Kommentar zu Bamidbar 13:37

וידבר ה׳..אל משה לאמור, G'd spoke to Moses to say: Why was the word לאמור needed here, seeing the instructions were given only to Moses? Perhaps the Torah wrote לאמור to indicate that Moses had permission to tell the people that he had received the instructions to despatch spies from G'd. [The author is always at pains to prove that Moses had no right to relay anything G'd had told him unless especially told to do so; he bases himself on Yuma 4. Ed.] The Torah may also have wanted to prevent the impression being created that Moses initiated the idea of sending out spies and that he was of the same mind as the people in this respect. By telling the people that he had been commanded to select the spies he had made it plain that he would not have done so unless G'd had commanded him. The word לאמור was especially necessary in view of our sages' interpretation of the word לך meaning לדעתך, (verse 2) "in accordance with your understanding but not because you have to." In other words, G'd gave permission for the spies to go but He certainly did not command the expedition. It may have been hoped that when Moses told the people how he had been told by G'd to send the spies that they would reconsider and understand that their request to send spies revealed a lack of faith in G'd.

Kap. 13. VV. 1 u. 2. שלח לך. Vergl. עשה לך שתי חצצרת (Kap. 10, 2) קח לך בשמים. (Schmot 30, 23) und sonstige Stellen, in welchen die Beifügung לך dem Ausspruch in keiner Weise die gebietende Bedeutung nimmt. Auch hier erscheint das שלח לך im einfachen gebietenden Sinne. Daher ja auch im folgenden Verse die Entsendung על פי ד׳ bezeichnet ist. Aus den rückblickenden Erinnerungen (Dewarim 1, 19 ff.) wissen wir, dass sie die Wüste Paran, die dort המדבר הגדול והנורא genannt wird, durchzogen hatten und in Kadesch Barnea an die Grenze des einzunehmenden Landes gekommen waren. Das emoritische Gebirge war vor ihnen und es war die Aufforderung an sie ergangen, mit dem Ersteigen dieses Gebirges die Besitznahme des Landes zu beginnen. Da erging vom Volke der Antrag an Mosche, zuvor einige von ihnen voraus zu schicken, ויחפרו לנו את הארץ, wie sie sich ausdrückten, das Land für sie zu erkundschaften, eigentlich: "aus der dunkeln Tiefe der Unbekanntschaft an das helle Licht der Bekanntschaft zu heben", mit dem ausgesprochenen Zwecke, durch sie den geeignetsten Weg zum Einzug in das Land und die Stadt kennen zu lernen, zu welcher sie sich zuerst zu wenden hätten. In diesem Antrag an sich lag nichts Ungehöriges. Mosche selbst sagt dort: וייטב בעיני הדבר. Sollte doch mit dem Einzuge in das verheißene Land die außerordentliche, unmittelbare Gottesführung zurücktreten und das fernere Geschick des Volkes das normale Mitwirken seiner Tätigkeit in Anspruch nehmen; konnte doch selbst für die Wanderung durch die Wüste Mosche sich die lokale Kunde seines Schwiegervaters als Beistand erbitten, obgleich diese Wanderung unter unmittelbarer Gottesleitung sich vollzog. Das שלח לך unseres Verses modifiziert nach Siporno den vom Volke ergangenen Antrag nur insofern, dass dieser: נשלחה אנשים לפנינו lautete, somit sich die Erlaubnis zur Entsendung von Männern ihrer Wahl erbat, hierauf aber Gott den Auftrag erteilte, dass Mosche, und zwar die Tüchtigsten zu dieser Sendung aus jedem Stamme erwählen und beauftragen sollte. Auch der Inhalt des ihnen zu erteilenden Auftrages dürfte einige Modifikationen erlitten haben. Der beabsichtigte Zweck lautete im Antrage des Volkes: ויחפרו וגו׳ וגו׳. Nun scheint חפר את הארץ vorzugsweise ein Erspähen der schwachen Seiten eines Landes zum Zwecke der Eroberung zu bedeuten. So Josua 2, 2 und 3. So auch Job 39, 29: משם חפר אכל, von dem Beuteerspähen des Adlers. Bezeichnet doch הפר intransitiv auch das Schamgefühl über entdeckte Schwächen, und liegt wohl überhaupt die Bedeutung: Ausgraben zu Grunde, als ans Licht heben dessen, was eigentlich verborgen bleiben sollte. Dem gegenüber lautete der Gottesauftrag: תור .ויתרו וגו׳, — (verwandt mit טור: Reihe, תפר: zusammenreihen, nähen, דבר aneinandergereihte Merkmale oder deren Ausdruckslaute: Begriff und Wort) — bezeichnet aber nicht nur allgemein ein rein objektives Erforschen der Dinge durch Verbinden der erkannten Eigentümlichkeiten derselben als Merkmale zum Begriff, wie im Prediger 1, 13; 2, 3 u. 7, 25, sondern, wo es als ein Erforschen mit subjektivem Zweck vorkommt, da scheint es vielmehr ein Aufsuchen der guten, entsprechenden Seiten für einen beabsichtigten Zweck zu bedeuten. So 10, 33 לתור להם מנוחה. (Dewarim 1, 33) לתור לכם מקום לחנתכם. So ja ganz eigentlich von der Auswahl des verheißenen Landes als des besten und geeignetsten für Israels Bestimmung, Ezech. 20, 6: ארץ אשר תרתי להם זבת חלב ודבש צבי חיא לכל הארצות. Mit der Bestimmung: ויתרו את ארץ וגו׳ erhielt daher die Sendung eine etwas veränderte und erweiterte Aufgabe. Es galt nicht mehr nur die geeignetste Weise der Einnahme des Landes zu erspähen. Dieser Zweck tritt in den Hintergrund, und es ward die Aufgabe, das Land an sich als Boden einer Volksentwicklung kennen zu lernen, und ward dabei die bedeutsame Andeutung mit hinausgegeben, es unter dem doppelten Gesichtspunkte zu betrachten: ארץ כנען אשר אני נתן לבני ישראל, es ist jetzt ארץ בנען, das Land einer entarteten Bevölkerung, und es ist Gott, der es Jisraels Söhnen gibt, auf dass sie dort ein Volksleben nach Seinem Willen entfalten. —

כל נשיא בהם, nach dem Akzente ist נשיא Prädikataussage von כל: jeder sei ein נשיא unter seinen Stammesgenossen. Es waren dies nicht die נשיאי מטות אבותם, die Kap. 1, 4 u. 16 ראשי אלפי ישראל ,ראש לבית אבתיו genannt werden und an der Spitze der Stämme standen und so auch Kap. 7, 2 deutlich als solche bezeichnet sind, sondern sie waren jeder נשיא בהם, sie waren כהם, standen nicht an der Spitze, sondern waren mitten im Volke, aber sie ragten an Charakter und Tüchtigkeit über die Menge empor, waren נשיא בהם, sie waren nicht ראשי המטות, nicht ראשי אלפי ישראל, die amtlichen Häupter einer Staatsgliederung, aber sie waren, wie es im folgenden Verse heißt: ראשי בני ישראל, Volkshäupter, Männer von leitendem Einfluss im Volke.

שלח לך אנשים SEND THOU MEN — Why is the section dealing with the spies put in juxtaposition with the section dealing with Miriam’s punishment? To show the grievousness of the spies’ sin: because she (Miriam) was punished on account of the slander which she uttered against her brother, and these sinners witnessed it and yet they did not take a lesson from her (Midrash Tanchuma, Sh'lach 5).

SEND ‘LECHA’ (THEE)¹Literally: “for thyself,” as explained by Rashi. MEN. “As you see fit. I do not command you [to send them], but if you wish [to do so], send them. [G-d said this] because the Israelites came [to Moses] and said, Let us send men before us,²Deuteronomy 1:22. The verse continues that the people said to Moses: ‘Let us send men before us, that they may search the Land for us, and bring us back word etc.’ as it is said, And ye came near unto me every one of you,²Deuteronomy 1:22. The verse continues that the people said to Moses: ‘Let us send men before us, that they may search the Land for us, and bring us back word etc.’ and Moses inquired [what to do] of the Divine Presence, whereupon G-d said: ‘I told them [at the time of the exodus] that it is a good [Land], as it is said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt … [unto a Land flowing with milk and honey].³Exodus 3:17. The text of Rashi reads: “… unto a good Land,” which is taken from Verse 8, ibid. By their lives! I will give them an opportunity to fall into error through the incident of the spies, so that they should not come to possess the Land.” This is Rashi’s language, from the words of Agadah.⁴Sotah 34 b, briefly, and in Bamidbar Rabbah 16:6, more fully. It is possible, as there is more than one reference for the source of Rashi’s text, but none specific, that Ramban refers to it merely as stemming “from the words of Agadah.”
Here one may ask, if this is so, then Moses himself sinned in this matter, as it is said, And the thing pleased me well!⁵Deuteronomy 1:23. In other words, since Moses was aware of G-d’s displeasure with the whole mission, why did he say that the thing pleased me well? And furthermore why did he tell [the spies] to find out about the Land, whether it is good or bad,⁶Further, Verse 19. since he had already been told at the beginning that it is a good Land, and a large one?⁷Exodus 3:8. “Why then did he now ask G-d whether to send out the spies, and did not rely on the fact that the Land was, as he was told, a good Land?” (Gur Aryeh). Moreover, what did the spies do [wrong], since Moses told them, And see the Land what it is; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they are strong or weak, whether they are few or many,⁸Further, Verse 18. and he said to see about the cities [that they dwell in] whether in camps, or in strongholds,⁶Further, Verse 19. and at the least they had to give him an answer to [the questions] that he commanded them [to find out about]! And what was their trespass, and what was their sin⁹See Genesis 31:36. when they told Moses, Nevertheless the people that dwell in the Land are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great?¹⁰Further, Verse 28. Did he then send them on the understanding that they would give him a false report! And do not think that their trespass consisted only in their report that it is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof,¹¹Ibid., Verse 32. for prior telling this to the people, Caleb already quarrelled with them!¹²Ibid., Verse 30. It is thus clear that before the spies made this derogatory statement about the Land, the people already did not want to go there. The trespass of the spies could therefore not have consisted only of their report that it is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof! And likewise it is written, [that the people said], Our brethren [i.e., the spies] have made our heart to melt, saying: The people is greater and taller than we etc.,¹³Deuteronomy 1:28. and here it is written, to fall by the sword; our wives and our little ones will be a prey.¹⁴Further, 14:3. Scripture thus implies that both the spies and the people sinned in speaking of the difficulty of capturing the Land. And yet Moses etc. And yet Moses our teacher [himself] said similar things to the children [of the generation of the spies], and he emphasized to them the power of the people and the strength of their cities, and the might of the giants to a much greater extent than what the spies had told their fathers, as it is written, Hear O Israel: thou art to pass over the Jordan this day, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and fortified up to heaven, a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say: ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak!’¹⁵Deuteronomy 9:1-2. Now if the trespass of the spies and their sin consisted of this [discouraging report that they gave about the strength of the people in Canaan], why did he [Moses] dismay the heart of their children¹⁶See further, 32:7-8. in the same way that the spies dismayed the heart of their fathers? Moreover, what reason was there for Moses our teacher to send this mission? If [they would report that] the Land is good, and its inhabitants are weak — well and good; but if [they would say that] it is bad, or that the people are strong — would it enter his mind to take them back to Egypt!
But the explanation of this subject is as follows: The Israelites wanted [to act] in the way that all those who come to wage war in a foreign country do, namely to send out men to become acquainted with the roads and entrances to the cities; so that when they return [from their mission], the scouts will go at the head of the army, to show them the way, in a similar manner to that which it says, Show us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city.¹⁷Judges 1:24. Thus [the Israelites wanted the reconaissance party] to advise them which city they should attack first, and from which direction it would be easy to capture the Land. This is what they said explicitly, and they [the spies] shall bring us back word of the way by which we must go up, and the cities unto which we shall come,²Deuteronomy 1:22. The verse continues that the people said to Moses: ‘Let us send men before us, that they may search the Land for us, and bring us back word etc.’ that is to say, the cities into which we shall come first, and from which we will enter the whole country. Now this is the correct guidance [to give] to anyone who [plans to] conquer a country. And so did Moses himself do, as it is said, And Moses sent to spy out Jazer,¹⁸Further, 21:32. and Joshua the son of Nun also [sent] two spies.¹⁹Joshua 2:1. It was for this reason that [the people’s request to send out scouts] pleased Moses,⁵Deuteronomy 1:23. In other words, since Moses was aware of G-d’s displeasure with the whole mission, why did he say that the thing pleased me well? for Scripture does not [allow man] to rely on a miracle in any of its affairs. Instead, it commands those who go out to battle to arm themselves, to take [all necessary] precautions, and to set ambushes [if needed], as Scripture relates in connection with the battle for [the city of] Ai, which was by command of G-d,²⁰Ibid., 8:2. Thus the method of ambush was also by command of G-d, thereby teaching that in war we are not to rely on miracles. and similarly in many places. Then Moses consulted the Divine Presence and G-d gave him permission, saying, “Send thee men, that they may spy out the land of Canaan and become acquainted with it, and bring back a report to you, and according to their information you should take counsel regarding the conquest.” Now Moses told the spies, Get you up here into the south,²¹Further, Verse 17. The literal translation is: “Go up this, into the south;” therefore Ramban explains that it means “go up by this road into the south.” It is also so explained by Ibn Ezra. In Targum Yonathan it is rendered: “Go up by this side, by the south.” meaning: “Go up by this road into the south so that you will get to know the people who live in the land of the south — [this being] the direction from which Israel was [approaching] — [and see] whether they are strong⁸Further, Verse 18. and [the Israelites] when dealing with them will need to be very much on their guard and well-armed; similarly, [see] the cities, and whether they are fortified so that [the inhabitants] are well-entrenched, and it will therefore be necessary to build forts and ramps, or [even] to come against them from another direction.” Moses further told them that they should get to know the Land itself, whether it is good or bad,⁶Further, Verse 19. and if it is bad, they should first conquer other parts [of it]; for they spied out the hill-country of the Amorites from the side of Hebron,²²Ibid., Verse 22. and even Joshua did not conquer all [areas of the Land], — this being the meaning of the expression and what the Land is that they dwell in,⁶Further, Verse 19. meaning the people who live in the land of the south.
[Furthermore] it is possible that it was because Moses knew that it is a fertile and good land, — as he was told, unto a good Land and a large one, unto a Land flowing with milk and honey,²³Exodus 3:8. — that he told them to set their minds ascertaining this [fact], so that [upon their return] they would tell the people about it, and they would rejoice and gain renewed strength to go up there in joy. Therefore he told them, And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the Land,²⁴Further, Verse 20. so that they [the people] would see with their own eyes the goodness of the Land. Now it is well-known that Egypt is not very far from Hebron — approximately a seven-days’ journey distant — and the border of the land of Canaan comes close to Egypt, and it is therefore impossible that people who live in Egypt should not know about the land of Canaan whether it is good or bad.⁶Further, Verse 19. And indeed Moses’ intention was to find out the way by which he should go up, and the cities which he was to capture first, as I have explained. However, since the Israelites in Egypt were slaves doing most rigorous work, they did not know, neither did they understand²⁵Psalms 82:5. [the nature of the Land], therefore Moses wanted the spies to tell them all the particulars of the Land in order to cause them to rejoice in its qualities, since he [himself] knew of them [as explained above.].
Now it appears to me from the language of Scripture that Moses did not [in fact] consult the Divine Presence [as to whether he should send spies at all], but the meaning of Send thee men is that they [the people] had decided [already] to send spies, and it was customary to send two spies secretly, saying: [‘Go view the Land’],¹⁹Joshua 2:1. and that they be taken [only] from some [tribes of the people]; but G-d Who knows the future commanded Moses [here] to send one man from each of the tribes of Israel, every one a prince among them. [This is because] G-d wanted all the great men to be [represented] equally in this matter, so that perhaps they would remember and turn unto the Eternal,²⁶Ibid., 22:28. and if not, so that the decree [of punishment] would apply equally to the whole people, this being the meaning of the expression [that Moses sent them] according to the commandment of the Eternal,²⁷Verse 3. Thus the burden of punishment, instead of falling heavily upon a particular tribe or tribes, would be more lightly distributed throughout the camp. Moreover, by commanding that the heads of the tribes should lead the mission, the people would avoid total responsibility and thus be spared annihilation. This latter point is made clear by Ramban in the text that follows. for it was by command of G-d that they were to be princes and heads of the children of Israel.²⁷Verse 3. Thus the burden of punishment, instead of falling heavily upon a particular tribe or tribes, would be more lightly distributed throughout the camp. Moreover, by commanding that the heads of the tribes should lead the mission, the people would avoid total responsibility and thus be spared annihilation. This latter point is made clear by Ramban in the text that follows.
It [further] appears to me according to the plain meaning of Scripture that G-d [in speaking] to Moses did not refer [at all] to the request which the people had made, to send out spies, nor to Moses’ consent to that request, for if that were the case, Scripture here would have related: “And the children of Israel approached Moses and said: Let us send men before us etc.²Deuteronomy 1:22. The verse continues that the people said to Moses: ‘Let us send men before us, that they may search the Land for us, and bring us back word etc.’ And the thing pleased Moses well,”⁵Deuteronomy 1:23. In other words, since Moses was aware of G-d’s displeasure with the whole mission, why did he say that the thing pleased me well? and afterwards it would have written: “And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying: ‘Send thee men as they have spoken to you, one man etc.’” But the matter was as follows. The Israelites asked to send [spies], and the thing pleased Moses well,⁵Deuteronomy 1:23. In other words, since Moses was aware of G-d’s displeasure with the whole mission, why did he say that the thing pleased me well? and afterwards a Divine communication came to Moses, as did all other such communications, merely saying, Send thee men, this being the reason [for the necessity of the subsequent explanatory words], that they may spy out the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel, as He is speaking of a new matter about which nothing has [hitherto] been related. All this was because the Eternal was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake²⁸Isaiah 42:21. that the mission be at His command, and that it be with [the participation of] all their tribes and their great men, so that [the people] should be saved.
Similarly it appears that they asked of Moses, Let us send men before us, ‘v’yachperu’ (that they may search) the Land for us,²Deuteronomy 1:22. The verse continues that the people said to Moses: ‘Let us send men before us, that they may search the Land for us, and bring us back word etc.’ which means spying out the roads and [working out] the strategy of conquest, similar to the expression from there ‘chaphar’ (he spieth out) the prey.²⁹Job 39:29. This is the meaning of [the words] before us [Let us send men ‘before us’],²Deuteronomy 1:22. The verse continues that the people said to Moses: ‘Let us send men before us, that they may search the Land for us, and bring us back word etc.’ for they [the Israelites] would follow them [later on] in their route, similar to the expression, and the ark of the covenant went ‘before them’.³⁰Above 10:33. G-d, however, commanded ‘v’yathuru’ the land of Canaan, which refers to a choice, as is made by those who come to buy something, similar in expression to the verse, beside that which ‘mei’anshei hatarim’ (the traffickers) and merchants.³¹II Chronicles 9:14. Similarly: into a land that ‘tarti’ (I had sought out) for them;³²Ezekiel 20:6. also, ‘lathur’ (to seek out) a resting-place for them.³⁰Above 10:33. Therefore Moses commanded them to state specifically whether it is good or bad … whether it is fat or lean etc.,³³Verses 19-20. all this being in order to cause them to rejoice, for it is the beauty of all lands,³²Ezekiel 20:6. and they would go up to it with great eagerness. Thus this subject is related here without explanation [of the exact sequence of events leading up to the sending of the spies], as it occurred, but in the Book of Deuteronomy Moses mentioned to them all the happenings from their beginning, in order to declare to them their transgression,³⁴See Isaiah 58:1. that they sinned by their [very] request which they themselves initiated.
In the opinion of our Rabbis³⁵Mentioned by Rashi at the beginning of this verse: “I told them [at the time of the exodus] that it is a good Land etc.” their sin was in saying Let us send men before us,²Deuteronomy 1:22. The verse continues that the people said to Moses: ‘Let us send men before us, that they may search the Land for us, and bring us back word etc.’ because they had seen the salvation of the Eternal³⁶Exodus 14:13. which He continually did for them, and they should have followed the cloud whither the spirit was to go,³⁷Ezekiel 1:12. and Moses accepted their request to fulfill their desire. The meaning, then, of [the verse] And the thing pleased me well⁵Deuteronomy 1:23. In other words, since Moses was aware of G-d’s displeasure with the whole mission, why did he say that the thing pleased me well? is: “I endured your evil plan and directed that it be done”. And G-d commanded him that he send one man of every tribe of their fathers etc., just like it is said in the case of Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be King over them.³⁸I Samuel 8: 7. In that case too, the Divine consent was given only on account of the people’s intransigence for having a king appointed over them. The matter, however, was displeasing to G-d because their devoted leader Samuel was still alive. Now these men [who were sent out as spies] were not pointed out by name³⁹Above, 1:17. by the word of G-d, as was the case at the census³⁹Above, 1:17. and at the division of the Land,⁴⁰Further, 34:19-28. for no mishap occurs to those who carry out the command of G-d, and whoso keepeth the commandment shall know no evil thing.⁴¹Ecclesiastes 8:5. Therefore He, blessed be He, only commanded Moses one man of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send etc., and that they be princes, and Moses at his own discretion chose these men and sent them, and they wrought evil unto themselves.⁴²Isaiah 3:9.

