Objective Truth
INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA
*********************************************************
The VBM
is happy to announce a new book
by alumnus and VBM author Rav Michael Hattin
Passages: Text and Transformation in the Parsha
Inspired
by many years of shiurim written for this series!
Congratulations Rav Hattin!
*********************************************************
PARASHAT SHELACH
OBJECTIVE
TRUTH?
by Rav Alex Israel
The
dramatic story that this parasha tells is another story of crisis, rebellion and
devastating failure. We hear of a national delegation of twelve tribal leaders -
representatives of all twelve tribes of Israel - who enter the Promised Land.[1] Over a forty day
period, they are to tour the length and breadth of the land and return with a
comprehensive report of its people, agriculture and fortifications. The
delegation report back to Moses and the nation, but their words sow the seeds of
panic in the camp of Israel. They proclaim,
"We
cannot conquer this nation for they are stronger than us.... The entire
community broke into loud cries, and the people wept that night. All the
Israelites railed against Moses and Aaron. If only we had died in the land of
Egypt... why is the Lord taking us to that Land to fall by the sword?"
(13:31-14:4)
Two of the delegation - Caleb and Joshua
- insisted that it can be done:
"The Land
that we traversed and scouted is an exceedingly good land, if the Lord is
pleased with us, He will bring us into that land..." (14:7-8)
But to no avail. The rebellion has
already gained momentum, and Gods punishment arrives swiftly. God decrees that
the entire generation die in the wilderness and that only their children - the
next generation - would enter the Promised Land. For forty years the Jews would
wait to enter the Land, a year for each day of the mission of the twelve
"spies".
SLANDER
A
frequent question raised by the classic Torah commentators relates to
positioning of passages. The great commentator Rashi asks why this account of
the rebellion by leaders and nation against the Land follows on directly from
the story of Miriams slander against her brother Moses. The final passage of
last weeks parasha tells of a negative comment made by Miriam in reference to
her brother. Miriam is immediately summoned by God Himself, accused of improper
talk regarding Moses - the leader and prophet - and emerges from her encounter
with God plagued with Leprosy, the traditional punishment for slander - Lashon
Hara. What connection may be found between that story and this? Rashi (13:2)
opens his commentary to this epic story of the "spies" with the following
comment.
"Why is
the story of the spies juxtaposed with the passage about Miriam? Because she
(Miriam) was stricken on account of the slander that she spoke regarding her
brother. These evil men (the spies - the delegation to Canaan) witnessed it all
but did not learn the lesson."
Rashi
then feels that the sin of these national representatives that he calls "spies."
was an act of slander against the Promised Land. Apparently, they blackened its
name and maligned its reputation. The result was that the people of Israel
turned their backs on that Land.
But can we really speak of slander when it comes to a Land, to earth,
rocks, mountains and rivers? We can slander a person. He gets offended, he
blushes and is embarrassed, he cannot show his face in public. That is slander.
But how can one slander a land? Can one slander a building? a valley? a town?
Does the Land squirm and turn red? Does the building suffer pain?
FORGIVENESS
The above question was posed by the revered head of the Mir Yeshiva, Rav
Chaim Smulevitz zt"l, but he adds a second question which is more troubling. It
is well recorded how God punished Israel after this episode by barring them from
entering the land for an entire generation. This is as severe a punishment as
one might imagine. It would appear that God is furious with his "stiff-necked",
obstinate rebellious nation, and short of destroying them completely, he selects
a punishment of extreme proportions.
Yet the
way the punishment is phrased is strange and puzzling indeed. Immediately
preceding the proclamation of this devastating punishment, we read a statement
of divine forgiveness. :
"And the
Lord said I pardon, as you have asked." (14:20)
In the
first tense filled moments of Yom Kippur, at the start of the Kol Nidrei
service, the community takes this verse and chants it three times. We take hold
of this verse, this statement - of Gods complete forgiveness of Israel, of
Gods wiping the slate clean of our past wrongdoing - and ask God to repeat his
act of the past once again. This verse, a mantra of supreme forgiveness
originates here, as God tells Moses how he "pardons" the nation.
But do
the nation gain their pardon? Sforno (on 14:20) comments:
"I have
forgiven you to the extent that I will not destroy you (v.12).... I will not
annihilate the nation at once; however I will kill you off in stages, year by
year, and not one person will enter the Land."
So are
the people forgiven or are they not? Why would God tell us that we have been
pardoned, let off the hook, when the next verse explicitly issues a punishment:
"Nevertheless, as I live and as the Lords presence fills the whole world, none
of the men... shall see the Land that I promised on oath to their fathers, none
of those who spurn Me shall see it..." (14:21-23).
So we
have two questions. The first relates to the nature of slander. Can we slander a
land? The second: If the nation was forgiven, then why are they not allowed to
enter the Promised Land?
SPEAKING
AND LISTENING
Let us
begin by examining a statement from Maimonides in his code of Law - Mishne Torah
- where he outlines the laws of slander and evil talk (Lashon Hara). There he
states:
"The
Rabbis state, evil talk kills three: the speaker, the listener (lit. the
receiver) and the object of their slander; the listener more than he who
speaks." (Deot 7:3)
This is a
strange comment. We can well imagine that the person who spreads gossip is
culpable and at the same time, the object of the slander is maligned. A persons
life can be ruined by rumor and slander, and the perpetrator of that gossip is
guilty. But what of the listener? Why does Maimonides include the person who
hears the slander as someone who is "killed" by the information he hears?
