Rabbi Daniel SteinBroad Life, Not Double Life

All the tribes were represented in the cohort of meraglim that were dispatched to survey the Land of Israel, as the pasuk states, "send one participant from each of their ancestral tribes, each one a chieftain ... all of them being men of consequence, leaders of Israel" (Bamidbar 13: 2-3). According to the Malbim (Commentary to Sefer Yehoshua 2:1), not only was the group's composition designed to obtain a cross section of perspectives that would legitimize its findings, but also to serve a more basic and pragmatic purpose. Each tribe excelled in a different profession and was promised a parcel of land specifically tailored to their unique livelihood. As such, only a member of each tribe was qualified and trusted to provide an accurate and compelling assessment of the prospects of transplanting that tribe's specific trade to the new environment of the Land of Israel.

Behind the scenes, something deeper was afoot. The Arizal (Shaar Hagilgulim, Hakdamah 36) asserts that the meraglim were meant to atone for the sale of Yosef, as Yosef had accused his brothers of being meraglim when they came to Mitzrayim, saying, "you are meraglim who have come to see the vulnerabilities of the land" (Breishis 24:9). To achieve this atonement, all of the tribes had to be included in the cadre of meraglim, since they all had been involved in the sale of Yosef. Rav Yitzchak Eizik Chaver, (Bris Yitzchak, Ner Mitzvah) adds that just like the sale of Yosef was instigated by lashon hara, as the Torah attests, "Yosef brought evil tales about them to their father ... and his brothers ... could not speak with him peacefully" (Breishis 37:2-4), so too the failure of the meraglim revolved around lashon hara, as the pasuk says, "They spread an evil report about the land" (Bamidbar 13:32), and as is implied by the juxtaposition of their expedition with the episode of Miriam (Rashi, Bamidbar 13:2).

Perhaps the thematic similarity between the sale of Yosef and the meraglim, such that one is an appropriate rectification for the other, is not limited to the area of lashon hara, but extends further. In Kabbalistic literature, the two wives of Yaakov represent the two spheres within which the Jewish people exist and operate. Leah corresponds to the upper supernal realms, which are obscured, while Rachel corresponds to the lower natural world, which is revealed (Zohar Vayeitzi 154a and Torah Ohr, Parshas Vayeitzi). The Arizal (Shaar Hapesukim and Likkutei Torah) claims that Moshe charged the meraglim to conduct themselves with the mindset of Leah, alluded to in the pasuk, "lasur es haaretz" - "to scout the land" (Bamidbar 13:16), which contains the acronym "Leah." However, the meraglim refused, adopting the view of Rachel, as hinted to in the pasuk, "Rechov Levo Chamas" (Bamidbar 13:21), whose initials can be rearranged to spell "Rachel." The meraglim were commanded to focus on the spiritual qualities of the land, but instead were consumed by its material attributes and financial possibilities.

However, many meforshim have understood the sin of the meraglim in precisely the opposite way. Throughout their travels in the wilderness, the Jewish people enjoyed a miraculous existence, indeed, their sustenance literally fell from the sky. Upon entering Eretz Yisrael, this would change dramatically, (see Haamek Davar, Introduction to Bamidbar). They would now be expected to engage fully with the natural order, which was not only daunting but deflating. The Baal Hantanya (Likkutei Torah) as well as the Chiddushei Harim maintain that the meraglim issued a negative report in the hopes of forestalling that transition and spiritual decline. It was an altruistic attempt to hold on to their completely transcendent lifestyle. They preferred to remain firmly ensconced in the lofty cocoon of Leah rather than to descend into the terrestrial concerns of Rachel.

Can this classic interpretation be reconciled with the Arizal's teaching that the sin of the meraglim was a failure to appreciate the spiritual potential of Eretz Yisrael? Rav Yitzchok Meir Morgenstern (Deah Chochmah Lenafshecha 5766) submits that the meraglim were asked to recognize that the sublime world of Leah can be realized and expressed even within the physical work of settling the land, and likewise that the realities of Rachel can become suffused with holiness and exalted by Divine service and command. Their job was to unite these two worlds together, but instead of convergence and consonance all they found was conflict and discord. From their mistaken perspective, laboring to build the Land of Israel remained a strictly financial undertaking, devoid of religious meaning and idealism, and therefore, they rejected it.

In one of his letters, Rav Hutner (Pachad Yitzchak, Iggros u'Kesavim, Michtav 94) laments the attitude, held by some, that Judaism prescribes a bifurcated life, part sacred and part secular. He believes this to be fundamentally erroneous and contends that Judaism demands not a "double life" but a "broad life." A Jew does not toggle between two disparate spaces that need to be simultaneously inhabited and maintained, rather he occupies two rooms within the same home, each enriching the function and experience of the other.

If the meraglim had been optimistic about their mission to bridge these two arenas, and to discover and promote a grounded and integrated spiritual existence, it would have been a fitting remedy for the sale of Yosef. Properly considered, the struggle between Yosef and his brothers was driven by a similar dilemma to the one confronting the meraglim. Rav Soloveitchik (The Rav Speaks) explains that Yosef's brothers were content with the spiritual serenity and purity of their life in the Land of Canaan. They were not eager or willing to prepare for their inevitable sojourn as strangers in a foreign land. To silence Yosef and his pesky prognostications they tried to cast him away into obscurity. But Yosef, fueled by his foreboding and relentless dreams, sensed that Divine Providence would soon thrust them into alien surroundings, and he passionately argued that they would be best served by adapting to the challenges and opportunities that lied ahead, rather they by endeavoring to outrun them. A slightly different variation of essentially the same test arose again in the age of the meraglim. Would they retreat into spiritual isolationism or aspire to implement the ambitious goal of elevating and redeeming the physical world?

Undoubtedly, this is the universal vision of mitzvos, and relevant to every location and circumstance, nonetheless, it finds its fullest manifestation in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 24a) states, "the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael are pleasant to one another in discussions of halakha ... the Torah scholars in Bavel injure each other in discussions of halakha." Rav Kook (Oros Hatorah, Chapter 13) suggests that the halachic discussions of Baval are characterized as clashes and disputes because halachic observance in the diaspora is by its very nature an effort to apply a spiritual code to an inherently mundane and hostile setting. In Eretz Yisrael, halachic matters are resolved gracefully and peacefully, because there halacha does not seek to impose itself, rather it is native to the land and its people. Therefore, only in Eretz Yisrael is cultivating the land a spiritual activity and not just a logistical necessity.

We yearn for the days when the original objective given to the mergalim will be accomplished. When holiness will define the entirety of our existence and when the full promise of Eretz Yisrael will be fulfilled.

More divrei Torah from Rabbi Stein

More divrei Torah on Parshas Shlach