שלח לך אנשים, do not allow the selection of these men to be made by the people themselves! We know from Deuteronomy 1,22 that the initiative of sending out spies came from the people and that Moses was put under pressure to do this. G’d was cautioning Moses that by allowing the people to select the spies themselves, that if they chose unsuitable candidates and they came back with a faulty report, the people would blame G’d for what was wrong with the country instead of the inadequate ability of the spies to correctly evaluate what they had seen. Once the blame would be laid at G’d’s doorstep it would be impossible to do teshuvah. In the event, the people did teshuvah when they said “we have sinned against You,” as reported in Deuteronomy 1,41 As far as the spies whom Moses sent out were concerned, while it is true that they were guilty in bringing about the refusal of the people to undertake the campaign to conquer the land, and all this was due to a lack of faith in G’d, they did report truthfully on the excellence of the land and they brought back with them proof of it. (compare verse 27) where they are quoted as having said that not only was the land good, but it was a land flowing with milk and honey; In Deuteronomy 1,25 Moses also agrees that they had reported on the excellence of the land. Their fault lay in their asserting that the country could not be conquered by the Jewish people. Once the people realised that the problem had been their own lack of faith and not any shortcoming they had ascribed to G’d, the way was paved for repentance to become acceptable. They immediately reversed themselves, offering to ascend and to participate in the conquest of the land. (compare verse 41 in our chapter) They prayed and cried to G’d regarding their sin, but G’d did not accept their prayer. Their sin had consisted of a desecration of the Lord’s name in public, something that cannot be atoned for except after the death of the guilty party. G’d had already alluded to this in Exodus 32,34 in connection with the sin of the golden calf when He had said וביום פקדי ופקדתי, “on the day when I mete out justice (literally “remember” i.e. review the deceased deeds, etc.) I will also judge, etc.” In other words, this atonement is reserved for people only posthumously.

שלח לך אנשים, "send out men for yourself, etc." We need to analyse why the word לך was written here. I have already quoted that our sages in Sotah 34 understand the word as indicating permission rather than a command. This leaves us with the puzzle why G'd would consent to an initiative which He knew would result in disaster. Before explaining all this let me begin with an introduction to the problem. Whence did the whole terrible disaster originate? If we were to see the fact that spies were sent out as the root cause of the disaster then Joshua certainly should have learned a lesson and should not have sent out spies before capturing Jericho (compare Joshua 2,1). It follows that the idea of sending spies to help in the conquest of the Holy Land was not objectionable in itself. If the reason the mission failed was due to the calibre of the spies, this too is hard to accept seeing that the Torah testifies that Moses sent out righteous men, men of whom G'd had approved.

כל נשיא בהם. The principal meaning of the verse is as follows: you should take as the twelve representatives, one of each tribe, men whose heart was set on going on to the Holy Land. You should select volunteers, willing to act as spies. From among all these volunteers you are to select the ones who appear most suitable to you. Seeing that what was required were stout-hearted men, physically strong so that they could carry with them samples of the produce of the land, G’d did not mention them by name, as He had done when he appointed the 12 princes who were to be leaders of each tribe. G’d also appointed by name the next generation of such tribal princes, the ones who would enter the Holy Land together with their respective tribes.

שלח לך אנשים, “Send forth men, on your behalf.” Rashi’s comment on the wording is that G’d did not command Moses to do this, but He did not oppose it if Moses wanted to do it on his own account. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s commentary by saying that if so Moses would have had a part in the sin of the spies seeing that he is on record in Deut. 1,23 as having specifically approved the people’s request to dispatch these spies. Nachmanides therefore resolves this problem by stating that the people like any people who are about to engage in an aggressive war, wanted to prepare themselves and to know what they would be up against, and how they could most easily conquer their objectives. In fact that is precisely what the people represented as their motives as we know from Deut. 1,22 when they are quoted as saying: “we want to know on which road to ascend and the cities to which we will come.” In other words, the request was of a tactical nature. This sounded like a perfectly reasonable request to Moses, and did not indicate that the people did not believe him when he had told them that the land was a good land.

Why [is the chapter of the spies] adjacent. Rashi is questioning why the chapter of the spies is adjacent only to the chapter of Miriam, for it should have been adjacent to the chapters of both Korach and of Miriam. The Torah should have placed the dispute of Korach first, followed by the chapter of Miriam and afterwards the chapter dealing with the spies, for the dispute with Korach took place in Chatzeros while the affair with the spies took place [later] in Paran. He answers that it is “because she was punished…” and therefore the chapters were not written in the order [that they happened] so that we learn this concept. If the chapters had been written in order, even if the incident with the spies would have been placed before Miriam, one would not have learnt this concept, because perhaps they were merely written in chronological order. Re’m. (Nachalas Yaakov) I have already written on several occasions that Rashi does not give a reason for juxtapositions except where there is something superfluous, or a linguistic change, etc. which indicates that the Torah is particular about the juxtaposition. Similarly here, when the Torah writes “Moshe sent them from the desert of Paran” this is seemingly superfluous, for it is written above (12:16) “they camped in the desert of Paran” thus it is obvious that they were sent from there. Rather the Torah is certainly informing us of the place from where they were sent to teach us that even though they had traveled from Chatzeros and arrived at the desert of Paran, and they should have accepted reproof, nonetheless they sinned. This is in contrast to the explanation of Re’m.

סוס מוכן ליום מלחמה ולה' התשועה, ”the horse is prepared for the day of battle; but victory comes from G’d” (Proverbs 21,31).

'איש אחד, איש אחד וגו, “one man each, etc.” no spy was dispatched from the tribe of Levi, seeing that this tribe would not receive an ancestral portion of land in the Holy Land.

שלח לך SEND THEE (more lit., for thyself) — i.e. according to your own judgement: I do not command you, but if you wish to do so send them. — God said this because the Israelites came to Moses and said. “We will send men before us etc.”, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 1:22): “And you approached me, all of you, [saying, We will send men, etc.]”, and Moses took counsel with the Shechinah (the Lord), whereupon He said to them, I have told them long ago that it (the land) is good, as it is said, (Exodus 3:17): “I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt … [unto a land flowing with milk and honey]”. By their lives! I swear that I will give them now an opportunity to fall into error through the statements of the spies, so that they should not come into possession of it (the land) (Sotah 34b; cf. also Rashi on Sotah 34b:8 מדעתך and Midrash Tanchuma, Sh'lach 5).

כל נשיא בהם, the tone-sign under the word כל spells out its meaning. Each one of these 12 had volunteered for the assignment. In recognition of this he was accorded the title נשיא,“prince.” We encounter a similar meaning of the word כל in Psalms 8,7 כל שתה תחת רגליו, “laying “all” (the world) at his feet.”

According to your opinion. Rashi is answering the question: Surely it is evident to Hashem that they would sin through this dispatch. If so, why did Hashem command them to send the spies, which would cause punishment to come upon them so that they would not enter the Land of Israel, but die in the desert? In response Rashi answers that “I am not commanding you.” Re’m explains that Rashi is expounding this from the word “send” and not from the word “for yourself.” Since it is written “all of you approached me and said let us send men before us…” (Devarim 1:22), it is certain that Moshe conferred with Hashem and that the reply came that they should be sent. It is evident that this response was granting permission and not giving a command because it was a response to a question, which indicates granting permission rather than giving a command. Concerning the word “לך” (for yourself) one must either say that this is a manner of speech, as in “the rain has passed הלך לו (and gone)” (Shir Hashirim 2:11). Alternatively, one may expound that when Hashem saw that the spies would sin, He referred to them with Moshe’s name — “send for yourself.” However, when Hashem saw the elders, and that their actions would be correct, he called them after His name, as it states “gather seventy men for Me” (Bamidbar 11:16) Re’m.

We may glean a better understanding of the subject when reading the words of the Yalkut Shimoni item 742 that the Israelites came to Moses asking to send spies. Moses said that this was unnecessary seeing G'd had already given His assurance that they would defeat the Canaanites. Thereupon the Israelites countered saying that the local inhabitants were aware of the plans of the Israelites to invade their country and that is why they had hidden all their valuables. As a result the Israelites would be deprived of a great part of what G'd promised them as they would not inherit much more than the mere soil. They convinced Moses that it was in order to make G'd's words come true that they wanted to send out spies. This is why Moses is quoted in Deut. 1,23 as having given his consent to this request. This is also why in Deut. 1,22 the Torah describes the spies' mission as ויחפרו לנו, "that they may dig up for us (hidden treasures)." Moses was trapped by the words of the Israelites. Thus far the Yalkut.

In this verse Solomon warns everybody to do whatever is in his power by using natural means to achieve his success (in a military encounter when such is unavoidable). Beyond that he must leave things to G’d. A miracle occurs only when all the natural means have been exhausted and have proven to be inadequate to produce the desired result. Man was created in such a way that he can cope with most problems by using natural means. If one plans to secure victory over an adversary in a confrontation one must strive to equip oneself with the amount of weapons and the quality of weapons needed to give one an advantage. In other words, in the days of Solomon one needed horses and chariots. If one left everything to heaven one will find that heaven does not intervene on one’s behalf. If someone is sick and one prays for him to be healed such a prayer is useless unless one has first taken the measures known to help the patient to get well, such as giving him the type of food he needs, Only after one has taken all the measures known to medical science which are capable of curing such a patient does one ask heaven to do its part in curing the sick person at hand. This is the deeper meaning of Psalms 147,3 הרופא לשבורי לב ומחבש לעצבותם, “He heals their broken hearts, and binds up their wounds.” It is also written in verse 10 of that same psalm that “He does not prize the strength of horses, nor value the fleetness of men.” We have a third verse (Psalms 33,17) in which David expressly ridicules those who place their trust in their horses by saying: “horses are a false hope for deliverance, for all their great power they provide no escape.” When we reflect on all these verses we can understand why G’d agreed to the dispatch of the spies in spite of the fact that He Himself would deal the mortal blows to the Canaanites. The Israelites were right in doing what is humanly possible to gird themselves for war against the Canaanites including spying out how best to invade the land of Canaan at minimum risk. Setting ambushes, sending undercover agents, etc., are all legitimate ways for preparing an invasion and maximising the chances of success. Once all these steps had been taken G’d would add whatever measure of supernatural assistance was needed to ensure success. The Torah does not make the performance of miracles the cornerstone of its dealings with mankind or the Jewish people. Miracles are exceptions, not norms. This is why G’d had commanded Noach to build an Ark (Genesis 6,15) although G’d could have let all the people whom He wanted to save walk on water or save them in some other miraculous fashion. All the detailed instructions of what material to use for the Ark, how long and how high it was to be, etc., etc., are proof that G’d wanted Noach to do everything humanly possible to make his salvation appear compatible with natural law. Nonetheless, in spite of man’s best efforts, this most likely would not have been enough for all the inmates of the Ark to endure a whole year inside it without divine input, i.e. some form of miracle. This is what Solomon spoke of when he said that the horse should be prepared. When David asks the Urim and Tumim concerning whether he should attack the Philistines in the valley of Refaim (Samuel II 5,23), G’d told him not to mount a frontal attack but to wait until he would hear the sound of the leaves of the baca trees rustle before taking any action. At that time he was to go into action as G’d would march ahead of him attacking the Philistines. In other words, when David consulted G’d by supernatural means, the response was to proceed as far as posible according to natural means. His victory was supposed to be viewed by the other nations as a natural event. When G’d commanded Joshua to lay an ambush before mounting a renewed attack on the town of Ai, (Joshua 8,2), He also wanted the conquest to proceed along the laws of natural law (not like making the walls of Jericho collapse from the sound of the blasts of the shofar). This then is the reason that the Torah wrote that G’d had commanded Moses to dispatch the spies as we read in this portion.

