Parshat Chukat: A Comparison of Spy Stories

BY: Miriam Jaffe

The background:

As parshat Chukat comes to a close, we find the ancient Israelites almost ready to enter their promised land. The Torah has progressed to the point in the narrative where the Israelites take over the land. In the last few chapters of Chukat, the Israelites begin their conquest of the land east of the Jordan River. Chukat first tells us of the Israelites' interaction with Edom; the Israelites request from the Edomites permission to pass through their land, the Edomites deny the permission, and the Israelites leave. Similar nonviolent interaction occurs between the Israelites and the Ammonites and Moabites, as recorded in Deuteronomy 2 and 3.

These stories have a certain level of inherent epic-ness. We know of the origin of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites from Genesis, and after a few hundred years of the Torah focusing on the Israelites, we reunite with these familiar characters. Indeed, Rashi, in his commentary on Chukat, relates every detail of the Israelites' interaction with the Edomites to the two nations' respective origins. Chukat also tells us about the Israelites' conquest of the respective lands of Sichon and Og. These stories, too, carry with them a degree of epic-ness. The defeat of these two powers causes the nations of Canaan to be terrified of the Israelites (see Joshua 2: 9-11), and is considered by the Jewish people one of the great kindnesses done for their ancestors by God (Psalms 136: 19-22).

The foreground:

There are two stories of Israelite conquest in parshat Chukat that seem to lack the epic-ness of the surrounding stories. The first is in chapter 21 verses 1-3:

And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive. And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said: 'If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities.' And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities; and the name of the place was called Hormah.

The second is in 21:32, "And Moses sent to spy out Jazer, and they took the towns thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there."

In order to explicate these stories, I would like to invoke two earlier related stories - that of the spies and that of the ma'apilim. Moses sent spies to scout the land of Canaan, and the spies reported back that the land would be near impossible to conquer. This angered God; He desired to kill the people, and he decreed that they would not enter the land. Some people, the ma'apilim, recognized their mistake and, against Moses' warning, attempted to conquer the land immediately. In their efforts, they were killed in battle by the Canaanites and the Amalekites.

The actions of the Israelites in the battle against the king of Arad seem to reflect a change in behavior from the incident of the ma'apilim. The setting is actually quite similar to that of the ma'apilim; the king of Arad is dwelling in the Negev, where the Canaanites and Amalekites of the ma'apilim story had been dwelling (see Numbers 13:29). Rashi takes this a step further and says that the nation of the king of Arad were themselves Amalekians (21:1), and Chizkuni says that some people explain that the verse should be read "And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, and Amalek.” The setup may be the same, but the result is different. The Israelites do not begin an offensive against the king of Arad; they only attack as a response to his actions. Unlike the ma'apilim, who recklessly attacked against God's will, the Israelites recognized that they were not commanded to attack Arad, and therefore did not do so until it was necessary to restore a captive. (According to the commentary of the Ramban on 21:1, the second half of this battle did not occur until the people entered the land (Judges 1:16-17), but was just written here to finish the story. This strengthens the point that the people did not attack until they were already in the land and told to conquer it completely.) 

The other change of behavior that we see here is the Israelites focus on God's help. They call to God and make a vow displaying their outlook that God is the one helping them win the battle. With the ma'apilim, however, we had seen the opposite. The text tells us that when the ma'apilim went to fight, neither Moses nor the ark of God's covenant was with them, both of which symbolize God's lack of presence in battle. When the Israelites fight the king of Arad, the ark is with them from the start. Rashi explains the beginning of this story, "Israel came by the way of Atharim," that Israel came by way of the tayar hagadol, the great surveyer, the ark of the covenant. This time, God is with them throughout. At the end of the battle, instead of the Israelites being destroyed until Horma (Numbers 14:45), their enemies are (ibid 21:3).

After overcoming the pitfall of the ma'apilim, the Israelites are back to that of the spies. The conquest of Yaazer reflects a total change in attitude from that of the spies. Moses sends spies to scout out Yaazer, but it is a different method than the disastrous first spy mission. In the first iteration of spy sending, the story focuses on who the spies were and what qualities they had. Each spy has a whole pasuk devoted to him, and the list is introduced by, "And these were their names." The story tells of every place they passed through, and when they return, they list off five of the nations that they saw. In the story of Yaazer, none of these details appear. The verse says that "Moses sent to spy", but not that he sent spies to spy. The direct object of the clause is missing. Not only do we not have the identities of these spies, we barely have their existence. The text then does say that they took the "towns" and "Amorites that were there," both of which seem to be a shying away from direct content. In a standard war, the text might say that they took the land or the people, but the surrounding towns and the people "that were there" seem circuitous as though the text were trying not to say anything direct. The spy mission occurs so secretly that even the reader is not quite sure what happens. The spies who scouted Yaazer did not speak ill of the land; on the contrary, while the text is ambiguous, it appears as though they may have conquered it themselves. Rashi (21:32) cites a Midrash Tanchuma which paints this as a conscious decision on behalf of these spies to capture the land to be unlike the original spies who didn't have confidence. The city of Yaazer is later designated as a Levite city (Joshua 21:37), possibly because it is the opposite of the original spies, who represented each tribe except the Levites.

