Rabbi Michael RosensweigParshat Shelach: The Transgression of the Meraglim

The puzzling episode of the meraglim, the centerpiece of Parshat Shelah, presents us with numerous difficulties. While there are some indications that the nesiim were perceived even on the eve of their journey as leaders of great stature and sincerity involved in a legitimate undertaking, there is equally strong evidence that their mission was problematic and ill-fated from the outset due principally to improper motivation and flaws of character and leadership.

On the one hand, Hazal focus attention on Moshe's role in apparently endorsing this mission. The Ramban (Bamidbar 13:2) suggests that its purpose was simply strategic, to determine the best method of conquest, and that the theme of "ein somekhin al ha-ness" constitutes ample justification. Indeed, R. Behai, following Ramban's lead, introduces the entire parshah by citing the verse in Mishlei (21:31)-"soos mukhan le-yom milhamah, ve-la-Hashem ha-teshuah" -, which he develops as a foundation for the ideal combination of human effort (hishtadlut) coupled with faith (bitahon). The midrash (Bamidbar 13:3) emphasizes that the participants at this juncture were still men of great piety and spirituality. The Ramban (13;4. Compare to Neziv ad. loc.) points out that the nesiim are specifically listed in this context in order of their spiritual stature.

At the same time, Hazal also note that the phrase "shlah lekhah" implies that Hashem disapproved of this course from the beginning, as it was evidently inherently flawed. The Talmud (Sotah 34b) perceives character deficiencies in the individual nesiim reflected in their various names. The fact that Moshe Rabbenu felt the need to reinforce Yehoshua's resolve by changing his name (Bamidbar 13:16; Sotah 34b), specifically encouraging him to resist the potential influence of his fellow meraglim, and the fact that Kalev, according to Hazal (Bamidbar 13:22; Sotah 34b), traveled to Hevron to seek his own spiritual reinforcement long before any negative reports had been conveyed support the perspective that this enterprise was extremely problematic already in its earliest stages. While Rashi (Bamidbar 13:3) notes that these were spiritual leaders of the highest magnitude, he also records in another context (Bamidbar 13: 26) that their attitude was problematic from the outset!

The difficulties engendered by the reading of this parshah are not limited to the apparently conflicting evidence regarding the initial status of the meraglim's mission. The Ramban notes (13:2, 27, 32) that it is difficult to characterize the initial report of the meraglim as "dibat ha-aretz" as they were accurately reporting what they had experienced and one would not expect them to falsify information. The Torah's response to their explicit transgression also requires clarification. While their one-sided presentation and even falsefications were inexcuasable and had devastating consequences, do they justify the charge of an implicit rebellion and blasphemy against Hashem (Bamidbar 14:6, 9, 11)?

The conflicting evidence about the initial stature of the nesiim and the inherent viability of their mission reflects the complex challenge that Kelal Yisrael faced at this juncture. The Neziv (13:2) develops an interesting perspective regarding this mission. He speculates why it is that spies were not sent already when the nation encamped at Horev. He argues that at Horev the nation had resolved to establish their religious identity and to approach their future based on the charismatic and miraculous relationship with Hashem that prevailed at mattan Torah, which precluded the need for such a mission. After several more journeys (masaot) in which it became self-evident that they could not sustain the spiritual intensity of such a relationship, Kelal Yisrael felt the need to develop natural mechanisms like the mission of the meraglim that would afford them a measure of self-sufficiency based on the principle of "ein somekhin al ha-nes". When perceived from this perspective, the mission of the meraglim may represent an important policy departure in the spiritual development of Kelal Yisrael. One might suggest that this transition was an inherently precarious one as it would test the delicate relationship between hishtadlut and bitahon alluded to by R. Behai, even as it would set the tone for a more pragmatic approach to the implementation of the idealistic Divine program that aspires to produce a "mamlekhet kohanim ve-goy kadosh".

Moshe endorsed this mission because, given the new reality, it was both appropriate and a critical testing ground for the new order. He entrusted the challenge to those whose leadership credentials in the "mattan Torah" era were well established. At the same time, he was apparently wary of the outcome and questioned the ability of even such spiritual giants to effectively integrate the idealism of bitahon and yirat shamayim in such a highly pragmatic quest. His precautionary name change for Yehoshua reflects this ambivalent posture.