תשלחו כל נשיא בהם, “send them, each one of these men being a prince in his own right.”

Moshe conferred. (Gur Aryeh) The Ramban asks: According to Rashi’s explanation that Moshe consulted with the Shechinah as to whether to send the spies, he also sinned because Hashem had said that the land was very good. Furthermore, we find written explicitly in Parshas Devarim (1:23) “the matter was favorable in my eyes,” but if so, why was it favorable in his eyes? The apparent explanation is that Yisroel certainly wanted to send the spies, for they wanted to spy out the route and the towns that they would encounter.” It is usual for someone who does not know the way to send out spies — this was a correct and conscientious attitude toward a mitzvah. Similarly, Moshe sent spies to Yazer, and Yehoshua sent two men to Yericho. Consequently Moshe said “it was favorable in my eyes.” However, Hashem who knows the thoughts of man understood their evil intent and said to Moshe “Send them if you wish … I have said to them…” See there for further detail.

Spies may have more than one mission then. 1) They have to find out the best approach to invade a country. They also have to determine if the whole army has to be involved in the campaign or if it suffices to send a relatively small number of troops. We find evidence of this in Joshua 7,3 where the spies told Joshua that 2-3000 soldiers would be enough to capture the town of Ai. This kind of spying, or reconnaissance in our language, would be repeated each time a specific target such as a town was to be captured. 2) The other kind of spying involves something of a more comprehensive nature. The spies' mission is to evaluate whether the target is capable of being captured. This is the kind of spying that the Israelites had in mind when they requested from Moses to send out spies. This kind of mission presupposes a lack of faith in G'd's power or willingness to help the Jewish people attain their objectives. Moses perceived this and that is why the Midrash tells us that Moses reacted negatively to their request at first. The Israelites tricked Moses into agreeing to the spy scheme as it made searching all over the land of Canaan a legitimate endeavour. Joshua too sent the spies for a necessary purpose, one that did not denigrate G'd's part in the preparations to conquer each part of the land of Canaan. The only thing about the scheme of sending out spies which was flawed was the purpose, not the scheme itself.

שלח לך אנשים ויתורו, “send out men on your behalf who shall tour, etc.” The Torah implies that seeing the people had asked that spies be sent as we know from Deut. 1,22: “let us send men ahead to reconnoiter the land,” G’d then said to Moses: “send out men for yourself, etc.” The men were to find out the best routes, which city to attack first, etc.

An opportunity for error. As [our Rabbis] say “if one comes to defile we allow him.” (Nachalas Yaakov) This does not mean that Yisroel would err in misunderstanding the spies’ words, rather that the spies would err. This refers to their statement “a land which consumes its inhabitants” (v. 32) where the spies erred, as Rashi explains there.

We may therefore understand G'd's command or consent for Moses to send out spies as G'd agreeing for Moses to send out spies provided their mission was what Moses understood it to be, i.e. to discover the hidden treasures of the Canaanites, but not if the spies' mission were to determine if the land was capable of being captured by the Israelites. I will explain that Moses may have misunderstood G'd's command as to the function of the spies. Or, he may have understood correctly but seeing that G'd had not denied him the sending out of the spies he failed to divine what G'd really had in mind when He granted His consent. G'd had given hints to Moses as He always does to His servants. As to the question why G'd gave His consent seeing that he knew what was going to happen, we must conclude that if G'd had denied the people's request the result would have been even worse.

Another meaning of the word לך may relate to the definition of אנשים, men of valour, righteous people. G'd told Moses that these men were righteous לך as long as they were in Moses' presence, facing him. As soon as they would turn around and begin their mission the wreath of piety they wore on their heads would begin to crack wide open. Sotah 35 interprets the words וילכו ויבאו, "they went and they came" in verse 26 of our chapter as meaning that their departure could be compared to their return. They were wicked when they returned as they had been wicked the moment they set out on their mission. Moses had an uncomfortable feeling about this and this is why he gave Joshua a special blessing praying that he should not follow the advice of the wicked. Bamidbar Rabbah 16,1 states: "but the spies whom Moses sent out were wicked. How do we know this? Because the Torah wrote שלח לך אנשים." This Midrash sounds very enigmatic. How do the words שלח לך אנשים prove that the men in question were wicked? We must therefore assume that the author of that Midrash understood the word לך as we have explained it, i.e. "you Moses think that they are אנשים, righteous men, but as soon as they commence their mission they will become wicked on the way out." A simpler way of explaining the word לך is: "in your eyes Moses they may be righteous; but in My eyes they are wicked." This would again raise the problem why G'd approved of sending such men when our sages have said that G'd Himself selected the spy who was to represent each tribe (based on verse 3 על פי השם)? Perhaps the reason they were already called "wicked" at the beginning of their mission was that they shared the view of the Israelites as a whole that they should investigate if the land could be conquered by them at all. This lack of faith in G'd stamped them as "wicked."

Alternatively, the reason they are referred to as wicked was that they carried out a mission initiated by the people who delegated them and whose intent was wicked. When a messenger allows himself to be used by a wicked person for a wicked mission he himself becomes wicked. On the other hand, when a messenger is sent on a sacred errand, then by accepting the errand he himself shares in the sanctity of the person who has delegated him. This enables us to understand why people who, individually, had been known as righteous people at that time became "wicked" when they became tools of the ones on whose behalf they accepted the mission.

Still another way of understanding the word לך is that G'd wanted this mission to be known as something Moses had initiated not as something He Himself had initiated.

Or, the word לך means that the mission ought to be the one Moses perceived it to be as contrasted with what the Israelites wanted it to be. The comment by the Talmud that לך means בדעתך, means "according to what you, Moses, have in mind, not according to what they, the Israelites, have in mind."

The word לך may also be an allusion to what our sages said in Shemot Rabbah 5,23 on the words עתה תראה, after Moses had complained about the ways of G'd's conduct when the Israelites' fate worsened after his appointment as their leader (compare Exodus 5,22-6,1). The Midrash says that the word "now" means that whereas Moses would live to experience G'd's war against Pharaoh, he would not live to experience what He would do to the 31 kings of the Canaanites. In order for G'd to fulfil this prophecy without Moses being demoted as king and leader of the Israelites, the entry of the Israelites would be delayed by 40 years as a result of the failure of the mission of the spies whom he sent out. According to this interpretation Moses would benefit by this mission. This is in line with the usual understanding of the word לך when it appears in a context similar to the one here.

ויתרו את את ארץ כנען, "they shall tour the land of Canaan, etc." why did the Torah write ויתורו instead of לתור, "in order to tour?" The words אשר אני נותן are also difficult. Once G'd had mentioned the name of the place the spies were to tour there was no need to write: "which I am about to give to the children of Israel." Who did not know that this is what G'd was about to do?

According to our commentary that the whole scheme of sending out the spies was made Moses' project by the Torah's using the word לך, as well as the other alternatives which we suggested as possible explanations, plus the other condition, that the spies be אנשים, men known as righteous people, the Torah added yet another condition to make this mission an acceptable one. It is that the people doing the spying be aware that it was G'd who was about to give them this land. The words mean that the spies were not to evaluate whether the Israelites (by themselves) would be able to conquer the country and to disinherit its inhabitants. There was no question that they would not be able to do that. They would not be able to conquer even a single town in that land by themselves. The only way the Israelites would be able to do that would be if אני נותן להם, "if I give it to them." Seeing that the land was to be a gift to the Israelites from G'd, it was up to the Donor to ensure the recipients would not face difficulties in obtaining their gift. To this end G'd would have to do the fighting on behalf of the Jewish people. It would be one of the objectives of G'd to show the spies during their tour of the country that G'd would subdue even the most powerful people. In order for the people to appreciate the power of G'd, the people He would subdue had to appear as invincible by natural means. This is why G'd showed the spies the strength of the Amalekites and the giants that still lived in that land. He showed them cities which were fortified beyond one's imagination so as to convince them that G'd certainly did not expect the militarily inexperienced Israelites to wage such a war. He wanted to drive home the point that conquest of that country and its people was G'd's task, not theirs.

This is the reason that the Torah wrote the otherwise unnecessary words אשר אני נותן, "which I am about to give." The spies were quite correct when they reported that the country could not be conquered by the Israelites. We still need to explain why the Torah wrote ויתרו instead of the expected לתור, and why the word ארץ כנען had to be mentioned. I have seen that Yalkut Shimoni was aware of this difficulty and explains that the Torah wanted to allude to who the person was through whose merit the Israelites were going to receive this gift. Isaac had been born to Abraham and Sarah when his parents had a combined age of 190 years which is the numerical value of the word כנען. This is, of course, a homiletical comment. I believe that more to the point is the verse in Deut. 9,5 that Israel did not inherit the land of Canaan due to their own merit but due to the wickedness of the people dwelling there and to G'd's desire to keep His promise to the patriarchs. The other reason was that it was ארץ כנען, the land named after Canaan who had been cursed by his grandfather Noach for his behaviour and whose descendants had followed in his footsteps so that now their measure of guilt had overflowed and called for divine retribution.

תשלחו, "you (pl) shall despatch." In this instance the singular שלח used by the Torah in verse 2 was not adequate. The reason may have been that the Torah wanted the men chosen to be listed in this order, i.e. one man per tribe, not more and not less.

'על פי ה With his consent; i.e. that He did not prevent him from doing so. ...

כלם אנשים, men of valour. The word איש occurs in the sense of “man of valour” both in Samuel I 26,15 and in Kings I 2,2.

כולם אנשים, “all of them distinguished people.” They were well known for their prowess. The word איש appears in that context in Kings I 2,2 וחזקת והיית לאיש.

With his permission. Meaning that it was not by Hashem’s decree, for this was only of their own volition. One should not say that “by the word of Hashem” refers back to the word “them” (i.e., Moshe sent them), meaning that those sent were “by the word of Hashem” even though their sending was not, because nothing about their selection had yet been mentioned. Therefore how could the Torah say “[Moshe] sent them” which by implication refers back to those mentioned previously. On the contrary, the Torah should have said “by the word of Hashem” in reference to their journey. Rather, “them” is a general reference to the people mentioned, to teach that their dispatch would be of their own volition.

V. 3. כלם אנשים, sie waren alle "Männer", individuell tüchtig und ausgezeichnet. Vergl. מי שמך לאיש (Schmot 2, 14). So nannten die Midjaniter Gideon לארשי שיא (Richter 7, 14). So David zu Awner: הלוא איש אתה ומי כמוך בישראל (Sam. I. 26, 15). So auch התחזקו והיו לאנשים (Sam. I. 4, 9; — siehe V. 2).

כלם אנשים, “all of them distinguished personalities;” according to Rashi, at the time when they were charged with their mission they were all deserving of having been chosen for this task. They underwent a change of heart only after having been selected. Rashi points this out when commenting on the words: וילכו ויבאו, “they went forth they arrived,” in verse 26.

כלם אנשים ALL OF THEM WERE MEN — Wherever the term אנשים, “men”, is used in Scripture it is a term denoting worthiness. These men, [though they later sinned] but at that time [when they were appointed] they were worthy men.

Refers to distinction. Meaning that generally the term אנשים refers to distinction, when it comes as a description as in “you shall be strengthened and be a man” (Melachim I 2:2). However when it does not come as a description, as in “the men said” (Bereishis 19:12), “the men who were at the entrance of the house” (ibid. v.11), “send for yourself men” (v. 2 above), all of these refer to regular men, not men of distinction. Re’m.

ראשי בני ישראל, “heads of the Children of Israel.” Each one of them was at least a head of a thousand Israelites. [There were 600 like that Ed]

At that time they were righteous. (Kitzur Mizrochi) Maharan raises a difficulty: Is it not written “Moshe called Hosheia … Yehoshua” (v. 16)? If so, even before their journey he sensed their wickedness. It appears to me that this is no difficulty, because Hashem had already said to him “send for yourself — according to your opinion” and they would be given the opportunity to err. If so, he certainly knew of their evil intent and designs. (Gur Aryeh) answers that [they were righteous] only then, to the exclusion of afterwards, because immediately after they were appointed their designs became evil.

OF THE TRIBE OF REUBEN etc. The verse [here] lists the tribes neither according to [the pattern of encampment of] their standards, nor according to the order of birth [of the ancestors of each tribe]. It appears that Scripture saw fit to mention them here according to the importance of the delegates [on the mission], for they were heads and princes of the people, as is related,²⁷Verse 3. Thus the burden of punishment, instead of falling heavily upon a particular tribe or tribes, would be more lightly distributed throughout the camp. Moreover, by commanding that the heads of the tribes should lead the mission, the people would avoid total responsibility and thus be spared annihilation. This latter point is made clear by Ramban in the text that follows. but they were not all of equal standing, some of them being greater than the others in wisdom and honor; therefore Scripture mentioned first those who were most honored, who were first in status, since it named them according to their personal standing, not that of their tribe. Similarly in [citing the names of] the princes who were to divide the Land up amongst the people,⁴⁰Further, 34:19-28. He mentioned them according to their personal standing, not according to the order of birth [of the tribal ancestors].

ואלה שמותם, each one was a distinguished person, known as such. They have been listed in order of their seniority, seeing that other than that they were equal in rank, especially in their qualifications for this mission. The reason I believe that this is the reason for the order in which they have been listed is that the list neither corresponds to the seniority of the tribes nor to the order in which the tribes were encamped.

למטה ראובן, “for the tribe of Reuven, etc.” Nachmanides points out that the order in which these men are mentioned here does not follow the order in which their tribes’ respective banners are enumerated, neither does the order correspond to the biological seniority of the original founders of their respective tribes. It appears therefore that the Torah lists these men in the order of their relative merits at the time they had been appointed. We find this pattern repeated when the tribal heads are mentioned at the time when the ancestral lands were apportioned.

For the tribe of Reuven. The Torah counts them by the importance of the messengers. However, their importance in this matter was not dependent on Torah, fear of Hashem and virtue, but rather on their ability and advanced knowledge in the task for which they were sent — to discover the way and which cities should be attacked first in the war.

כלב בן יפונה, “Caleb son of Yefuneh.” He is identical with Caleb son of Chetzron, and the reason he is here called the son of Yefuneh, is because he turned aside (פנה) from all but one of the other spies. [Chetzron had been a grandson of Yehudah, Genesis 46,12, compare also Chronicles I 2,18. Ed.]