Thus these two stories, that of the king of Arad and that of Yaazer each comes to highlight an aspect of improvement within the Israelite people.

There is another completely different way of looking at these two stories, in which they are not uniquely important. They are both part of the conquest and are thus relevant to the general story of the Bible and are brought in this week's parsha because that is when they occurred. The fact that each of these stories is brief supports this view. Perhaps the Torah chooses not to focus on them because they are not important in and of themselves. But because they are part of the people's possession of the holy land, they become important.

There are probably other ways of reading these stories as well. Feel free to comment if you think of any!

(All translations of verses are from mechon-mamre.org.)

Parshat Korach: “Mamlekhet Kohanim V’Goy Kadosh, A Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation”

BY: Jen Saibel

The following is based on a Dvar Torah by Rav Yair Kahn.

Parshat Korach is filled with drama and human emotion. At first glance, the parsha seems a bit too dramatic. The punishments given by God appear to be quite extreme – the earth swallowing up Korach and his followers and a plague killing 14,700 members of the nation are very severe. These punishments don’t seem to fit the crimes. The basis of Korach’s crime was his questioning of equality. This complaint appears to be legitimate – if the entire nation is holy, why then is there a hierarchical system that separates the kohanim from the rest of the people? 

The accusation of Bnei Yisrael towards Moshe is indeed harsh, but nonetheless does not seem quite so out of line. After witnessing so much death, the nation lashes out at their leaders in despair, exclaiming, “You murdered God’s people!” (17:6). This complaint is a normal, human reaction. Bnei Yisrael is wondering if there was really no other way besides mass murder to get God’s message across. 

These two sins do not seem deserving of such extreme punishments, so what exactly is going on? Why was God so angry that He wanted to “destroy them in an instant” (16:21 and 17:10)?

The basis of Korach’s rebellion, that of equality, attacks the priesthood and thereby alters the reality of the nation. If everyone is holy, no group of individuals should have an opportunity that others do not, like the priests serving in the Mishkan. Sefer Shemot (19:6) refers to the nation as a “Kingdom of Priests” so why should the nation be considered strangers who are not allowed to enter the Sanctuary?

However, it was Bnei Yisrael themselves whom had accepted the boundaries of the nation, including their lack of priesthood and inability to serve in the Temple. The building of the camp in the desert with its different areas for different tribes was the nation’s implicit accepting of these lines and limitations. In going along with Korach’s ideas, the nation broke down these barriers and was forced to live with no separation from God’s Presence. The Mishkan grew to include the entire camp.

There is no messing around the in presence of God. Natural human behavior is acceptable under normal circumstances but must come secondary to serving God in these extreme situations. Aharon and his sons were not allowed to mourn for Nadav and Avihu, as a Kohen Gadol cannot leave the Sanctuary even to attend the funeral of a close relative.  Their human needs and emotions were suppressed in order to serve God with perfection. After the rebellion, Bnei Yisrael were expected to act as though there were no separation between themselves and God. They needed to forgo their natural behavior and commit themselves completely to God. No emotional outbursts, like the one they uttered to Moshe and Aharon, were permitted.

After Moshe and Aharon stopped the plague, Bnei Yisrael declared “Everyone who approaches the Sanctuary of God dies; have we stopped dying?” (17:28). This was their realization that the breaking down of barriers had brought them too close to the Sanctuary of God. They were being punished for behaving in a way that was unacceptable in a setting with no boundaries between themselves and God. Though, at first, Korach’s argument of equality seems logical, Bnei Yisrael discover that sometimes divisions are necessary. A kingdom of priests and a holy nation (“Mamlekhet Kohanim V’Goy Kadosh”) can only achieve such a status if it has both sanctity and humanity. The hierarchical structure of the nation is the perfect way to attain this unique combination. 

At this point, the nation is ready for the re-introduction of the priesthood. A Sanctuary for God can be established in a human context, only if it and those who serve in it are separated from the mundane and human aspects of life. The members of the priesthood take on this role as the rest of the nation brings natural humanity into the mix, using the Mishkan as their guide and focus. Now, Bnei Yisrael appreciates the priesthood and recognizes its significance. They understand that in order to achieve the status of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation they must build a community based on the separation of roles and a sense of mutual respect.

