consumes its inhabitants," it is a place where people cannot survive.  The second view explains that Iyov, a distinguished resident of Canaan at that time, passed away when the scouts arrived there, and the entire country took out time to participate in the eulogies.  The scouts thus concluded that this land "consumes its inhabitants."

            One might ask, according to the second view in the Gemara, why would the death of a single man suggest that this is a "deadly" country, a place where people cannot survive?

            The simplest answer, perhaps, is that for this reason the Gemara emphasizes that all the Canaanite people took part in eulogizing Iyov.  Wherever the scouts went in Canaan, they came upon eulogizes, and they perhaps mistakenly concluded that people were constantly dying, whereas in truth the eulogies were delivred for but a single individual, Iyov.

            We might, however, explain this view differently.  The scouts were perhaps well aware that all the eulogies they encountered were conducted for Iyov.  However, precisely the death of this single, righteous individual is what led them to the conclusion that Canaan "consumes its inhabitants."  They perhaps point here not to the danger posed by the climate or geological properties of the land, but rather to the demanding spiritual standards necessary to survive there.  The famous verses towards the end of Parashat Acharei-Mot tell that the Land of Israel cannot tolerate sinful conduct, and God warns that the land must expel the Canaanites because of their depravity.  The scouts point to Iyov's death as an example of how exacting the standards are in this land; if even Iyov, the most righteous man in Canaan at the time, cannot survive there, they claim, then this land must, indeed, be a place that "consumes its inhabitants."

            Several writers, including the Chafetz Chayim, in his Shemirat Ha-lashon (section 2, Parashat Shelach), identify the origin of chet ha-meraglim in their sense of unworthiness.  They did not, according to this approach, doubt God's power to dispossess the Canaanite peoples, but they doubted their own worthiness to take possession and settle the land.  According to the second view in the Gemara, the scouts' description of Canaan as "a land that consumes its inhabitants" refers not to its physical or material properties, but rather to the strict spiritual standards demanded of its inhabitants, which the scouts – and then the entire nation – felt incapable of maintaining.

******

            Yesterday, we briefly developed one of the approaches taken in understanding the incident of chet ha-meraglim, which identifies the source of the scouts' error in their lack of faith not in God, but rather in themselves.  They doubted not God's ability to lead them to victory over the Canaanite nations, but His willingness to do so in light of their unworthiness.

            As we mentioned, the Chafetz Chayim develops this approach at length in his famous work Shemirat Ha-lashon (section 2, Parashat Shelach), where he emphasizes that this kind of reasoning, that led to the scouts' demise, poses a common and widespread threat to religious observance.  The Chafetz Chayim makes reference in this context to the Gemara's comment in Masekhet Berakhot (61A) that the yetzer ha-ra (evil inclination) "sits between the two entrances to the heart."  What are these "two entrances of the heart"?  The Chafetz Chayim explains that the yetzer ha-ra enlists two diametrically opposed arguments in luring an individual to sin.  Sometimes, a person will feel overly confident and comfortable with his achievements, he will be overcome by a sense of complacency, and decide that he may now lower his standards.  But on other occasions, a person is driven by the precisely opposite emotion, that of unworthiness and despair.  When one looks back upon his spiritual failures and shortcomings, he could easily conclude that he is incapable of living up to the Torah's demands, that he can never achieve what God expects of him.  Such thoughts will lead a person to despair, to the point where he sees no reason to exert himself and make the sacrifices necessary to follow a Torah lifestyle.  These are the two "entrances to the heart," the two different emotions and attitudes that can lead a person to sin.

            The chet ha-meraglim, according to the Chafetz Chayim, was a manifestation of the second "entrance to the heart," of the feeling of inadequacy that leads to despair.  The scouts, and then the entire nation, looked back at their failures of the past year – the golden calf, Kivrot Ha-ta'ava, and so on – and concluded that they are simply incapable of maintaining the standards God expects of them.

            The Torah tells that when the scouts completed their address to Benei Yisrael, the "entire congregation" (kol ha-eida) erupted in wailing.  Rashi, based on the Midrash Tanchuma, identifies kol ha-eida as the Sanhedraot – the members of the head rabbinical courts.  It was specifically among the highest scholarly echelons where the panic triggered by the scouts' report began to erupt.  The Chafetz Chayim explains that the greater the person, the more aware he is of his inadequacy; the more a person knows or achieves, the more he realizes how much he has yet to know or achieve.  It was therefore specifically the Sanhedraot, the nation's spiritual leaders, who were the first to despair upon hearing the scouts' warning.  They, more than anyone else, feared their potential inability to meet the exacting standards of Eretz Yisrael, and they were therefore the first to demand a reassessment of the nation's future, and to advocate returning to Egypt rather than proceeding to the land God wished to give them.