למטה יוסף למטה מנשה, “from the tribe of Joseph, i.e. from the tribe of Menashe.” Above (v. 8) the Torah mentioned the tribe of Ephrayim, seeing he was the more important one. The reason that Joseph’s name was mentioned here, as he too was guilty of slander, when he told his father about the activities of his brothers (Genesis 37:2), and therefore the Torah mentioned him with Menashe, as Gadi ben Sodi (the spy representing Menashe) had been one of those guilty of spreading slander, whereas (Joshua, the spy representing) Ephrayim was innocent. The reason Joshua and Calev are not mentioned successively, so that Calev be “surrounded” by the names of spies, since he spoke as if he was with them (when his heart was not with them). It is not the case for Joshua, therefore he was mentioned separately, as he was not implicated with the rest.

למטה יוסף, למטה מנשה, “from the tribe of Joseph, the tribe of M’nashe; here “M’nashe is mentioned first, as the representative of that tribe who would prove to be one who slandered the Holy Land together with the majority of the spies, whereas Joshua, the representative of Ephrayim, the other half of the tribe of Joseph, although the favourite of Yaakov (Genesis 48,19) when he blessed the children of Joseph, was not lumped together with the other spies. (Compare Numbers 1,10, 32, and Numbers 26,28)

למטה יוסף, למטה מנשה, “of the tribe of Joseph, i.e. the tribe of Menashe.” Even though on numerous occasions the tribe of Joseph is equated with the tribe of Ephrayim (seeing that Yaakov had told Joseph that he outranked Menashe the older), here Joseph and Menashe are paired, seeing that both had become guilty of slander. Joseph had slandered his brothers to his father, and the prince of Menashe had slandered the land of Israel. There are several instances where Joseph and Menashe are equated precisely because the context of the story supports that interpretation. (Compare Numbers 34,23, Joshua 17,1) In Joshua 17, the subject is the distribution of the land to the various tribes, and it was these lands that the prince of Menashe had slandered in joining the majority report of the spies.

ויקרא משה להושע וגו׳ AND MOSES CALLED HOSHEA [THE SON OF NUN JEHOSHUA] — By giving him this name יהושע which is a compound of יה and הושע “God may save”, he in effect prayed for him: “May God save you from the evil counsel of the spies” (Sotah 34b).

ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, the Torah means that this man was known as a man of valour by the name of Hosheah among the members of his tribe. The fact that he has been referred to as “Joshua” already in Numbers 11,28 is because in his capacity as Moses’ personal valet Moses had changed his name in the form of a prayer asking that he be the instrument of his own salvation and that of others.

אלה שמות האנשים, These are the names of the men, etc. Why did the Torah repeat this seeing it had already written: "and these are their names, etc." in verse 4? We may understand this by reference to Sotah 34. Rabbi Yitzchak said: "we have a tradition that the names of the spies recorded in the Torah reflect their deeds;" The name סתור בן מיכאל describes that the man bearing that name contradicted the words of G'd, etc." So far the Talmud on the subject. We have noted that Moses renamed Joshua so as to protect him against the advice of wicked people and we asked why this was necessary. This means that Joshua's name did not reflect the fact that he was wicked. It was necessary to write: "and these are their names" in order to show us why Moses was concerned about the character of these people, i.e. he did not like their names. Whereas I wrote earlier that Moses had the feeling that these men might be wicked because of the word לך, this was not an absolute as the word לך could have other connotations as I have demonstrated. Moses may have been alerted to the potential wickedness of these people when he reflected on their names. Alternatively, Moses did have his suspicions about the enterprise and any men who would be delegated to act as spies; however, had it not been for their names, Moses could not have justified his suspicions.

ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, this does not mean that the people from then on called this man Joshua. It means that the man who had been referred to as Hosheah son of Nun in his father’s house was the one whom Moses now referred to as Joshua. The change had occurred already at the time when Moses appointed this man to be his personal valet. It was customary to change the names of people who were promoted in rank. We find this the first time when Pharaoh changed Joseph’s name to Tzofnat Paneach (Genesis 41,45) We find it again in Daniel 1,6 when Nevuchadnezzar’s chief officer changed Daniel’s name to Belteshazzar. This had been a reference to a Babylonian idol so named. The first time Joshua’s name had been changed was in Exodus 24,13.

אלה שמות האנשים, “These are the names of the men, etc. ”Ibn Ezra writes that the reason the Torah repeated the line after having already named all these men individually, by introducing the paragraph with the words: “these are their names,” is to inform us that none of the names mentioned were changed except the name of Joshua.

אלה שמות האנשים, “These are the names of the men, etc.” Why did the Torah repeat the introduction “the names,” seeing it had already written the words: “and these are their names” in verse 4? The reason is to tell us that all the other spies did not have their names changed since birth. Only Joshua had his name changed.

May Hashem save you. Thus “he called” is in the sense of a prayer, as in “And there Avram called in the Name of Hashem” (Bereishis 13:4), and the lamed of ליהושע is in place of על (for). Rashi’s proof to expound in this manner is that if not so, what is the reason to name him here? (Gur Aryeh) There is a difficulty: Why did he pray for Yehoshua and not for Caleiv? But this is not a difficulty, because it is great disgrace for a person whose student does not act properly, for people will say “if he had not learned from his teacher to act in this manner, he would not have done these things.”

V. 16. ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע. Mit dieser Namensänderung gab er ihm und seinen Gefährten, denen sie ja auch bei jeder Nennung zum Bewusstsein kam, einen leitenden Wink, den sie bei der Lösung ihrer Aufgabe nicht aus dem Gesichte verlieren sollten. Er wies damit ihn und sie darauf hin, dass הושע, dass der, der in aller Vergangenheit uns geholfen, auch der sei, der יהושע, der die Heileszukunft schaffen werde, ja, dass יהושע, dass Gott unser ganzer Reichtum, unsere ganze Macht, der ganze Inhalt unseres Strebens sei, und ihm zur Seite alles andere seine Bedeutung verliere. Es ist nämlich: יהושע nicht nur eine Umwandlung der Vergangenheit הושע in die Zukunft, es hätte dann יהושיע gelautet. Es ist vielmehr eine Umbiegung des Begriffs ישע, der Wurzel von הושע, in שוע mit vorgesetztem Gottesnamen. Während ישע, verwandt mit ישה der Wurzel von יש und תושיה, die Fülle des Seins bedeutet, bezeichnet שוע, lautverwandt mit שפע ,שבע, die Fülle des Habens, daher geradezu שוע: der Begüterte. Vielleicht ist auchשוע zunächst ein Hilferuf gegen Raub; und תשועה vorzugsweise siegverleihender Beistand im Landesverteidigungskrieg, während ישועה die Existenzrettung im allgemeinen ist. Dass diese Namensänderung in tiefer Beziehung zu der Aufgabe stand, welche Josua und seinen Gefährten zur Lösung ward, ist durch die Stellung klar, in welcher sie uns berichtet wird. Hätte sie bloß eine individuelle Beziehung, sie wäre oben V. 8 berichtet worden. Hier aber steht sie nach Erwähnung des Gesamtauftrages אשר שלח וגו׳ ויקרא וגו׳ und vor genauerer Erläuterung dieses Auftrages im einzelnen. Es bildet daher diese Namensänderung gleichsam das Siegel und das grundlegende Vorwort für diesen Auftrag. Sie sagte Josua und seinen Gefährten, ihre Sendung habe nicht die Bedeutung, sich über die Möglichkeit und den Wert der Besitznahme des Landes Gewissheit zu verschaffen. Ihre Siegesgewissheit und ihre Gedeihenszuversicht, ihre תשועה und ihr שוע sei Gott, und steige und falle nicht mit dem günstigen oder ungünstigen Licht, in welchem etwa das Land in dieser Beziehung erscheinen möge. Mit dieser Namensänderung begleitete somit Mosche seine Boten im Geiste und gab ihnen den Urteilskompass mit hinaus, in welchem Sinne sie ihre Sendung aufzufassen haben sollten.

ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, “Moses called (changed) the name of Hoshea to Yehoshua son of Nun. The Midrash Tanchuma, section 6 on this portion, in dealing with this change of name, writes as follows: “what prompted Moses to change the name of Hoshea to Y’hoshua by adding the letter י (equivalent the number ten) to his name? Moses foresaw that Calev, another spy who did receive his ancestral share in the Holy Land received one share, as detailed in the Book of Judges 1,20, seeing he had bothered to make a special detour at Chevron (Numbers 13,22) (“he,” sing. came to Chevron) whereas Joshua, who would lead the people to the Land and conquer it, received ten shares, this was hinted at by the change of his name. [Seeing that Joshua personally did not have any children, looking at the matter technically, although his tribe of Ephrayim, did of course receive their share, perhaps Moses wanted to indicate that he in fact, at least, in the spiritual sense of the word, “inherited” the 10 shares of the Holy Land, that would have become the shares of the other ten spies had they not slandered the land. Ed.] According to the Talmud Yerushalmi tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 2, halachah 6, by adding the letter י at the beginning of his name, so that it began with the two letters spelling the name of G–d, Moses hoped to arm him spiritually against becoming spiritually contaminated by the other ten spies. When Sarah’s name שרי had been changed to שרה, she had lost a letter, i.e. the letter י. Joshua now received this letter. Avraham had the letter ה she had lost, added to his name when that was changed from אברם to אברהם. [Seeing that they both no longer needed these two letters, having died long ago, they were used by Moses as helping Joshua to withstand the brainwashing by the ten spies. Ed.]

אלה שמות האנשים. “the following are the names of these 12 men: no representative of the tribe of Levi had been included amongst the spies, as the members of that tribe were not going to get fields to work as ancestral lands.

ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, “Moses named Hoseah son of Nun Joshua.” According to the plain meaning of the text his name was changed, as he had been the commander of the army in the battle against Amalek. He had acquired an international reputation as a result of that encounter. Moses changed his name so that he would not be singled out as a target for the Canaanites. After all, they had never seen him, had only heard about him.

ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, Moses called Hoshea son of Nun Joshua. We already mentioned that our sages said that Moses prayed concerning Joshua. Why did he have to change his name in addition? Perhaps Moses wanted to give Joshua additional power to resist wicked advice seeing that the first three letters of his name now represented the three letters making up the tetragram. The letter י which Moses added to Hoshea's name has a numerical value of 10 and symbolised that he could resist the advice of ten of his colleagues. It would also eventually enable him to inherit the share of ארץ ישראל that the ten wicked spies would forfeit due to their conduct. This is based on a comment in Chagigah 15 according to which each person has a place allocated to him both in גן עדן and in גיהנם. If he merits it he will occupy his place in גן עדן, whereas a wicked person will occupy both his own place in גיהנם as well as the place left vacant by his pious colleague.

ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, “Moses renamed Hoshea bin Nun as Joshua. The Torah does not mean that Moses renamed Hoshea at this time; we have to understand this verse as follows: Moses had renamed Hoshea from the time he had appointed him as his personal valet. The Torah merely wishes to tell us that the Joshua whom Moses has appointed as one of the spies, was the one whom he had renamed at the time of his previous appointment as Moses’ personal servant, seeing that at that time already he had found favour in his eyes, and he wanted to express this by adding a letter to his name. We know that G-d had renamed Avram after he had found favour in his eyes by adding a letter to his name, just as He had changed a letter in Sarai’s name for a similar reason. Both Yaakov and Joseph experienced name changes, as did Daniel and the last King of Yehudah, Matnaya, whom Nebuchadnezzar renamed Tzedekiah. Also Nechemyah, underwent such a name change as we know from Nechemyah 8,9.

עלו זה בנגב GO UP THIS WAY SOUTHWARD — It (the South) was the worst part of the Land of Israel. He bid them spy this out first because such is the way of merchants: they show a prospective purchaser the inferior goods first, and afterwards they show the best (Midrash Tanchuma, Sh'lach 6).

!עלו זה בנגב. Moses wanted them to commence their mission from the very spot the Israelites found themselves in at this time, i.e. in the south of the land of Canaan. He considered that at this point entry into the land of Canaan would not present any difficulty and they would not have to travel around the country inn order to enter from a more distant location.

וישלח אותם משה, Moses sent them on their way, etc. Why did the Torah need to write the first half of this verse; we have heard about this both in verse 3 and in verse 16? Perhaps the verse was meant to tell us that Moses accompanied them a short distance when they departed as this is a halachic requirement. The Torah speaks about לתור to indicate that Moses warned the spies that they were engaged in a dangerous mission.

עלו זה בנגב, “ascend here in the south.” According to the Zohar Shelach 160, Moses gave them his staff to act as protection for them. This is based on a [somewhat tenuous Ed.] comparison between the words ואת המטה הזה, in Exodus 4,17 and the words עלו זה in our verse.

This was the worst. For Egypt is to the south of the Land of Israel, and one going from there to the Land of Israel is traveling northwards. One must therefore say that the “south” mentioned here is the south of the Land of Israel, and Chevron is there and it was set aside for the burial of the dead being the most inferior of places in the Land. Re’m.

V. 17. לתור את ארץ כנען, sie sollten das Land als ארץ כנען in seiner jetzigen Beschaffenheit, als Boden der kenaanitischen Bevölkerung erkunden. — עלו זה wörtlich: ersteiget dies hier. Es ist für eure Sendung gleichgültig, von wo aus ihr in das Land eintretet. בנגב: sie befanden sich im Südosten von Palästina. — ועליתם את ההר: der הר האמרי, an welchen sie gelangt waren (Dewarim 1, 20).

עלו זה בנגב, “ascend from this point in the south!” Kadesh was at the southernmost part of the land of Israel. (Ibn Ezra)

According to the commentators Moses revealed the secret of the 12-lettered name of G’d to the spies, the word זה having a numerical value of 12 and being a reminder of when G’d had said to Moses: זה שמי לעולם, “My name is זה forever” (Exodus 3,15). All of this was to help them maintain unity and to protect them against the giants in the land.

ועליתם את ההר, “and climb up into the mountains.” Once you have seen the land from the mountains, it will be easier to conquer its lowlands. (B’chor shor)

את הארץ מה הוא AND SEE THE LAND; WHAT IT IS — There are countries which rear strong people and there are countries which rear weak people; there are such as produce a large population and there are such as produce a small population (Midrash Tanchuma, Sh'lach 6).

וראיתם את הארץ מה היא. If it is mostly populated in open cities or walled cities, like fortresses.

וראיתם את הארץ מה היא, "and you will observe the nature of the land." This was a reference to the climate of the land, the topography of the land such as whether it had many natural sources of water, and if such sources of water were pure or contaminated, etc. Moses referred to those aspects of the land which anyone traversing it can determine with ease. When he told the spies to evaluate the people, i.e. ואת העם היושב עליה, he asked them to evaluate if the nature of the people, their health, their strength, etc. reflected that the land they lived on had contributed to these people's being healthy, etc. Moses suggested that the health of its inhabitants was proof of the goodness of the land these people dwelled on. Seeing that it could be argued that if the people were extremely robust this might be due to such factors as healthy living habits, in particular not overindulging in sex, he asked the spies to find out if the people were numerous or relatively few in numbers. If the people were numerous this too would be testimony to the topographical and climatic conditions being favourable.

וראיתם את הארץ מה היא, if, the first part of the country you encounter is wooded, mountainous, flat, cultivated, etc. This was necessary so that the army could plan what equipment was needed for the opening stages of the campaign. The people were convinced that G’d would give them the land of Canaan, but they anticipated that this would not be without efforts on their part. Even if there would not be actual fighting and casualties, at least they would have to prepare for this eventuality.

Some countries. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe first mention “what the land is” when he should have first mentioned the people of the land, which was most important. Thus he explains that “the land” refers to the nature of the land — because “some countries…” and this is the most important factor.

V. 18. וראיתם את הארץ מה היא dürfte die Frage nach der topographischen Beschaffenheit des Landes im allgemeinen enthalten, ob gebirgig oder eben, ob flussreich oder -arm usw. ואת העם הישב עליה ist die ethnologische Frage nach der physischen, geistigen und sittlichen Beschaffenheit der gegenwärtigen Bewohner. החזק הוא הרפה usw. hebt einige hierhergehörige Fragepunkte besonders hervor. Bedeutsam erscheint uns die Fragestellung: החזק הוא הרפה. Im Gegensatz zu allen folgenden Fragen ist hierbei die adversative Fragestellung ה־ אם־ vermieden.