Up until this point in Sefer Bamidbar, the nation has been in a downhill spiral, committing sin after sin and giving Moshe complaint after complaint. The new found appreciation of roles and of the institution of boundaries, along with the re-establishment of the priesthood, makes the end of Parshat Korach a turning point of Sefer Bamidbar and begins the rebuilding process of the nation.

Shabbat Shalom!

Parshat Shlach: Calev Versus Yehoshua

BY: Chana Tolchin


When the meraglim return from their mission and begin elucidating their report on the land, Calev’s reaction is swift and immediate. Only much later does Yehoshua join Calev’s effort. The sense of Yehoshua as a latecomer to the defensive front continues in the parsha’s description of the nation’s punishment for Cheit HaMeraglim (the sin of the spies). When Hashem first describes the punishment of the nation (14:22-24), only Calev is mentioned as being exempt from dying in the wilderness and meriting entry into the land, on account of the “ruach acheret” (different spirit) that he possessed in contrast to the other meraglim. When Hashem discusses the punishment for a second time (14:28-38), Yehoshua and Calev are both mentioned as being spared from punishment, linked together as one and the same. Where is Yehoshua when Calev stands up alone, and where is he in the first description of punishment?


This question also arises in Sefer Yehoshua when Calev himself recounts the story of the meraglim before Yehoshua and the children of Yehudah, but with no mention of Yehoshua’s role in the story. Additionally, Moshe reviews the punishment of the first generation in Sefer Devarim and details the reasons why both Calev and Yehoshua are exempt. Calev is exempt because he “followed Hashem wholeheartedly,” (Devarim 1:36) whereas Yehoshua is granted entry into the land because “he will cause Israel to inherit it.” (ibid., 1:38) What does this recurring separation between Yehoshua and Calev reveal?


In his article on Parshat Shlach, Rav Tamir Granot uses the separate reasons for reward for both Calev and Yehoshua in Devarim as the basis for identifying the difference between them as well as explaining why Yehoshua joined Calev only later. Devarim tells us that Yehoshua merits entry to the land because he is Moshe’s replacement. Throughout the story of the spies, Yehoshua’s authority is derived from Moshe. Before the spies leave for their mission, Moshe changes Yehoshua’s name, a symbolic reminder of Yehoshua’s role as Moshe’s successor. The mefarshim debate whether the name change actually happened at this point in the story (Rashi) or whether the Torah is reviewing a change that took place sometime before (Rashbam, Chezkuni). Following Rashi’s reading, the name change represents the divine assistance that would help keep Yehoshua from the sin that the other spies would commit. Thus, Yehoshua isn’t a self-made hero – he is blessed by Moshe and designated for his role. Even according to Rashbam and Chezkuni, the very fact that the Torah chooses to insert this information now shows that it wants us to associate Moshe’s changing of Yehoshua’s name with the story of the spies. As a novice leader who derives his authority from a greater leader, Yehoshua can’t make any moves until Moshe acts first. This explains why he takes no part in Calev’s initial independent reaction against the words of the meraglim. Yehoshua can only act once he observes Moshe’s reaction, then able to behave accordingly. Only once Moshe and Aharon fall on their faces before the nation does Yehoshua take his cue to join in Calev’s response.


Calev, on the other hand, earns his own reward as an independent leader. While Moshe singles Yehoshua out, Calev separates himself from the group by traveling alone to Chevron, “the land on which he walked.” (ibid., 1:36) In the description of the journey of the meraglim, the verb “vayavo” (13:22 [“vayavo ad Chevron”]) stands out as being singular, which Rashi and others famously explain to mean that Calev alone breaks from the group and goes to Chevron to pray at the graves of his ancestors that he should not be affected by the counsel of other spies. The Talmud in Sotah 34b delineates this same notion, adding in the fact that Moshe had already “prayed” for Yehoshua by adding the letter yud to his name, representing Hashem’s influence in shielding him from the counsel of the meraglim. The Gemara seems to take for granted an equivalence between Calev and Yehoshua – Yehoshua gets his prayer before the journey, but since Calev doesn’t, he must detour during the journey to obtain his. The formulation in Sotah, bolstered by Rashi’s comments there, seems to view Calev and Yehoshua as essentially one and the same. The likeness isn’t necessarily present, however; Calev’s trip to Chevron can also be understood as an entirely self-motivated move. As opposed to entering the mission with the foresight that he is different, Calev may have only realized his dissension from the group once the journey actually began. Of his own initiative, he separates himself from the group and for this he merits to enter the land and to earn Chevron as his personal nachalah.


According to Rav Granot, Calev and Yehoshua represent two distinct models of leadership, an explanation that in turn justifies Yehoshua’s behavior. When the meraglim begin their sinful report, Calev attempts to rally the nation to his side with encouraging words, the kind of independent action that Yehoshua, as a faithful servant of Moshe, cannot perform.