The transgression of the meraglim can now be seen in a different light. The failure of these acknowledged spiritual leaders to manage this transition effectively by rising to the formidable challenge of an uncompromising standard of idealism and overriding faith notwithstanding the pragmatic nature of their mission reflected a critical spiritual character flaw and constituted a devastating blow to the spiritual aspirations of all of Kelal Yisrael. In retrospect, the meraglim demonstrated that their previously established spiritual qualifications were limited and one dimensional. Considering the recent events in which they had experienced Hashem's presence and hashgahah, and in light of the unprecedented leadership opportunity to establish the predominance of faith and idealism especially within a more natural and human order, their unacceptable response was not merely a failure of omission. Indeed, it was tantamount to an act of rebellion and blasphemy against Hashem. Thus, it is unsurprising that the Torah would record the keriah reaction of Yehoshuah and Kalev (Bamidbar 14:6), which halakhically is associated with mourning and with giduf (blasphemy- Sanhedrin 60a). Hazal explain that the meraglim's unacceptable response in essence constituted an implicit attack on Hashem (Midrash and Rashi, Bamidbar 13:31) and his providential convenant with Kelal Yisrael. Although the principle of "ein somekhin al ha-nes", projected by the Ramban and R. Behai, technically legitimates this mission and one should not have expected the meraglim to falsify the basic facts of their finding, the overriding spiritual urgency at this time and place demanded no less than a ringing unequivocal affirmation of faith and idealism. The Ramban himself formulates a parallel perspective with respect to the flawed attitude of Kelal Yisrael: "she-hem rau yeshuat Hashem ve-hayah lahem lalekhet aharei he-anan el asher yihiyeh shamah ha-ruah lalekhet" (Ramban, Bamidbar 13:2).

Kalev's double double-emphasis of "aloh naaleh ve-yarashnu otah ki yakhol nukhal lah" (Bamidbar 13:30), which Hazal interpret as an unswerving commitment to follow Moshe Rabbenu's leadership and Hashem's commandment even if it meant climbing into the heavens itself, an apt symbol for the total abandonment of the pragmatic approach if need be, effectively encapsulates the sharp contrast to the meraglim. This powerful formulation is introduced by "Va-yahas Kalev et ha-am el Moshe" (Bamidbar 13: 30). Kalev correctly intuited that merely conveying "the facts" in a context that demanded spiritual courage, leadership and ambition constituted a negative agenda and an implicit attack on Moshe's leadership. His intuition is borne out several pesukim later (Bamidbar 14:2-4) when the entire process of yeziat Mizrayim, built on this structure of faith, idealism and spiritual ambition, is questioned. Darshanim have noted that the narrow self-image exhibited by the meraglim and their limited faith in the destiny that Hashem had promised actually contributed to their vulnerability. Thus, "va-nehi be-eineinu ke-hagavim" precedes "ve-khen hayyiynu be-eineihem"(Bamidbar 13:33).

The Yerushalmi (Taanit 4:5) explains that the Jewish people had already begun to study the laws of Halah and Orlah in anticipation of their imminent arrival in Erez Yisrael. They cried (Bamidbar 14:1- "va-tisa kol ha-edah va-yitnu et kolam") upon hearing the report of the meraglim not only because of their fears, but because their ideal halakhic aspirations were shattered. The blow to idealism and bitahon constituted a grievous crime against Hashem and Kelal Yisrael, in addition to the impact of the delay of entry into Eretz Yisrael.

Hazal link the conclusion of Behalotkhah and the episode of the meraglim by noting that both involved lashon hara. It is possible, however, that there is an additional dimension to this common denominator. Miriam seriously miscalculated when she failed to recognize the uniqueness of Moshe's leadership and prophecy- "lo ken avdi Moshe" (Bamidbar 12:7). Her critique of Moshe's family life revealed that she improperly applied a natural and pragmatic yardstick to the "eved Hashem" par excellence. This constituted a significant flaw in her own leadership and spirituality that needed to be addressed. In a similar vein, the meraglim misconstrued the new mandate of hishtadlut implied by their mission, and failed to seize an opportunity to project the necessary balance accenting idealism, commitment and faith that would justify and even idealize this approach. Yehoshua and Kalev alone were able to exemplify inspiring and effective spiritual leadership. Yehoshua's pervasive awareness of Hashem's presence and interest is reflected in the new identity bestowed upon him by Moshe Rabbenu (Sotah 34b). Kalev's ability to rise to the occasion and to transcend a pragmatic perspective is succinctly expressed in Hashem's depiction of him as an "eved" invested with a different kind of spirit (Bamidbar 14:24: "ve-avdi Kalev ekev haytah ruah aheret imo").

The episode of the meraglim conveys a critical principle in Jewish life and leadership. Conduct and decision making that might generally qualify as reasonable and responsible leadership may under certain circumstances constitute an unforgiveable lapse and even a fundamental betrayal of principle. When the spiritual destiny of Kellal Yisrael is at stake, one must strive to assert oneself as an "eved Hashem" by developing a "ruah aheret", never eschewing idealism and faith for a purely pragmatic program. The aspiration of "mamlekhet kohanim ve-goy kadosh" demands nothing less.