However, the nation that dwells in the land is mighty. And the cities are large and fortified. We also saw there the descendants of the
giants. (BeMidbar 13:28)
In our parasha, Hashem tells Moshe to send spies into the land of
Israel. Moshe explains, in Sefer
Devarim, that Hashem was responding to the request of Bnai Yisrael. The people had approached Moshe and
suggested that these spies be sent.
Moshe regarded this as a reasonable plan. Hashem agreed to the request.[1]
The spies returned. They reported that the land was rich and
fertile. They also reported that the
land was well defended and would be difficult to conquer. Upon hearing this report, Bnai Yisrael
panicked. The people refused to proceed
into the land. Hashem punished the nation. The generation that refused to conquer the
land was forced to wander in the wilderness for forty years. After this generation died, their children
conquered the land under the leadership of Yehoshua.
The Torah explains that the
spies sinned and caused the rebellion.
What was their sin? It is
difficult to condemn the spies for reporting that the land was well
defended. This was their job. Moshe charged them with the responsibility
of gathering intelligence. They were
ordered to asses the fortifications and the strength of inhabitants. Surely the spies cannot be condemned for
fulfilling their mission!
The Torah describes their sin
as propagating negative report on the land.[2] This seems to be a reference to a specific
statement made by the spies. They
claimed that the land consumed its inhabitants.[3] This was a false assertion. It is reasonable to hold the spies
responsible for this lie.
However, this raises an
obvious question. The spies initially
reported that the land was fertile and rich.
They even brought back fruit to support their report. How could they reasonably claim that the
land was unwholesome? Why would the people
believe a claim that clearly contradicted the spies' own words?
One possible answer is that
the initial report was delivered in front of Moshe and Ahron. Moshe was familiar with the land of Canaan
from his younger years.[4] He could easily dispute any negative
characterization of the land. The spies
did not criticize the land of Israel in front of Moshe and Ahron. They acknowledged its richness. Later the assembly broke up. The spies followed the people back to their
tents. There, outside of the presence
of Moshe and Ahron, the spies denigrated the land.
This does not completely
answer the question. Still, the people
must have realized that the spies were contradicting themselves in their
characterization of the land! Perhaps,
the spies responded that they were afraid to contradict Moshe's assurances
regarding the land. Therefore, in his
presence they had been less than completely truthful. Now, in privacy they could reveal the truth.
Nachmanides suggests that the
spies never contradicted themselves.
They never retracted from their report that the land flowed with milk
and honey. Instead, they claimed that
the land was too rich. The luscious
fruit and produce would sustain an especially robust metabolism. It seemed to be a perfect diet for giants. But a more average specimen would be harmed
by the richness of the diet. They
claimed that this must be the case.
They had only encountered giants.
Apparently, normal human beings would not be sustained by these rich
fruits.[5]
Nachmanides further comments
that the sin of the spies did not begin with this lie. The lie was the culmination. The sin began with the statement contained
in our pasuk. At first glance this seems odd. In our pasuk,
the spies are reporting that the land is well defended. This was an accurate and truthful account!
Nachmanides explains that the
role of the spies was to provide intelligence.
This information was to be used to formulate a plan for conquest. The spies were never authorized to evaluate
the chances of succeeding. If we
consider our passage carefully, we can see that the spies overstepped their
authority.
The spies use an odd word in
our pasuk. They say, "However, the nation that dwells in the land is
mighty". Let us consider the
implications of the word "however".
This word creates some connection between the preceding and the
following statement. It qualifies the
prior statement. What was this prior
statement? The spies had just reported
that the land was rich and fertile.
Then they added their "however". What was their message?
They were saying, "Yes, the land flows with milk and honey – just
as Moshe promised. However, what good
is this to us? We cannot conquer the
land. It is too well
defended". Of course, the spies
did not actually say this. Their intent
was implied in the "however".[6]
And Moshe and Ahron fell on their faces
before the whole assembled Bnai Yisrael.
(BeMidbar 14:5)
The
scouts return. They report that the
land will impossible to conquer. They
also deny that the land is wholesome.
They claim that the land seems to consume or destroy its
inhabitants. The nation is discouraged
by this report. The people question the
purpose of traveling through the wilderness to arrive at this hopeless
end. They come to a consensus. They will replace Moshe and Ahron. Another leader will be chosen. This leader will take them back to Egypt.
Our pasuk records Moshe and Ahron’s reaction
to the nation’s decision. The Torah
does not tell us that they argued with the people. The Torah records that they fell upon their faces before the
nation.
What
was the purpose of this reaction?
Nachmanides explains that Moshe and Ahron were beseeching the people not
to perform this wicked act.[7] They should not rebel against the Almighty and refuse to posses
the land. They must continue forward
and not return to Egypt.
This
reaction raises an important question. Why did Moshe and Ahron not respond more forcefully? They behaved as supplicants. They begged the people not to act sinfully. Contrast this to Moshe’s reaction upon
descending from Sinai. Moshe descended
from Sinai and encountered the nation worshipping the Egel – the Golden Calf.
Moshe did not become a supplicant.
He did not beg the nation to repent.
Instead, he acted decisively and sternly. He rebuked Ahron for his involvement in the sin. He separated the sinners from the
faithful. He immediately executed those
responsible for the travesty of the Egel. How can we explain Moshe’s relative
passivity in responding to the transgression in our parasha?
The
first possibility is that the sin of the Egel
was more isolated than the movement to return to Egypt. In the instance of the Egel, Moshe realized that the majority of Bnai Yisrael remained
faithful to Hashem. He enlisted the
majority to punish the minority of sinners.
In our parasha, Moshe was
confronted with a mass movement. The
nation – as a whole – had decided to abandon Moshe and the quest for the land
of Israel. Moshe had very few
allies. He could not act
forcefully. Therefore, he was forced to
become a supplicant. He appealed to the
nation reconsider.
However,
Rav Simcha Zisil Broudy notes another distinction between the two
incidents. He explains that the sin of
the Egel was not directed against
Moshe. The nation had defied the law of
the Almighty. Moshe vigorously defended
the glory of the Creator. In the
incident in our parasha, the nation’s
rebellion was not directed solely against Hashem. The people were also rejecting the leadership of Moshe and
Ahron. The people sought new
leadership. They wanted leaders that
would guide them on a more productive and meaningful path.
Moshe
and Ahron could not act forcefully in this incident. One who leads through force can be accused of
self-aggrandizement. Furthermore, a
leader that forces other to follow is not a true leader. If force must be used, the leader has failed
to prove his or her worthiness. Moshe
realized that this was not a conflict that could be resolved through
force.
Nonetheless,
Moshe and Ahron did not abandon the conflict.
They realized that they could not coerce the nation. Instead, they resorted to petition. They were not concerned with their own
position of honor. They only cared for
the welfare of Bnai Yisrael. If this
required them to become beggars and supplicants, they were willing.[8]
[1] Sefer
Devarim 1:22-23.
[2] Sefer
BeMidbar 14:36.
[3] Sefer BeMidbar 13:32.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on
Sefer
BeMidbar 13:2.
[5] Rabbaynu
Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer
BeMidbar 13:32.
[6] Rabbaynu
Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer
BeMidbar 13:27.
[7] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on
Sefer
BeMidbar 14:5.
[8] Rav Shimon Yosef Miller, Shai LaTorah (Jerusalem 5753), volume 3, pp. 143-144.