החזק הוא הרפה WHETHER THEY ARE STRONG OR WEAK — He gave them a sign: if they live in open cities they are strong, since they evidently rely on their own strength, but if they live in fortified cities they are weak (Midrash Tanchuma, Sh'lach 6).

ואת העם היושב עליה, to find out if the ecological conditions favoured successful settlement in cities. In other words, if sick people would be referred by their physicians to such cities and to such a climate to help them regain their health. They would judge this by the appearance of the inhabitants of such cities; if they appeared healthy, strong, of good posture, etc. They would also observe if the people were numerous, had large families, or if somehow they were few in numbers. Large numbers of people, and people looking strong and fit, would indicate that the climate was good and favoured large-scale settlement.

Why did the Torah always mention the positive alternative first whereas when describing the size of the population Moses chose to mention the negative aspect, i.e. an underpopulated country first? In view of the manner in which Moses phrased his instructions we must conclude that he considered it a positive factor if the spies would find the land underpopulated, i.e. if its population was מעט.

Erwägen wir die Bedeutung dieser Frage, so dürfte sie unter allen diejenige sein, die auf den ersten Blick als für das Unternehmen der Eroberung entscheidend erscheinen konnte. Ist die Bevölkerung stark, so macht sie die Eroberung schwierig, vielleicht unmöglich, ist sie schwach, fallen diese Bedenken weg. Und eben diese Auffassung der Frage soll vermieden werden. Es ist für Israels Interesse völlig irrelevant, ob die Bevölkerung stark, ob sie schwach ist; es ist dies kein Entwederoder, und sind daher auch gerade diese Fragen nur nebeneinander, als eine andere Modalität, nicht aber im Ausdruck des Gegensatzes gegeben. Damit dürfte denn überhaupt dieser ganzen Sendung ein ganz anderer Charakter erteilt sein, als deren Antrag ursprünglich beabsichtigt. Nicht. für den Zweck der Eroberung, sondern für eine in alle Folgezeit wichtig bleibende Belehrung sollte das Land in seiner jetzigen Beschaffenheit kennen gelernt werden. Was es an Land und Leuten Nachteiliges in der Gegenwart zeigte, würde den unter Gottes Schutz und Segen aufblühenden Nachkommen einst Momente beglückender Vergleichung überliefern; was es an Fülle und Reichtum bot, würde ahnen lassen, zu welchem Gipfel des Heiles und Segens es unter einer von Gott geleiteten Entwicklung aufblühen werde; aber vor allem, was es an Macht und Größe in seiner kenaanitischen Gegenwart aufzuzeigen hatte, konnte allen Folgegeschlechtern der jüdischen Zukunft die Warnung überbringen, wie alle Macht und alle Größe, und wäre sie riesig groß, die Nation nicht vor Untergang zu schützen vermöge, wenn sie es verabsäumt, in erster Linie in allem und mit allem dem göttlichen Sittengesetze zu huldigen. So bringt noch Amos (2, 9) seinen sich sorglos der Entartung überlassenden Zeitgenossen das warnende Gotteswort entgegen: ואנכי השמדתי את האמרי מפניהם אשר בגבה ארזים גבהו וחסן הוא כאלונים ואשמיד פריו ממעל ושרשיו מתחת!

Perhaps Moses connected the number of people in the land to the strength of these people. If the people were exceptionally strong this would be proof of the quality of the land as only in very few places on the globe does the land produce such powerful people. If, on the other hand, the population would be found to be numerous, there are many countries which are fully populated. Moses remained consistent in always naming the positive alternative first. This also explains why Moses spoke about "the land" first and about "the people" next only to revert again to "the land."

He gave them a sign. For if not so, how would they know if they were strong or not? Therefore the verse writes (v. 19) “הבמחנים אם במבצרים” (lit. are they in open) or are they in fortified [cities]” which is the explanation of “if they are strong or weak.” However one should not explain it is a separate subject. You should also see if their cities are fortified or open, because if so the Torah should have written “המחנים אם מבצרים” (lit. are they open or are they fortified). The Targum also indicates this, translating it as הבפצחים (are they in fortified [cities]). Re’m writes that the statement “and how are the cities” (v. 19) refers back to the first subject of whether they are strong or weak, even though there is a break between them, and that this is common. Maharam raises a difficulty: If fortified cities indicate that they are weak, why was Yisroel not happy with the spies report when they heard that the cities were fortified — meaning that they were weak? Another question is asked: If this was an accurate and proven sign, why did the spies say that the people were strong and the cities were fortified, without fear that they would be caught in a falsehood? And if it was not a clear sign, how could Moshe give it to them as a sign? One cannot say like Nachalas Yaakov that the sign referred to their residences — that if they live in open cities then they are strong — however the fortified cities were for beauty. For it is written “the nation is mighty … and the cities are fortified” (v. 28). [The cities] with a hei implies that they lived in them, for if not so, it should have said “and fortified cities” without a hei. A further question is asked: Why in each case did Moshe place for us first what was good, such as “is it fat?” or “is it good?” whereas concerning strength he first said “are they strong?” and afterwards he said “are they weak?” For if they were strong then it would not be easy to conquer them. It appears that one question is answered by the other. What was the reason that each question began with a hei — (is it/ are they…) and ended with אם (or…) such as “הטובה אם רעה” (is it good or bad) and likewise all the other questions? On the contrary, it should have either said “הטובה היא הרעה” (is it good, is it bad) both with a hei, or both with אם — “אם טובה אם רעה” ([is it] either good or bad). For a question prefaced by a hei is the same as using אם. Furthermore, why in the case of “החזק הוא הרפה” (are they strong or weak) did it use a hei for both the question and its opposite, rather than saying אם? The answer is that here he was only asking about a matter and its opposite, such as “is it good or bad” or “is it fat or lean” but he did not mention anything in between. Therefore it was necessary to begin with a hei and end with אם, given that אם is not as indicative of a doubt as is the hei preceding a question. For we often find that אם refers to something certain, as Rashi writes in Parshas Mishpotim (Shemos 22:24). Thus he ended with אם as if to say “you will see that if it is not fat, then it will be lean” the matter being almost certain such as “if it is not soft then it will be hard.” This indicates to us that Moshe only gave a sign that if they lived in open cities then they were certainly strong, given that they relied on their strength. However if they lived in fortified cities, it was possible that they were still strong and that the fortified cities were for beauty or grandeur. Thus he first asked if they were strong, referring to whether they lived in open cities. But he also concluded with the hei to indicate that even if they lived in fortified cities, it was appropriate to ask this question with a hei because perhaps they were strong and the fortifications were for beauty. However if he had began by asking “הרפה” (are they weak) it would have been more appropriate to say “אם חזק” (or strong), because those who live in open cities are certainly strong. In this case (writing “are they weak” first) we would not have learned anything more, given that one would always has to start with a hei when inquiring about something that one does not know. R. Yaakov Triosh.

הבמחנים — The Targum rendering is: “whether in open places” i.e. in cities open and exposed — without a wall.

WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR BAD. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented [that the meaning thereof is that they are to see] “if the Land is good, namely that its air is good, and its waters are good.” Then Moses continued, whether it is fat,²⁴Further, Verse 20. meaning “capable of producing wheat” and many fruits.
The correct interpretation is that whether it is ‘good’ includes all good things, and in the word ra’ah [or ‘bad’] are included all evils. [If so, the question arises why Moses continued with the apparently superfluous command to find out whether the Land is fat or lean, since it is already included in the phrases good and bad?] It is possible, however, that a good land is fruitful and its fruits are fat, and it produces fat products such as balsam and oil,⁴³Ezekiel 27:17. dates and figs and similar things. But [it is also possible] that it is good and yet lean, and always needs rain, and must be hoed and fertilized very much, and its fruits have a tendency to be dry although they are better and last longer than the fat ones. In such a land are to be found very many “lean” fruits, such as nuts, almonds, apples, carobs and fruits of the forests. Thus [by saying that the spies are to ascertain whether the Land is fat or lean Moses] meant “whether it is a fat land, as valleys are, or a lean land like the mountains.” Onkelos, however, translated [whether it is fat or lean as] “whether it is rich or poor,” for there are countries whose inhabitants are rich because of the low prices prevalent among them, and their neighbors trade with them in all the good things found among them, and there are some countries whose inhabitants are dependent upon their neighbors and their inhabitants are of small power,⁴⁴II Kings 19:26. although they are good [lands] and not at all bad.
‘And be ye of good courage’, and bring [of the fruit of the Land]. This means that they are not to be afraid when taking of the fruit of the Land that they might be recognized by the people as spies.

הטובה היא, was the water supply plentiful and not contaminated. Moses had stressed in Deuteronomy 8,7 that G’d was bringing the people to a location which was “good” in the sense that it possessed brooks and rivers with pure water.

ומה הארץ אשר הוא יושב בה, "and what is the earth like that the people dwell on." In this verse Moses referred to the infrastructure and standard of living that the spies would find in the land of Canaan. Were the houses the people lived in of sound construction? Were their chattels of good quality, etc? We will find in Deut. 6,10 that Moses describes the towns and houses the Israelites would inherit in the land of Canaan as of good quality. Moses asked the spies also to find out whether the towns were planned defensively, i.e. as fortresses surrounded by walls or whether they were open cities, as these factors had great bearing on the beauty of the respective towns. Bamidbar Rabbah 17 claims that Moses gave the spies a sign suggesting that fortified cities were an indication that its inhabitants felt insecure, etc. whereas open cities testified to the people's confidence in their ability to repel any potential intruder. This is pure homiletics. The plain meaning of the words is that the questions all related to the quality of the land and that Moses took it for granted that the people were of exceptionally great physique and included giants. One did not have to send out spies to find out this well known fact. The only reason Moses referred to the physical prowess of the people was to emphasise the miracle G'd would perform in disinheriting these people of their land.

ומה הארץ אשר הוא יושב, seeing that the words ומה הארץ of which we said that they referred to the parts of the country which the invaders would face immediately, an area not populated, now the Torah refers to other parts of the land of Canaan which were fully populated. Hence the words:

הטובה היא אם רעה, “if it is good or bad, etc.” Nachmanides quotes Ibn Ezra as interpreting the word טובה as referring to the climate in the land of Canaan, and as describing the country’s water supply as offering clear and unpolluted water for its inhabitants. When asking the spies to determine if the land was שמנה, fat, Moses referred to the quality of its produce, in particular the quality of its wheat. Nachmanides holds that the word טובה is an all encompassing word describing the sum total of what the land had to offer, whereas the word רעה refers to any negative aspects that this land presented to potential conquerors. It is possible that the expression ארץ טובה referred to the land and its produce being שמנה, good, yielding especially rich flour and its figs and dates being especially rich in flavour. Another possible meaning of the words טובה and רעה may refer to the rainfall, i.e. if the land enjoyed adequate natural rains or if the soil needed to be supplemented with water from rivers of cisterns. It is also possible that both the word טובה and רזה referred to “lean” fruit such as walnuts, carobs, etc, as opposed to the seven types of fruit for which the land was famous, including grapes, olives, pomegranates dates, etc. However, Onkelos translates the words as עתירא and מסכנא respectively, which would mean “wealthy” and “poor,” respectively. Onkelos understands Moses as referring to the inhabitants of the land rather than to the land itself. These countries are self sufficient, their soil supplying all their needs so that they do not need to import any necessities, whereas their neighbours may be relatively poor because they have to import necessities, which is far more costly.

V. 19. ומה הארץ אשר הוא ישב בה ist die Frage nach der Bedeutung des Landes als Menschenboden. Oben heißt es: ואת העם הישב עליה, es betrachtet die Bewohner getrennt vom Boden, wie sie sich auf ihm entwickeln. Hier lautet die Frage: ומה הארץ אשר הוא ישב בה sie betrachtet die Bevölkerung im Lande, wie sie sich umfangen von allen den durch die Eigentümlichkeit des Landes gegebenen Einflüssen gestaltet, und fragt nach dem Werte des Landes als Pflanzstätte einer nationalen Entfaltung, הטובה היא אם רעה, ob es in dieser Beziehung "gut oder schlecht" sei, ob es dem geistigen und sittlichen Kulturleben eines Volkes förderlich oder hinderlich sei. Wir erinnern an den Erfahrungssatz der Weisen: אוירא רא י מחכים (B. B. 158 b). — מחנים .ומה הערים וגו׳ und מבצרים scheinen denselben Gegensatz zu bezeichnen, wie Wajikra 25, 29 u. 31, עיר חומה und מחנים .חצרים אשר אין להם חומה: offene Städte, מבצרים: feste Städte, nur dass diese Verschiedenheit hier zunächst in ihrer strategischen Bedeutung begriffen ist. Die offene Stadt ist dem Feinde gegenüber ein מחנה, dessen Verteidigung lediglich in der Tapferkeit der Leute beruht. Die ummauerte Stadt hingegen ist: מבצר, eine schwer einnehmbare Örtlichkeit (vergl. Bereschit 11, 6). Sam. I. 6, 18 werden die Städte der Philister in einem solchen Gegensatz zusammengefasst: מעיר מבצר ועד כפר הפרזי. Im מ׳׳רבות wird das Wohnen in offenen Städten als Zeichen der Tapferkeit begriffen und Festungen als Zeichen feiger Schwäche: מנין אתם יודעים כחם? אם במנים הם שרויין הם גבורין בוטחין על כחם אם במבצרים חלשים הם ולבם רך Da die offenen Städte nach Wajikra 25, 31 על שדה הארץ יחשבzum offenen Felde gerechnet wurden, so ist damit kultur-historisch eine wesentliche Verschiedenheit durch die Verschiedenheit der Beschäftigung der Bewohner gegeben, wie wir dies in Wajikra 25, 34 zu entwickeln versucht.

אם רעה, “or if it is bad;” if the land is pleasant (climatewise). or if its waters are bad and cause bereavement. In reply to these questions the spies upon returning, answered Moses that the land devoured its inhabitants. (verse 32).

הטובה הוא WHETHER IT IS GOOD, through possessing springs and other good and healthy supplies of water.

הבמחנים, if they lived in open cities, a sign that they felt secure, not expecting any war,

בארץ אשר הם יושבים בה הטובה היא אם רעה, if the land produces ample harvests so that the invaders would be able to supply themselves with locally grown produce instead of bringing the food supply with them.

אם במבצרים, or in walled, fortified towns, suggesting that the inhabitants were afraid of being invaded. Compare Devorah’s song in Judges 5,7 where she bemoans the fact that her people had ceased to live in open cities.

הבמחנים, whether the inhabitants live in open cities or in fortresses. All this kind of information was needed so that they would know to take with them the tools needed to lay siege to fortresses, for instance.

היש בה עץ WHETHER THERE ARE TREES IN IT [OR NOT] — i.e. whether there is a righteous man amongst them who will protect them by his merits (cf. Bava Batra 15a).

השמנה היא, does it possess riches, surpluses, as Moses said in Deuteronomy 8,9 לא במסכנות תאכל בה לחם, “where you will eat bread without having to stint.”

ומה הארץ השמנה היא, and what about the land, is it fat, etc.? Did this land impart its fat to the fruit it produced without becoming impoverished, or was it such that after each harvest it became impoverished, רזה, so that it had to be given a year's rest before being sown again?

השמנה היא, to inform the Israelites on their return if the land was indeed “flowing with milk and honey,” as G’d had led them to believe.

והתחזקתם ולקחתם מפרי הארץ, “strengthen yourselves, and take from the fruit of the land.” Moses encourages the spies not to be afraid of “stealing” from the produce and thereby drawing attention to themselves as spies.

