From Scouts to Spies

 

“The Evil Inclination appears at first like a guest, then like a master.”                       Bereisheet Rabbah 9:9

This week’s Parasha, Shelach Lecha, begins with G-d’s directive to Moshe, “Send for yourself some men, and let them tour (vayaturu) the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Yisraelites. From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders” (Bamidbar 13:2).

The men leave on their expedition. It lasts forty days.

When they come back, they show Moshe, Aharon and the community the fruit of the land which they describe as “flowing with milk and honey” (Bamidbar 13:27). “However,” they resume their report, “the people who inhabit the land are mighty; the cities are fortified and huge; and we even saw there the sons of the giant. The Amalekites dwell in the south land; the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites dwell in the mountainous region; and the Canaanites dwell on the coast and alongside the Jordan River” (Bamidbar 13:28-29). The experience results in their loss of faith in G-d and distrust in their leaders.  Worst of all, though, they have committed a great sin for they have libelled and spoken ill the land that G-d promised their ancestors.

The punishment for that transgression will be forty years of wandering in the desert. This sin is what has come to be known as “The Sin of the Spies.” The men that partook in this episode are referred to as meraglim (spies) at least from the time of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:3).

Oddly enough, the Parasha never refers to them as “spies”.  Neither is their mission described as “spying.” Rather, the Torah uses the verb latour, which means “to tour” or “to scout, to explore,”  which is often used in a more neutral or positive context.  “To spy” – leragel, on the other hand, is generally used with negative connotations, involving secrecy, deception or betrayal.

The question that is, therefore, begging to be asked is, why are these twelve men commonly referred to as “spies” and their affair, as the “Episode of the Spies” in Jewish tradition?

Rabbi Ibn Ezra (1092-1167) suggests that they “produced bad reports,” that is, something that never happened. The “bad reports,” according to him, were not just bad, they were false. Rabbi Obadia Sforno (1470-1580) agrees with Ibn Ezra and emphasizes that the scouts were framing their reports in a way that discouraged the community. They added subjective, fear inducing interpretations, devoid of spiritual trust which revealed their lack of faith in G-d.

 Such deceptive reports tainted their reputation and turned them from scouts into spies. Their act which is truly a sinful act warrants a severe punishment. Am Yisrael is doomed to wander in the desert for forty years.

 It is important to note, at this stage, that there is another version of the same event which is recounted in Deuteronomy 1:22-23. There, Moshe says to Am Yisrael, “Then all of you came to me and said, ‘Let us send men ahead to spy out the land for us and bring back a report about the route we are to take and the towns we will come to.’ The idea seemed good to me; so I selected twelve of you, one man from each tribe.”

Jewish scholars have tried to reconcile apparent contradictions between the two versions. Rash”i  (1040-1105) is one of them. His suggestion of harmonizing the texts is that while in Numbers, G-d initiates the idea of sending people to Canaan, in Deuteronomy, it comes from Am Yisrael and G-d merely grants His Divine permission to their wish. In other words, as Rabbi Sacks interprets Rash”i’s suggestion, “G-d does not stop people from a course of action on which they are intent, even though He knows it may end in tragedy. Such is the nature of the freedom G-d has given to us. It includes the freedom to make mistakes.”

Rabbi Sacks elaborates on the essence of granting “Divine permission.” In his brilliant essay, entitled, Freedom and Practice, Sacks asserts that G-d “wants human beings to construct a society of Freedom. Sacks further explains that “it takes more than a few days or weeks to turn a population of slaves into a nation capable of handling the responsibilities of freedom.” Sacks bases his claim on Ramba”m (1138-1204) who contends that it is irrelevant who sent the men nor the verdict of this episode. What is important, states Ramba”m, is that “another generation rose during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to degradation and slavery” (Guide for the Perplexed III:32). To teach Am Yisrael the meaning of freedom, “G-d had to deprive them of the very freedom He wanted them to create,” in Sacks’s words.

Ramba”n  (1194-1270), likewise, claims that G-d granted and allowed a tour of the land. However, Ramba”n believes that G-d never intended for those who toured or scouted Canaan to return with a negative, verging on evil, report.

The sin, so it seems, originated from those “scouts” who turned into “spies” and not from the act of sending them on the mission. This is the consequence of human nature, as the quote from Bereisheet Rabbah, above, states. When the “evil inclination” abuses the free will awarded to former slaves, it drives them to the illusion of control, of being the masters.

Judaism offers many deep insights into the idea that something initially positive can become negative, depending on intent, misuse, or moral failure. It can convert an innocent "scout" to a sinful "spy" with an ensuing severe punishment. Fortunately, this episode turns into a hard yet great and hopeful lesson. This is the central theme of the episode of “The Spies.” It tells us that the tragedy of the generation that left Egypt was that they were not yet ready to be free and master their own fate. “But their children,” concludes Sacks “would be. That was their consolation.”

Shabbat Shalom

The Ten Commandments – The Divine Component in Interpersonal Ethics

 

 

                           “Can we see the trace of G-d in the face of a stranger?” -   Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

The Ten Commandments have engaged Jewish and non-Jewish scholars over the centuries. 

Many believe that they can be divided into two columns. The first five, on the right, address the Mitzvot governing the interactions between Man and G-d. The left column, many claim, addresses the interpersonal and social intercourse with our fellow Man. I doubt that anyone can disagree with that claim, except, perhaps, question the fifth Commandment, the Mitzvah of honouring our parents, which is placed in the right column and may be perceived as one relating more to human interaction rather than to Man and G-d. 