Rav Moshe Lichtenstein takes the differentiation between Calev and Yehoshua a step further. Not only does Yehoshua derive his authority from Moshe, he also derives his leadership from the future. Calev belongs to the generation of the midbar  (wilderness), and his fate is therefore mentioned “in the same breath” as the fate of the current generation in the description of the punishment in Devarim. His merited entry and land portion result from the event of Cheit HaMeraglim. Yehoshua’s fate, on the other hand, is mentioned in conjunction with that of Moshe. Yehoshua’s fate is a direct result of the death of Moshe and is therefore contingent upon the future generation. According to this distinction, Yehoshua’s actions throughout Cheit HaMeraglim are inspired by his knowledge of the future position he will hold for the nation. In the first description of the punishment, only Calev is mentioned because in a sense, he is the one member of the present generation excluded from national punishment. Yehoshua really belongs to the future generation, a fact that affects both his behavior throughout the episode and the way in which the Torah describes him in relation to the nation’s punishment later.


The two prototypes of leadership that Calev and Yehoshua represent each hold unique value. Calev as an independent leader realizes the problems around him and possesses the strength of character to dissent and be a mouthpiece of truth. Yehoshua, on the other hand, represents continuity. When Moshe changes Yehoshua’s name at the start of the mission, he ensures that no matter what goes wrong in this group of people, one individual will certainly embody the values of Hashem. Throught the episode, Yehoshua is Moshe’s representative. While Calev merits entering the land because of a “ruach acheret,” Yehoshua enters because of an established ruach that is greater than himself but that he has been chosen to embody for the next generation entering Eretz Yisrael. Yehoshua stands for a type of leadership in which one pays deference to the leaders and systems of the present for the sake of serving as the vehicle for continuity in the future.

Parshat Beha'alotecha: Moshe`s Prayer

BY: Danielle Siegel

The power of words comes to play an important role in Chapter 12 of Parshat Beha’alotecha. At the beginning of the chapter, Miriam speaks lason hara about her brother Moshe Rabbbeinu and is punished with leprosy. Her intentions may have been good but her words were not, and Hashem 'gets angry' on Moshe’s behalf. This is the power of words at their worst. However, words can also be used to accomplish a lot of good. Moshe does not hold a grudge, but rather uses his words to pray for his sister’s forgiveness and demand of God that He heal her.

            In a Drisha class about prayer taught by Rabbi Matalon, we discussed the possibility of prayer being viewed in many different lights, as determined by the many metaphors used to describe and classify our relationship with God. For example, the metaphors of God as our father with us as His children and the  of God as our King with us as His servants appear most prominently in our prayers. These perspectives are supposed to foster in us two feelings- a sense of humility and a sense of arrogance and pride. Together, these feelings are meant to improve not only our prayer, but our relationship with God and our opinions of ourselves. 

            Moshe and his prayer are perfect examples of these two aspects. Moshe is famous for being humble, “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth.”[i] (Numbers 12:3) One way to look at Moshe`s prayer is by hightlighting the aspect of his humility before God. Moshe approaches Hashem carefully and with intention. He first praises God, then makes his request, and finally thanks God, a model of prayer we follow to this very day. 

On the other hand, one could look at Moshe`s prayer as anything but humble. In many ways Moshe’s prayer could foster in him a sense of self-worth because he is demanding something of God. He stands before God and demands that He remove the punishment he gave Miriam on Moshe’s behalf, knowing that like before, God will listen and answer him.

            The idea of shmirat halashon, guarding one’s tongue, is all about watching what words you say and choosing your words carefully. The Chizkuni, following Onkelos’ translation, points out that each word in Moshe’s prayer is very carefully chosen. Chizkuni comments on Moshe’s short five-word prayer of “Please God heal her now.” In his commentary to Numbers 12: 11-13, Chizkuni says that the repetition of the word “na” in Moshe`s prayer is not redundant; the first use is an appeal for mercy, the second an appeal for urgency.

            But while the words Moshe chose were important, they would have been a lot less powerful had it not been for his emotional connection. Moshe did not waste any time in rushing to pray for his sister, nor did he spend so much time praying on her behalf that his other responsibilities were left undone. He went to the place where the connection to God was the strongest and prayed with heartfelt words for the sake of his sister, even though she had wronged him. We can learn from Moshe’s example how to structure one’s prayers. One should pray with emotion, find the place in which our connection to God is strongest, and speak in an appropriate manner. If we do so then we shall hopefully merit a positive and an immediate answer to our prayers.

Shabbat Shalom!

---

[i] Translation from the Mechon Mamre translation. Mechon-mamre.org.