A righteous man. For it is written afterwards “you shall strengthen yourselves, and you shall take some fruit of the land,” thus there were trees. Re'm explains that if the land is fat then there would naturally be trees and he had already asked them if the land was fat or lean. Even though the Rabbis expounded that [the tree that] he was talking about [refers specifically to] Iyov (Bava Basra 15a), Rashi simply writes “a righteous man” because this is closer to the simple meaning of the verse.

V. 20. ומה הארץ וגו׳ ist endlich die Frage nach dem Bodencharakter des Landes als Quelle der Nahrung und des Nationalwohlstandes. Da die Frage: השמנה היא אם רזה die Erkundigung nach der Fruchtbarkeit oder Unfruchtbarkeit bereits erschöpfend umfasst, so dürfte schwerlich die Frage: היש בה עץ das Vorhandensein von Fruchtbäumen im Auge haben. Es würde dies auch wohl kaum einfach durch עץ ausgedrückt worden sein. Vielmehr glauben wir darin die Frage zu erblicken, ob es neben den fruchtreichen auch waldreiche Gegenden gebe. Waldgegenden werden nämlich von selbst Stätten der Industrie, da sie zu sonstigen Nahrungsquellen durch Ackerbau und Viehzucht die Gelegenheit versagen. והתחזקתם: habet den Mut, durch offenkundiges Mitnehmen von Früchten die Absicht eurer Sendung offen an den Tag zu legen. והימים ימי בכורי ענבים, also noch nicht die Zeit der Ernte und der Weinlese, in welcher somit das Abnehmen von Früchten eine andere Absicht erraten lässt.

והתחזקתם, “be of good courage.” They needed to be on their guard, seeing that it was the beginning of the harvest season and the farmers would watch their crops against thieves.

בכורי ענבים — [AND THE DAYS WERE THE DAYS OF] THE FIRSTLING OF THE GRAPES — i.e. the days when the grapes were ripening at its early stage of growth.

היש בה עץ, are there fruit trees, such as grape vines, fig trees, pomegranate trees and olive trees.

והתחזקתם, give yourselves the appearance of self confident men, men who are not afraid of anything.

First ripening. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah should have stated “ביכור ענבים” (“first ripening of the grapes” rather than “ביכורי — first ripenings”). Therefore he explains that it refers to the days in which the grapes were first ripening, referring to the days in which they ripen but not implying a plural.

היש בה עץ, is it wooded, etc.? The word עץ refers to the variety of trees to be found there. The words אם אין mean if there is any known kind of tree that cannot be found in that land? This is what Moses had in mind when he said in Deut. 8,9 that the land of Canaan was a land that lacked nothing (good).

והתחזקתם ולקחתם מפרי הארץ, do not be afraid that the local inhabitants will notice your taking some produce and will attack you on account of that.

והימים ימי בכורי הענבים, the reason the Torah mentions this is because the spies brought with them a cluster of locally grown grapes.

והימים ימי בכורי ענבים, the fruit for which the land is famous had not even fully ripened as yet as it was still early in the season. Even so, what they would see would be enough to convince them of the excellence of the land.

ממדבר צן עד רחב לבא חמת [SO THEY WENT UP AND SEARCHED THE LAND] FROM THE DESERT OF ZIN UNTO REHOB, AS MEN COME TO HAMATH — They went along its (the Land’s) boundaries lengthwise and broadwise in the form of a gamma (the third letter of the Greek alphabet, Γ), viz., they went along the side which forms the southern boundary from its eastern corner to the western corner, just as Moses had bidden them, (v. 17) “Go up this way southwards”, i.e. the way of the south border from its eastern Point up to the Mediterranean Sea, for the Sea is the western boundary of the Land. From there they turned and went along the entire western boundary on the sea-coast up to the point whence one goes on to Hamath which is situated near Mount Hor in the North-western corner, as is set forth in the section dealing with the “boundaries of the Land” in the Sedrah אלה מסעי (Numbers 34:7—8).

The length and width. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Why did they go the length and width, for if they wanted to go throughout the whole land, they would still not have gone everywhere? [The answer is that] one sees that the land is different along its length and width, because the eastern or western reaches are different, as are the northern and southern. Therefore, they traveled in this manner to see all of the differences.

V. 21. ממדבר צין. Aus der Grenzbeschreibung des Landes Kap. 34 ist ersichtlich, dass die Wüste Zin die südöstliche Grenze bildet. Daselbst V. 3 heißt es: פאת נגב ממדבר צין על ידי אדום. Und ergibt sich ebendaselbst Verse 7 — 9, dass חמת zur nordwestlichen Grenze gehört. Die Nordgrenze wird dort durch eine Linie bezeichnet vom Mittelmeer über חצר עינן ,זפרן ,צדד ,חמת ,הר ההר, letzteres der nordöstliche Punkt. Es gehört somit חמת zum Nordwesten. Sie haben somit das Land in einer Diagonale von Südost zu Nordwest bereist.

ממדבר צין עד רחוב לבא חמת, “from the desert of Tzin in the south, as far north as the approaches to Chamat.” They crossed the country diagonally from south to North, and from North to South. A verse that we read in Parshat Massey confirms this.

ויבא עד חברון [AND THEY WENT UP BY THE SOUTH] AND HE CAME UNTO HEBRON — Caleb alone went there and prostrated himself on the graves of the Patriarchs, offering prayer that he might be helped not to give way to the enticement of his colleagues and join them in their counsel. You may see that it was Caleb who went there, for so indeed it (Scripture) states, (Deuteronomy 1:36) “[Save Caleb the son of Jephunnch, he shall see it] and unto him will I give the land upon which he hath trodden!” and it is written, (Judges 1:20) “And they gave Hebron unto Caleb” (Sotah 34b)

AND HEBRON ‘NIVNETHAH’ (WAS BUILT) SEVEN YEARS BEFORE ZOAN IN EGYPT. “Is it possible that Ham [Noah’s son, the father of both Canaan and Mitzraim], built Hebron for Canaan, his younger son, before he built Zoan for Mitzraim, his elder son? Rather, you must say that [the meaning of the word nivnethah] is m’vunah (“built up” — i.e., furnished, supplied) with all excellent qualities, seven times more than Zoan [in Egypt]. The verse thus comes to tell you of the wonderful quality of the Land of Israel.” This is Rashi’s language.
It appears to me according to the plain meaning [of Scripture] that Hebron is Kiryath-arba, the greatest man of the Anakim having the name Arba, and it was he who built it [Hebron], therefore it was called by his name; just as it is said, Now the name of Hebron beforetime was Kiryath-arba, which Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim.⁴⁵Joshua 14:15. This man begot a son whom he named Anak, and it was after him that they [the inhabitants of Hebron] were called Anakim. Therefore Scripture states [here in our verse] that there in Hebron were Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, and Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt, meaning to say that Arba built it for his son Anak seven years before the building of Zoan in Egypt, which was an ancient city. [Scripture thereby] tells of the longevity of these people, for just as they were exceptional in their height so also they lived longer than other peoples; since Hebron was built [by Arba] for their father [i.e., Anak, the father of these giants Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai] before Zoan in Egypt, and many generations had elapsed since then [the founding of Zoan] until now.
It is possible that [in saying that Hebron was built seven years before Zoan Scripture] is alluding to that which it said, whether it is fat or lean,²⁴Further, Verse 20. [implying] that Hebron was very ancient and nonetheless still produced fat and large fruits, as Scripture tells about the bunch of grapes,⁴⁶Verse 24. and how much more so the newer [parts of the] Land, which was more fertile.
It may be that Arba [and not, as explained above, a son of his, called Anak], was the father of Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, and he was called Arba [literally “four”] because there were [altogether] four Anakim [“giants” — the three sons, Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, and their father. According to this we would not have to postulate, as explained above, the existence of a son of Arba whom he named Anak, and who was the ancestor of the people called Anakim]. And the verse which states even Kiryath-arba, which Arba was the father of ‘Anak’ — the same is Hebron⁴⁷Joshua 15:13. [from which you might deduce that Arba indeed had a son, called Anak, uses the singular as a generic term and] means “the father of Anakim.” Therefore Scripture speaks of [Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai as the sons of] Anak and as the children ‘ha’anak’ (of Anak),⁴⁸In Verse 33 here, Scripture speaks of [the sons of] Anak, and in Verse 22 here [also in Joshua 15:14] of the children of ‘ha’anak.’ that is, the children of the greatest [giant] of them all [Arba], just as it says, which Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim;⁴⁵Joshua 14:15. and therefore [since it refers to the greatest giant, called Arba, and not to an individual called Anak] Scripture mentions the name with the definite article.⁴⁹The definite article [indicated in Hebrew by prefixing the word with the letter hei] cannot be prefixed to a proper name of a person. Thus, e.g., you cannot say ‘ha’Reuben’ (the Reuben). But if it is not a proper name the hei can be used. Thus we find “ha’Reubeini” (the Reubenites) — further 26:7, etc. Here too, if “Anak” were the proper name of a person, Scripture could not have said the children of ‘ha’anak,’ but since it means here “the [greatest] giant,” it may properly be so used. They [giants] are called Anakim [literally “necklaces”] because of their beautiful stature, for they are like necklaces on the necks of the people [i.e., they were the pride of the people], just as [certain people] were called bnei ha’elohim⁵⁰Genesis 6:2. See Vol. I, pp. 102-3. in the section of Bereshith, as I have explained there.⁵⁰Genesis 6:2. See Vol. I, pp. 102-3. This is the meaning of the verse, And Hebron ‘nivnethah’ (was built) by this ‘anak’ [mentioned in the beginning of the verse], seven years before Zoan in Egypt, for since the builder of Hebron [Arba] was well-known and famous, because the name of the city was Kiryath-arba (“the city of Arba”), Scripture says “it was built,” [and does not say that Arba built it]. Or its meaning might be [to emphasize] that it was built for these [very people whom the spies now found in it], their father Arba having built it for them, and thus very many years had passed since the day it was founded even until now.⁵¹Exodus 9:18.

ויבא עד חברון. The well known aggadic comment is widely perceived as the plain meaning of this verse, i.e. that the verse (in the singular, “he came”) refers to Calev of whom the Torah reports “to him I will give the land which he crossed on foot.” (Deuteronomy 1,36)

וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צוען מצרים, “and Chevron had been founded seven years earlier that Tzoan in Egypt.” Nachmanides writes that following the plain meaning of the text Chevron is identical with the town קרית ארבע that is familiar to us from the time of Avraham. That town had been named after the tallest of a race of giants whose name had been ארבע, and he had built that town. This is why it was named after him. Not only that, but the giants were also named after him. When we are told that in Chevron there used to live Achiman, Sheyshay and Talmay descendents of Anak, the Torah means that Arba had built that town already seven years earlier than Tzoan, a famous ancient town in Egypt had been founded. The point of all this is to inform us of the extraordinary long lifespan of this race of giants. They were not only of extraordinary physical proportions, but they also lived extraordinarily long lives. Their life spans made them parts of a number of generations, all of whom were born and buried while these people continued alive. It is possible that the word השמנה היא used by Moses as something worth investigating, was intended to show that Chevron, in spite of its being ancient, still produced such outstandingly good grapes. How much better must be the fruit in the parts of the country that had been under cultivation for far less time so that its soil had not yet become weakened.

At the grave of the Patriarchs. For if not so, why would he have gone to pray there instead of praying in another place. Rather one must say that it was because of the graves of the patriarchs.

V. 22. ויעלו וגו׳ ויבא וגו׳. Der Singular ויבא ist auffallend. Nach Sota 34 b bezieht man es auf Kaleb, der allein dorthin gegangen wäre, um auf dem Grabe der Väter sich Widerstandskraft gegen das Vorhaben seiner Gefährten zu erflehen, und findet eine Bestätigung darin, dass von ihm Dewarim 1, 36 gesagt ist: ולו אתן את הארץ אשר דרך בה, und in der Tat ihm Chebron zuteil geworden. Richter 1, 20: ויתנו לכלב את חברון כאשר דבר משה. Allein V. 28 berichten die zurückgekehrten Botschafter: וגם ילידי הענק ראינו שם. Demnach wäre Kaleb nicht allein in die Heimat der Anakiden gekommen. Es sind ja ganz eigentlich seine Gefährten, die dort, und so auch noch ausführlicher V. 33, von den Anakiden und dem Eindruck berichten, den ihr Anblick auf sie gemacht. Ja, Dewarim 1, 28 ist es ganz eigentlich der Bericht über diese Söhne Anaks, der die Verzagtheit des Volkes bis zur vollendeten Mutlosigkeit gesteigert. Ohnehin bietet das unserm Verse Vorangehende keinen Anhaltspunkt, das Subjekt von ויבא in Kaleb, oder überhaupt in einem einzelnen zu finden, und ist auch nach den Akzenten ויבא so eng mit ויעלו verbunden, dass beide nur von einem und demselben Subjekte ausgesagt erscheinen. Wir möchten daher in der Tat glauben, ויבא beziehe sich ebenso wie ויעלו auf alle Botschafter zusammen. Es ist aber ויבא im Singular ausgedrückt, um die Einmütigkeit und das Einheitliche der Gesinnung und Absicht anzudeuten, in welcher die Kundschafter bis Chebron zusammengewandert. "Sie gingen im Süden hinauf und kamen einheitlich bis Chebron". Dort aber sehen sie die Nachkommen des Riesengeschlechtes, und mit dem Eindruck, den deren Anblick, und wahrscheinlich auch, wie wir sehen werden, das ganze Fremdartige, in riesigen Dimensionen Erscheinende der Bauart der Stadt auf sie machte, begann die wankelmütige Sinnesänderung. Es ist nicht unmöglich, diese Auffassung mit der aus Sota zitierten zu vereinigen. Bis Chebron machte sich der hervorragende Einfluss Kalebs auf seine Gefährten geltend und hielt sie in einmütiger Gesinnung zusammen. In Chebron begann der Gegensatz und veranlasste Kaleb, sich auf dem Grabe der Väter Mut zum ausharrenden Widerstand zu erflehen. Und eben, weil dort sich Kalebs Treue im Gegensatz zu dem Abfall seiner Gefährten entschied, ward ihm später bei Verteilung des Landes Chebron zuteil, und eben Kaleb besiegte die Anakiden, deren bloßer Anblick seinen Gefährten den Mut gebrochen hatte (Josua 15, 14).

And they went up into the South: It is a recounting of a detail about that which happened with the people that went into the South. As they actually did not all go together, but rather divided the land, two by two - hence they [were able to] finish their touring in forty days. And so the verse is speaking about the two that went up into the South; and they are Caleb and one other [scout]. 

ויבא עד חברון, “he came as far as Chevron;” we have a sudden switch from the plural mode to the singular mode, which raises the question of who it was that the Torah speaks of in this verse. Our sages understand this to be a reference to Caleb whom they credit with the urge to pay his respects to the graves of the patriarchs and his desire to get moral support against the negative attitude of most of his companions. This is Rashi’s interpretation. He felt the need to do this as Moses had not prayed for him especially, as he had done for his colleague Joshua. An alternate interpretation of the line: “he came to Chevron:” it is customary for the Torah to apply the singular mode even when speaking about a number of spies or members of an ambush, as we know from Joshua 8,19 where we read: והאורב קם ממקומו, “and the ambush (the men comprising it) arose from where it had been hiding.”

שבע שנים נבנתה [NOW HEBRON] WAS BUILT SEVEN YEARS [BEFORE ZOAN IN EGYPT] — Is it possible that Ham (who was the father of both Canaan and Mizraim; cf. Genesis 10:6) would have built Hebron for Canaan, his younger son, before he built Zoan for Mizraim, his elder son? But the meaning is that it was furnished (lit., built up) with all excellencies seven times better than Zoan. It (Scripture), by mentioning this, means to tell you the excellency of the Land of Israel. For you have no rockier ground in the Land of Israel than Hebron, — for this reason, indeed, they set it apart for a place of burial — and there is, on the other hand, no soil in any country as good as that of Egypt, for it states, (Genesis 13:10) “like the garden of the Lord, viz., like the Land of Egypt”. Now Zoan must have been the best part in the land Egypt since the residence of the kings was there, as it is said, (Jes. 30:4) “For in Zoan were its princes”, and yet Hebron was seven times better than it (Sotah 34b; Ketuvot 112a).