We might suggest that in fact, the person most affected by slander IS
the listener. When one hears something negative about a person, ones perception
of that person changes. The way one relates to the object of gossip is
transformed the moment that one receives that information. After this moment,
the relationship is going to be different for ever. Has this ever happened to
you? You hear a piece of information about someone. The next time you meet that
person, you cant look them in the face without this item floating to the
surface. When you meet, you view that individual strangely; "Did he really do
that? Did that really happen to her? How could he?". Now, we can only see that
person through the prism of our newfound information. Maimonides is accurate in
his choice of language. It is not so much the listening to gossip that affects
us. It is more than that. It penetrates deep, it seeps in. The gossip is
received by the listener and it never leaves him.
ALTERED
PERCEPTIONS
Can we talk of slander about a land? We most definitely can. We can have
slander of a school, a synagogue, a community, anything! How so? Whenever we hear some
information which affects our image of something, our mind has been poisoned, we
have become a victim of slander. If we hear something bad about a particular
school, a scandal that took place in a certain community, we will look
differently at them from this moment forth. With a school, a child will now not
be able to learn as he did before, with a synagogue, we will be unable to
receive the spiritual power, the opportunity for prayer and religious growth
that we might have found before that moment when we heard that gossip. Our
perceptions and our consciousness are altered forever.
The Land of Israel was to offer the Jewish nation a unique opportunity.
It was to become the place where they would live out a dream. It would be a
place where they could fulfill the values of ethical monotheism, the legacy of
Gods law. The question is, whether the people are receptive to the land. Are
they open to that which the land can offer? Is the Promised Land seen as a land
of promise?
Until this episode, the Land seemed good, it lay "flowing with milk and
honey" in the collective consciousness. Until that auspicious day when the
delegation returned from the land with the first eyewitness reports of the
territory that this fledgling nation would have to conquer. The people knew that
they were going to war but they trusted the fact that God would not send them on
a mission impossible. But then, the "spies" returned. The respected leaders came
back with talk of giants and Amalek.
"They spread slander among the Israelites about the land they had toured
saying, The country that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its
settlers. All the people that we saw in it are men of great size.... we looked
like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them." (13:31-33)
The people heard this and panicked They cried all night long; "Why is
the Lord taking us to that Land to fall by the sword?" (14:4). They are gripped
by terror and an image of a land which means imminent death for all who enter
its borders. The shouts of Caleb and Joshua fall on closed ears. Ten spies
return with a negative report, who will listen to the two who are for Gods
plan. The people rally against God and His plan. They refuse to enter the Land,
they propose a return to Egypt.
After this event, after Moses has prayed and the crisis is over, and God
has pardoned them, what remains? The indelible mark of this episode still casts
its stain over the public in their perception of the Land. A nation who have
cried all night will never be able to relate to this land as a positive land
offering them opportunity and promise. They will always have an image, lurking
in the shadows, of this land as a land of death, an image which will readily
surface at the first sign of defeat, at the first setback.
Have the people been forgiven? Yes. Can they enter the Land? They cannot
enter. If they did, the entire enterprise would be doomed to failure from the
opening step. The first war, the first crisis, the first defeat would have
everyone crying again. Like the wounds of a trauma victim, the psychological
wounds of this traumatic incident will not be easily removed from the national
subconscious.
CONCLUSION
So the slander did not affect the object. It affected the listener. In
the words of Maimonides, the listener, the one who received the information into
his heart and mind, was affected in the most extreme way. The Children of
Israel, impressionable just like children (arent we all?) could not erase their
negative perceptions of the land from their minds and hearts.
Their not entering the land was not a punishment. Rather, it was a
direct outgrowth of the incident. Yes they had been forgiven, but only the next
generation, free of the haunting images of the land "which consumes its
settlers", would go into the Promised Land. They would be able to take the land
for what it was. They would not have the Emotional scars of a night of tears.
Even today, we frequently speak disparagingly about Israel. Let us be
reminded and cautioned. Let us not spoil what Israel might offer us by our
careless words. Let us ensure that the Holy Land remain in a position that it
can offer us spirituality, national promise, a sense of collective identity. Let
us be careful lest our words destroy the opportunity, for us, our children
communities and associates, to receive the promise from the Promised Land, even
today.
Shabbat
Shalom
[1] The twelve man delegation
are referred to in the Rabbinic literature as the "spies". In the Bible, they
are simply described as "anashim" - men - giving no indication of a specific
military role or covert objective in their mission. It is clear from the listing
of names (13:4-16) that these twelve men are tribal representatives and not
spies. My view - following many classical commentators - is to see the group not
as spies but more as a national delegation who were supposed to prepare the way,
maybe in terms of morale, maybe in some religious dimension, for the imminent
entry into the land. These national representatives were meant to endear the
people to their promised land rather than distancing the nation from it. To this
end, it is inappropriate to talk about "spies". Nonetheless I will follow the
traditional "labeling" of this passage in the course of this article despite the
possible wrong impressions that may flow from it.
For more on this topic see
the article in "Reflections of the Rav vol. 1" entitled "The Singularity of the
Land of Israel."