This might, indeed, be the case, unless we fail to notice that it is the only Commandment which is rewarded, “so that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your G-d gives you.” The Divine incentive for following the fifth Commandment explicitly keeps G-d in the equation of human interaction.

Chaza”l teach us, on several occasions, that though the Mitzvot, in both columns, are equally important, the last five bear significant weight with regards to conducting our daily affairs as members the human race.

In this article, I will try to show that the practice of morality between Man and his fellow Man reflects the character of G-d and serves Him no less than it serves us, humans. In other words, breaching any of the last five Commandments is not only a transgression against our fellow Man but against G-d as well.

“You shall not murder,” is the sixth Commandment, the first in the left column. This prohibition stems from the concept that Man was created in G-d’s image. This hints at the unique and high status of Man that somewhat resembles G-d.  Hence “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for G-d made man in his own image” (Bresheet 9:6). An act of murder disrupts the order of the universe. Therefore, the blood of the murdered cries out from the ground (Bresheet 4:10). It is a crime against G-d and is irremediable. The following law in Shemot 21:28 sheds light on the severity of this violation: “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stones to death, and its meat must not be eaten.” Why is the bull punished? Does it have criminal responsibility? The only way to make sense of this law is through the underlying principle of the Biblical law. The animal ravaged an image of G-d. For such a heinous deed, it must pay the price. It must be stoned, and its meat prohibited for consumption. Furthermore, the Biblical view of the uniqueness and superiority of human life leads to another conclusion. The value of the life of a human being is above and beyond all values. It cannot be measured by money nor by another human’s life. Neither can it be compensated. The Torah is very clear about that: “Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die.” (Bamidbar 35:31).

The seventh Commandment is “Lo Tin’af.” In English it translates into, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” The Hebrew root of “Na’af” means, betrayal or disloyalty. Here, is used to describe infidelity in a matrimonial relationship when one of the parties engages in an extramarital affair. Since the marriage contract is of Divine origin and Divinely sanctioned, it is clear why any violation of it will offend G-d. It is well evident in the case of Yoseph when his master’s wife asks him “to come to bed” with her. Yoseph’s response is “My master has withheld nothing from me except you because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against G-d?” (Bresheet 39:9).

As some commentators note, the term became a metaphor for Idolatry. Jewish tradition uses marriage as a metaphor to the relationship between Am Yisrael and G-d. Therefore, Am Yisrael needs to give G-d the same absolute fidelity that a wife exercises for her husband. The use of term intimating adultery to describe the worship of other gods is already made in Shemot 34:16: “and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods.”

Later, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, explicitly use the term when allegorizing Am Yisrael to a prostitute and adulteress: “How sick is your heart, declares the Lord G-d, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute……Adulterous wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband!” (Ezekiel 16:30-32). “For the land is full of adulterers,” (Jeremiah 23:10).

“You shall not steal,” is the eight Commandment. Everyone knows that theft in any shape of form is an immoral act.

Aside from theft in its common meaning, I wish to draw the readers’ attention to another, more serious kind of robbery, where it becomes an act against G-d. In his interpretation of the Ten Commandments, the great Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (200 CE) perceives that it is not merely an act committed against individuals when their assets are stolen. He believes that it is also aimed at acts committed by bigger and more powerful robbers. He refers to those in power, the law givers who use their power to enrich themselves, rob whole cities without worries since, allegedly, they are above the law, while in the name of ruling and leadership commit what is, in fact, theft. That is precisely what Samuel warned Am Yisrael against in his harsh and famous sermon when they demanded to appoint a king (Shmuel 1, Chapter 1:10-18).

The ninth Commandment, likewise, states that which is, clearly, obvious, “Thou shall not bear false witness,” which is translated into the prohibition to lie. Again, as in the previous Commandments, it is not merely a transgression against our fellow Man but also against G-d. The Midrash wishes to stress the necessity to adhere to the truth, to reality. If a person testifies falsely, it means that what happened did not happen. It implies that there is no significance to existential concepts such as, honesty, truth reality and existence which are so important to Man and thus turns reality into something meaningless. If anyone can describe the world as they wish, then there is no Creator, no creation, there is nothing and everything is relative. In the words of the prophet Isiah (43:10), “’You are my witnesses,” Declares the Lord.’” Man’s vocation is to be a witness to the existence of G-d.

Finally, the tenth Commandment, warns us not covet our neighbour’s house, his wife his male or female servant, his ox, donkey or anything that belongs to them. On the surface, it seems that this Commandment strictly relates to interpersonal relations. Here, again, Jewish scholars debate its Divine rationale.

Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (Spain 1164-1092), for instance, clams that this prohibition is not meant to protect our neighbour from the act of coveting. He, asserts, rather, that one is prohibited from coveting that which G-d forbids or refuses to give us. Man, he believes, should be content with that which G-d has bestowed upon him.

Ramba”m sees the divine prohibition in this Commandment from another angle. According to him, it serves as a safeguard from other, worse offences. Lust, he believes, leads to covet which in turn leads to theft quoting Micah 2:2 “The covet lusts after the fields and seize them.” That eventually may induce bloodshed as the example of Ahab and Navot shows.

The Ahab and Navot sorrowful matter recounted in Melachim I (Kings I) chapter 21, is indeed a typical example where coveting the property of one’s neighbour’s leads to murder. And, as was established earlier, murder is not only a crime against our fellow Man but an offence against G-d as well.

Whichever way we interpret or understand the Ten Commandments, one fact remains clear. They are meant to improve Mankind and keep the order of the universe intact. What then is a better way to achieve it than, as Rabbi Sacks, ZT”L suggests, seeking to “see the trace of G-d in the face of a stranger?”

Shavua tov, Am Yisrael and a wonderful weekend to all