(2) BEFORE TZO'AN OF EGYPT. According to the plain sense, it was built before Tzo'an, and also, the older city is more important than the new city. For Israel were familiar with the importance of Tzo'an; it was necessary to say that the cities of Israel were more important. And also, because of its age, there giants there who were from the early generations.

Built up. Rashi uses the word מובנה (lit. built up) which has the connotation of proliferation as in “and I will also be built (bear children) through her” (Bereishis 16:2).שנים (years) has the connotation of times, meaning that Chevron was seven times better than Tzo’an in Egypt.

ילידי הענק. V. 33 werden בני ענק als הנפילים und als מן הנפילים erklärt, also selber als נפילים (siehe zu Bereschit 6, 4), oder von נפילים stammend, somit ein gigantisches Riesengeschlecht, Reste des uralten, oder von ihm stammend. ענק bezeichnet den Schmuck, den Stolz des Halses (siehe Bereschit S. 212), in diesem Ausdruck: den hochgestreckten, stolz emporragenden Hals. Wir wissen nun aus Josua 11, 21, dass "Anaker" in mehreren Städten und Gegenden des Landes wohnten, und muss dieses Geschlecht von riesigem Wuchs einen so bedeutenden Bestandteil der Bevölkerung gebildet haben, dass Mosche Dewarim 9, 2 von dieser Bevölkerung überhaupt sagen konnte: עם גדול ורם בני ענקים אשר אתה ידעת ואתה שמעת מי יתיצב לפני בני ענק! Es begreift sich daraus auch die Schilderung der Städte als ערים גדלת ובצרת בשמים (daselbst), da naturgemäss Häuser und Städte den riesigen Dimensionen der Staturen entsprechen mussten. Wenn daher hier drei dieser Giganten namentlich als besondere Eigentümlichkeit Chebrons und als ילידי הענק genannt werden, und also auch die Kundschafter V. 28 es besonders hervorheben: וגם ילידי הענק ראינו שם, so müssen diese drei die Riesen unter den Riesen gewesen sein, es muss dies auch im Ausdruck ילידי הענק liegen, und dies nicht identisch mit dem allgemeinen בני הענק sein. בני הענק sind, wie בני ישראל, die Nachkommen Anaks. Es können ganze Generationen zwischen ihnen und dem alten Riesengeschlechte liegen. Ihr riesiger Wuchs mochte noch ihre Abstammung erkennen lassen und gleichwohl bedeutend unter den ihres Ahns gesunken sein. ילידי הענק, wie ילידי בית (Bereschit 17, 12 und Wajikra 22, 11) sind aber die Erzeugten der ersten Anaks, Reste der zweiten Generation, die somit durch ihre, den Riesenwuchs der ihrigen noch überragende gigantische Gestalt und ihr hohes in die graue Vorzeit hineinragendes Alter einen geradezu überwältigenden Eindruck machten. So heißen auch in Josua die übrigen einfach הענקים (11, 21), die drei zu Chebron wohnenden ששי אחימן und תלמי aber: ילידי הענק und wird dies eben zur Unterscheidung (15, 14) noch speziell hinzugefügt, nachdem sie bereits בני הענק genannt worden. Ebendaselbst 15, 13 wird ihr Vater: ארבע genannt, ארבע אבי הענק, woher Chebrons ursprünglicher Name קרית ארבע, und daselbst 14, 15 wird dieser Arba האדם הגדול בענקים, der Riese unter den Riesen genannt. Dessen unmittelbare Nachkommen wohnten daher noch in Chebron.

And he came to Chevron: One of them - and that was Caleb - came into the city and the fortress, whereas the other one was afraid to enter the city out of fear from the Anakites - and also [because] it is hard to escape from the fortress, should it be required. But the one (Caleb) came without fear, saw the Anakites and did not tremble from any [of this]. 

ושם אחימן, the Torah mentions this giant by name as the spies later on in their report refer to descendants of a race of giants whom they had encountered, i.e. in verse 28, where we read: “we also saw a race of giants there.” The Torah wanted us to know where precisely the spies had come face to face with such people. (B’chor shor)[All this is part of the peculiar fact that although the spies reported faithfully what they had seen and where, they drew the wrong conclusions from their observations. Ed.]

This informs you. A question is widely asked: Even according to the simple understanding of the verse there is a question as to what the verse is coming to teach you. The answer is that Rashi’s words here mean “Now [that I have explained this] the verse is easily understood…” Because according to the simple understanding there is a difficulty as to the significance of it being built seven years before, but according to the Midrashic explanation it is understandable that seven “informs you…”

צען מצרים .וחברון שבע וגו׳ muss als eine uralte Stadt bekannt gewesen sein, und heißt es nun hier, dass Chebron noch älter gewesen. Es ist nicht unmöglich, dass שבע שנים נבנתה nicht heiße, es sei sieben Jahre früher als Zoan gebaut worden, sondern: es sei sieben Jahre an seinem Bau gearbeitet worden, wie ויבנהו שבע שנים (Kön. I. 6, 38) und zwar lange vor Zoan, das doch auch als eine uralte Stadt bekannt war. Der Name קרית ארבע, den es früher trug, weist darauf hin, dass es von ארבע, dem riesigen Ahn des Riesengeschlechtes gebaut war und bezeichnet קריה eine stark befestigte Stadt. Vergl. Dewarim 2, 36 לא היתה קריה אשר שגבה ממנו. Chebron bot daher den Anblick einer aus uralter Zeit herüberragenden, mit großem Fleiße von Riesenhänden aufgebauten gewaltigen Burg, und erhöhte somit den überwältigenden Eindruck, den seine riesigen Bewohner auf den Ankömmling machten.

וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צוען מצרים, “and the town Chevron had been built seven years earlier than the capital of Egypt, Tzoan.” The race of giants had not yet died out, as they had survived from earlier generations. The reason why this is of importance is to tell us that the conclusion drawn by the spies that the land of Canaan “consumes its inhabitants,” (verse 32) was contradicted by what they themselves reported as having seen.

Barren. Boulders. Indicating a barren land which produces no fruit, as does a fertile land.

לפני צוען מצרים, “prior to Tzoan in Egypt.” The Torah reminds you of the importance of the land of Canaan, compared to the land of Egypt before they had emigrated from it. The spies had been aware of these historical facts, [and they should have concluded from this that the land of Canaan certainly does not “consume its inhabitants.” Ed.].

זמורה (lit., AND THEY CUT DOWN FROM THENCE) A BRANCH [AND ONE CLUSTER OF GRAPES] — i.e. a vine branch with a cluster of grapes hanging from it (not as the text might suggest, that they cut a branch and they cut also a cluster of grapes),

With a cluster of grapes hanging from it. [The meaning is] as if Scripture had written “from there they cut off a branch with one cluster of grapes” rather than interpreting [that they cut off] “a branch” by itself and a “cluster” by itself; for if so why would they have cut off the branch at all, since it had no fruit.

V. 23. שכלn (siehe Bereschit 27, 45), זמרה (siehe Bereschit 43, 11), מוט (siehe Wajikra 26, 13).

ויכרתו משם זמורה ואשכול, “they cut from there a branch with a cluster of grapes.” From this little detail we are to learn two lessons, (i.e. from the letter ו at the beginning of the word אשכול). They made a pole to carry the cluster by.

וישאהו במוט בשנים AND THEY BARE IT UPON A POLE BETWEEN TWO — From what is implied in the statement “And they bare it upon a pole”, do I not know that it was carried by two men”? why then does it add the word ‎בשנים?‎ It means, not as you assume, “by two men” but “upon two poles”. How was that done? Eight of the spies bore the cluster of grapes. Besides these, one spy took the fig and one the pomegranate, but Joshua and Caleb did not take anything (although all of them were bidden to do so; cf. v. 20), because the very essence of their (the other spies’) intention was only to bring an evil report: “Just as its fruit is extraordinary in size, so is its people extraordinary in size”. — Now if you wish to know how much was the burden of each of them, go and learn from the weight of the stones which they erected at Gilgal; for it is related (Joshua 4:5 and 20) that each man lifted by himself one stone from out of the Jordan on to his shoulder, and set it up at Gilgal; — and our Rabbis ascertained the weight of each stone to be forty Seahs, and it is an accepted fact that a load which a person can by himself lift up on to his shoulder is only the third of the load he can carry if people assist him in lifting it up (Sotah 34b).

Do I not know that it was with two? Meaning that when it is written “they carried it,” it implies that there were two, given that the minimum number of plural (i.e. they) is two. Why then does the Torah say “two”? The reason why Rashi did not explain this on the verse (apparently, in the text of Rashi that the Sifsei Chachomim had, this is a continuation of Rashi’s previous comment), is because one would have said that “two” refers to the branch — that they carried the branch on one pole and the cluster of grapes on another. However according to the explanation that there was a branch with a cluster of grapes hanging from it, one concludes that the branch and the cluster are one. Therefore there is a difficulty as to why is it written “two,” and Rashi answers that it was with two poles.

וישאוהו במוט בשנים, “they bore it on a pole between the two of them. The pomegranates and the cluster of grapes were carried separately by different men.

Eight took the cluster. Meaning that when Moshe said “take from the fruit of the land” (v. 20) it implied that they should take some of every fruit, so why did they only take three types, as the Torah writes “one cluster of grapes … some figs and some pomegranates.” Rather it is certain that “eight took one cluster…” Rashi then explains why they did not take from every fruit, for surely Moshe had said to take from all of the fruit. He explains that it was “since the sole purpose of the others…” For if they had not intended to deliver a slanderous report, they should not have taken a whole cluster of grapes, and they would have been able to take all of the [other kinds of] fruits of the land, or they should not have taken a cluster at all. You should know that they intended to deliver a slanderous report, because we say in the Gemara (Sotah 34a) that “if you want to know [how much one of them weighed]…” But one could ask: What can you learn from the stones that that they erected in Gilgal? Perhaps there is a difference and here they were not carrying a load commensurate to their strength. Rather it is certain that the inference here is because if they had not carried commensurate to their strength, why did they take only three types of fruit? Thus it is certain that they intended to deliver a slanderous report. Re’m quotes the Gemara and Rashi in Maseches Sotah which explain all of this.

על אודות האשכול אשר כרתו משם בני ישראל. The Canaanites were surprised about these Israelites who considered this cluster of grapes as something so extraordinary that they cut it off the vine and transported it all the way to their people without bothering to eat it. They were well aware that their country produced far bigger clusters of grapes than the one the spies had taken. The name נחל אשכול reflects the Canaanites’ amazement and who named the location thus.

למקום ההוא קרא נחל אשכול, he called that place: "the valley of the cluster." The subject in the verse is G'd who had named this place in anticipation of its significance in the future. We know this because the Torah described the spies at arriving at נחל אשכול before any mention was made about their having cut off a cluster of grapes. [Besides, the word קרא as opposed to ויקרא shows that the place had already been known by that name. Ed.]

The Torah writes: אשר כרתו משם בני ישראל, "which the Israelites had cut from there." You may well ask that many people on many occasions have cut clusters of grapes in that valley. Why would the cluster the Israelites had cut there be singled out? The remarkable thing was that though only 12 Israelites had come there at the time, the Torah describes them as if they were the whole Jewish people, i.e. בני ישראל. Seeing that these 12 men were the representatives of the people the Torah describes them as the people, i.e. בני ישראל. We find something parallel in Exodus 12,6 where the Torah writes: ושחטו כל עדת ישראל "and the whole community of Israel will slaughter." As a rule the priest slaughtered the Passover; seeing he was the delegate of the people the act of slaughtering is attributed to the people themselves.

וישבו מתור הארץ מקץ ארבעים יום AND THEY RETURNED FROM THE SEARCHING OF THE LAND AT THE END OF FORTY DAYS — But surely it was four hundred Parsangs (Persian miles) by four hundred Parsangs (Megillah 3a). And the journey of an average man is ten Parsangs a day (Pesachim 94a) and consequently it was a distance of forty days from east to west alone, whilst they traveled during that period along its length and breadth! But the fact is that it was manifest before the Holy One, blessed be He, that He would make a decree against them, "a day for a year" (cf. Numbers 14:34), therefore He shortened the road for them (i. e. He made them cover ground rapidly) (Midrash Tanchuma, Sh'lach 8).

מקץ ארבעים יום, “at the end of forty days;” they had commenced their mission on the 29th day of Sivan, and concluded it on the 8th day of the month of Av close to evening. The month of Tammuz in that year had thirty days. (Talmud, tractate Taanit folio 29)

וילכו ויבאו AND THEY WENT AND CAME [TO MOSES] — What is the force of “they went” (we have been informed that they had returned; why afterwards make any reference to their going on the journey)? It is intended to compare their “going” with their “coming" to Moses! How was their coming to Moses? With an evil plan! So, too, was their “going” on the journey with an evil plan (i.e. that when they were travelling they had already resolved to bring back an evil report)! (Sotah 35a).

אל מדבר פארן קדשה, to the part of the desert of Paran facing Kadesh Barnea.

וילכו ויבאו, they went and they came, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us that the spies "went" when we have already been informed of their going on their way in at least three verses? Our sages in Sotah 35 say that the Torah wanted to compare their return to their departure. Just as they returned with wicked advice their departure had already been marked by with evil intent." Why was the Torah interested in informing us of this detail? All that mattered was the advice they came back with!

וישיבו אותם דבר, “they brought back word to them.” They did not first go to their respective tents upon their return after a forty day absence, but went immediately to the centre of the camp to make their slanderous report. The slander consisted of the words ארץ אוכלת יושביה, “it is a land which consumes its inhabitants” (verse 32). Our sages in Sotah 35 explain that this impression the spies formed was due to G’d at that time having brought a pestilence on the Canaanites so that they would be busy burying their dead and not pay attention to the 12 men who were spying out their country. The very miracles which had been performed on their behalf became the cause of these spies slandering the country. They caused the Israelites to become afraid of the Amalekites whom they reported seeing in the southern part of the country (verse 29). They hinted that there was no way of entering the land from the south as these people were all physically far stronger than the Israelites. Seeing that the powerful Canaanite people occupied the east and the west, this would also not be a good place to start the conquest. The Emorite in the mountain was certainly another reason for not attempting the invasion from that direction. They succeeded in frightening the people hinting that even Moses and Aaron were afraid and that is why they had agreed to their mission.
Calev silenced the people by pretending that he shared the views of the other spies before he had his say when he told them עלה נעלה וירשנו אותה, “we can certainly ascend and dispossess these people” (verse 30). He argued that if these people are strong then we are stronger than they. As soon as Calev made his statement the spies exclaimed that there was no chance to ascend as these people “are stronger than we.” This was something that they had not dared spell out previously when they had contented themselves with such hints as “the Amalekite is in the South,” etc. When they said in verse 31 “we cannot go up against these people,” instead of saying: “we cannot go into the cities,” this was a deliberate exaggeration. They meant that they would not even be able to prevail against these people if they left their fortified towns and came out to fight. The reason they used the term עליה in connection with conquest, a most unusual word for that purpose, is that they referred to a military encounter in an open field. The word occurs in this context in reports of pitched battles in the field (Nachmanides). Having first undermined the people’s self confidence by hints and allusions, they proceeded to frighten them further by such statements as that the land (even if conquered) would consume its people (verse 32). Seeing that they had already referred to the inhabitants of that land as being powerful, they then said that these people were more powerful than G’d, i.e. the alternate meaning of the words כי חזק הוא ממנו, “it is more powerful than He.” They implied that the owner of the land would be unable to remove his property from there.
They further frightened the people when they reported having seen the nefilim, people whom they had previously described as בני הענקים, “descendants of the giants.” When they now referred to these same people as נפילים, a word related to נופל, “falling,” they implied that at the very sight of these people the onlooker would fall down in sheer fright of them. They implied that these people were the same as the ones described in Genesis 6,4 and variously described as בני האלוהים, “the sons of G’d,” or “fallen angels,” at any rate super-human creatures with great power. As one may faint when beholding an angel, the sight of them would inspire shock and weakness in the beholder. Later they appeared to tone down their description by merely calling these people ענקים, “giants.” In fact, this was a play on words suggesting that the sight of these people inspired fear at the very sight of their height. The word reflects the awe that someone feels when he sees a very high tower. They referred to their experience of being allowed to view such giants with their own eyes. They implied that former generations such as the antediluvian people were of course familiar with such phenomena and were not overawed, whereas the present generation which was physically so inferior could not behold such phenomena without becoming frightened of them. Due to the changed conditions on earth after the deluge, the remnants of these people were actually referred to by Moses as רפאים i.e. the “weakened ones” (giants). Deut. 3,11 describes examples being such giants as Og, King of Bashan. (Compare Tanchuma Chukat 25, and Sotah 34). Most of them had been killed by Amrafel, (Genesis 14,13), Og being the exception. The Talmud describes stunted giants of the caliber of Og as comparable to unripe olives which never attain their growth potential (Baba Batra 17). The reason Og had been saved from the deluge was for the sake of Avraham as well as for the sake of the Jewish people. It was Og who had told Avraham that his nephew Lot had been captured (Niddah 61), and at the time when he opposed the request of the Jewish people to traverse his land and attacked them (Numbers 21,33) he thereby provided the people with the excuse to conquer his territory and to annex it. G’d meant for this piece of land to be populated by morally superior people like the Israelites.
This people who had so recently experienced miracles upon miracles at the hand of G’d on their behalf, had forgotten them or they had receded so far into their subconscious that they were once more קטני אמונה, lacking in faith, and even feared the Amalekites whom they had already defeated on the battlefield less than 2 years previously. (Exodus 17,13). Not only that, but they wished themselves to have died in Egypt rather than to have experienced the revelation of G’d at Mount Sinai, etc., when they exclaimed: “wish we had died in Egypt or the desert” (14,3). They actually accused G’d of having redeemed them from Egypt only to let them perish at this time. They preferred returning to slavery in Egypt to their present situation!
At this point Moses and Aaron fell upon their faces in a profound feeling of shame that the people had so disgraced themselves that they had become guilty of publicly desecrating the name of the Lord. They could not believe that all the people had accepted the version of the ten spies. Concerning this event Solomon said in Proverbs 26,6: “he who sends a message by a fool, cuts off his own feet and drinks violence.” He meant that if someone pulls back his feet excessively (in the effort to avoid having to go to work), he will reap violence.” The effect will be conterproductive. Similarly, here; Joshua and Calev, who in a psychologically futile effort, tried to calm the people by telling them that with the help of the Lord the land would be conquered, produced the opposite effect so that G’d had to rescue them from the wrath of the people who were about to stone them to death. Their vain attempt, though well-intentioned, resulted only in the people becoming guilty even of attempted murder in addition to their other sins.

To compare their going. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi explains in the Gemara (Sotah 35a) that “they went” is apparently superfluous, and given that it is written “and came,” Scripture should have merely said “they came to Moshe.” The explanation of his comment is that since the Torah had already recounted that “they returned from spying the land” (v. 25), why does it now mention their departure? Rashi answers that is was “to compare…”

V. 26. וילכו ויבאו וגו׳. Sie hatten bei ihrer Rückkehr von vornherein die Absicht, nicht erst Mosche und Aharon, sondern sogleich dem ganzen Volke das Resultat ihrer Sendung mitzuteilen, und eben darin spricht sich die Böswilligkeit ihres Verfahrens aus. Sonst hätten sie zuerst Mosche und Aharon Bericht erstattet und hätten sich Rat und Belehrung erholt. Allein das wollten sie eben nicht, sahen vielmehr in Opposition gegen Mosche und Aharon ihr und des Volkes alleiniges Heil. Ihr Bericht war sofort eine Anklage Mosche und Aharons in Gegenwart des Volkes und eine Aufforderung an dieses, sich vor Mosche und Aharons Untergang drohenden Absichten zu retten. ויראום את פרי הארץ: ihr ganzer Bericht ist eine Deutung dieses sprechenden Beweises. Aus der fremdartigen Größe der Früchte sollten sie sich ein Bild von der überwältigenden Größe des Menschenschlages und alles anderen damit Korrespondierenden machen.

אל מדבר פארן קדשה, to the desert of Paran, toward Kadesh.” The desert of Paran, the desert of Tzin, Kadesh Barnea, and Ritma, were all very near one another. All this is clear from Numbers 33,18, as well as verse 36 there. Compare also Numbers 32,8.

וישיבו אתם דבר AND THEY BROUGHT BACK WORD UNTO THEM — unto Moses and Aaron (for the Congregation is mentioned separately).

To Moshe. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source? Perhaps they brought it back even to Yisroel! The answer is that if “them” here refers back to “the entire congregation of the Bnei Yisroel” mentioned above, why is it necessary to repeat “and to the entire congregation” afterwards.

We may understand the verse better when we keep in mind something we learned in Kidushin 39. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Yaakov as saying that when we find a מצוה written in the Torah and its reward is spelled out, the reward is paid only after the resurrection, i.e. a considerable period of time even after one's death. This explained the famous incident when a father ordered his son to climb a tree and take the young chicks and the son fell off the ladder and was killed. This occurred in spite of the fact that he had been in the process of fulfilling both the commandment of שלוח הקן and the commandment of honouring his father at one and the same time. In both instances the Torah promised long life for the fulfilment of this commandment (Deut. 5,16, Deut. 7,22) To the question of what happened to the fulfilment of the Torah's promise of longevity, Rabbi Yaakov answered that the Torah referred to a life which by itself was long, i.e. that the fulfilment of that commandment assured one that one would be resurrected in due course. The Talmud adds that Rabbi Yaakov was an eye witness to the occurrence mentioned. To the question that perhaps the son who climbed the ladder had sinful intentions at that moment, the answer given is that G'd does not punish someone for mere sinful intentions when these intentions have not yet been translated into practice. The Talmud then questions that idolatrous intentions are punishable even if they had not been carried out. The Talmud answers that Rabbi Yaakov also made the following statement: "should you believe that there is a reward in this life for מצות performed, then why did the fact that the son was involved on a sacred mission not at least protect him against this mishap? Do we not have a rule enunciated by Rabbi Eleazar that people engaged in the execution of a sacred duty do not suffer mishaps either on the way out or on the way home from such a מצוה?" The Talmud answers that the ladder in question was not stable and under conditions of obvious hazard Rabbi Eleazar's dictum does not apply. There is another difficulty here and that is that the Talmud in Sotah 21 comes to the conclusion that being involved in the performance of a מצוה does protect the person involved against a new hazard though it does not save him from an existing hazard which he had been aware of at that time. In view of all this, what proof does Rabbi Yaakov have to offer that the מצוה did not protect the son in the example he witnessed against idolatrous thoughts while he climbed the ladder The Talmud in Sotah quotes the opinion of Rav Yosef that the act of performing a מצוה protects that person against hazards as well as against becoming guilty of a culpable sin. His opinion is refuted by the example of Doeg and Achitofel whose immersion in Torah study did not protect them against the sin of bad-mouthing David so that they both became heretics in the end. Seeing that Rav Yosef's theory has been refuted, how can the Talmud in Kidushin 39 justify refuting the opinion of Rabbi Yaakov? [The author appears to mean: "what other alternative is there to explain the phenomenon Rabbi Yaakov had witnessed?" Ed.]

Some scholars make distinctions between the performance of different categories of מצות. According to these authorities the example in Sotah where the Talmud said that even being engaged in the performance of a מצוה does not protect one against the evil urge dealt with someone who did not perform the מצוה לשמה, for the sake of performing G'd's bidding but for an ulterior motive. When the Talmud asks why being engaged in the performance of a מצוה should not protect such a person against committing a sin (inadvertently) the question referred to someone who performs the מצוה לשמה, for the sake of Heaven. This distinction is nonsense. If there were some substance to that distinction the Talmud should have rejected the query arising from the boy who fell off the ladder by merely stating that he did not perform the commandments in question for the sake of Heaven. This would have been a far more plausible scenario than the forced explanation that he might have entertained idolatrous thoughts at that moment. Such an answer would also have forestalled the question why the deed did not at least protect the son against the wiles of the evil urge. Performance of a commandment for ulterior motives certainly could not be presumed to protect such a person against the evil urge.

I believe that the correct answer to our problem is that the eventual conclusion which the Talmud accepts is the viewpoint of Rav Yoseph that while a person is engaged in the performance of a מצוה it does both protect him against hazards as well as save him from giving in to his evil urge. This is the reason that Rabbi Yaakov raised the whole problem when he witnessed the death of the son who was engaged in the performance of not only one but two מצות at the time. This son was still engaged in the performance of the מצוה when he descended the ladder in order to bring the chicks to his father. Since we find that the Talmud in Sotah rejected the viewpoint of Rav Yoseph based on the fact that neither Doeg nor Achitophel were protected by their immense amount of Torah study against the wiles of the evi urge, this is not a satisfactory refutation of Rav Yoseph's approach to the subject. The Talmud in Chagigah 15 states that the Torah study of both Doeg and Achitophel had never been for the sake of Heaven. They had always entertained ulterior motives so that their Torah study had always been flawed. The fact that they fell victim to Satan's urgings therefore does nothing to undermine the theory that the performance of a מצוה protects the doer against hazards and saves him from the evil urge. According to Tossaphot both Achitophel and Doeg had been guilty of sins before they accumulated the merit of Torah study. Their Torah study was more important to them than their reverence for G'd the Lawgiver. No wonder that their מצות did not protect them against the evil urge.

Furthermore, even assuming that we would accept at face value the opinion which refutes Rav Yoseph's approach basing itself on the fate of Doeg and Achitophel, all this would prove is that the merit of תורה does not protect such a person at the time when he is not actively engaged in studying Torah. At the time Doeg and Achitophel fell victim to the evil urge they had not been engaged in Torah study. Rav Yoseph had only claimed that the protective powers of מצוה performance are in force at the time the person in danger is actively engaged in the performance of the מצוה. The Talmud never tried to refute this aspect of Rav Yoseph's theory as expounded by Rava. [Anyone studying the text in Sotah 21 will find that Rav Yoseph considers the protective powers of Torah study as superior to the protective powers of the performance of any other category of מצוה. Ed.] Although Rava is forced to reconcile a statement in the Baraitha by explaining that the difference between the protective power of the merit of Torah study-vis-a vis the merit of performing any of the other מצות is like the difference between נר מצוה ותורה אור, that a single מצוה is like a candle and can only protect against forthcoming hazards, whereas the Torah is like the source of light itself, his words are not compelling. We can safely say that an ordinary מצוה has the power both to ward off hazards as well as save one from the evil urge during the period the endangered person is actively engaged in performing the מצוה. When a person is not engaged in the performance of a מצוה, the protective powers of the last מצוה he did perform are non-existent. As far as the merit of Torah study is concerned, however, such merit protects both against hazards as well as against the evil urge while one is engaged in such Torah study. When one is not engaged actively in Torah study the merit of one's previous study provides protection against hazards but not against the evil urge. When the Talmud there discusses what kind of merit protects the wife suspected of infidelity against the lethal effects of the מים המאררים, the cursed waters, the merit of Torah is one such factor though women are under no obligation to study Torah. They are protected by the Torah study of their husbands in accordance with the view expressed in Sotah 21 by Ravina. When we follow this approach Rabbi Yaakov proved from the incident with the ladder that even being engaged in the performance of a מצוה does not protect the person performing it in this world.

Furthermore, when we examine the whole subject more profoundly we can even understand the Talmud in Kidushin according to the view expressed by Rava in Sota 21. We had a difficulty, namely that even if the person performing the מצוה had been guilty of harbouring idolatrous thoughts at the time, at least he should have been saved from physical danger even if his merit did not protect him against the evil urge, just as it does protect (for a limited period) the Sotah, the woman suspected of infidelity who drank the cursed waters. In that instance we speak about a woman who most certainly is guilty of a major misdemeanour and yet her merits provide protection for her even according to the viewpoint of Rava. In our instance (Rabbi Yaakov's witnessing the death of the son who was actively engaged in the performance of both honouring his father and sending away the mother bird before taking her young) the merit was immediate and yet it did not help. In order to answer how this could have happened to the son the only answer is that he was engaged in idolatrous thoughts at the time he carried out his father's bidding. Such thoughts made him the equivalent of a total heretic and stripped him of all protective merit he had ever accumulated. He had made himself equivalent to a Gentile in all respects so that no מצוה performed previously could act as a shield for him. Alternatively, we may say that when one is engaged in idolatrous thoughts the מצוה one proceeds to perform in such a state of mind does not confer any kind of protection. Rabbi Yaakov counters all questions by saying that if we would asssume that the promise of reward in the Torah applied to our lifetime, the promise of the Torah of longevity would indeed have protected the son against becoming guilty of a sin which brings disaster in its wake. Even Rava who holds that the merit of the מצוה protects against disaster, accepts that this includes protection against committing the kind of sin which brings disaster in its wake.

We have established that according to the view of Rav Yoseph a person is protected from the evil urge during the time he performs a מצוה. Rava also agrees that such a person is at least protected against the evil urge leading him into a sin which by itself leads to disaster for him in this life. This is why our verse here has to provide the answer to the question why the מצוה the spies were engaged in did not protect them against falling victim to the evil urge to commit a sin which would lead to immediate disaster? After all, the Torah has written explicitly that they went at the command of G'd through Moses. This fact should have protected them from the disaster that overtook them. In order to explain this the Torah wrote וילכו ויבאו, "they went and they came back," i.e. that their departure was not motivated by the desire to perform a מצוה, just as their return was not motivated by a desire to be שלוחי מצוה, men who had been delegated to perform a מצוה. On the contrary, their whole mission was one in which they they were engaged in being sinful. As a result the so-called מצוה the spies were engaged in by carrying out Moses' mission did not protect them against disaster.

Looking ot our verse from a moral/ethical point of view, the words וילכו ויבאו may be understood in connection with something we have learned in Sotah 3. Kabbalists interpret the statement in the Talmud that one does not commit a sin unless a רוח שטות, had taken possession of the prospective sinner first to mean that if an outstanding personality is faced with the temptation to commit a sin he does not fall victim to such temptation until after his soul has left him and has been replaced by an inferior soul called רוח שטות, a sense of folly or madness. Seeing that our verses bear testimony to the fact that the spies had been outstanding personalities, Princes of Israel, the Torah testifies that when they returned to Moses with an evil report הלכו, they had just departed, i.e. their former spirit had departed from them and been replaced by an inferior, foolish one, and it was in this new capacity that they "arrived," i.e. came back.

The word וילכו also hints that this trip the spies took to the land of Canaan was their only and final one. They would never again come to that land. It was what we call הליכות עולם, something final, absolute. The words ויבאו אל משה explain why they did not already die on the way seeing they had perverted their mission. G'd honoured Moses who had despatched these spies by allowing them to return to their commander-in-chief. Had they died on the way, Moses would have been accused of all kinds of things. Under the circumstances, the fact that the spies had been able to traverse the land for forty days without one of them coming to any harm was in itself proof that they had been under G'd's protection all the time. Their very safe return should have strengthened the people's faith in G'd's ability and willingness to help them defeat the powerful people inhabiting that land. The whole episode is a prime example of Hoseah 14,10: ישרים דרכי ה׳ צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם, "the paths of the Lord are smooth; the righteous can walk on them while the sinners will stumble on them."

אל מדבר פארן קדשה, to the desert Paran at Kadesh. Why did the Torah not mention the place קדש at the time when Moses despatched these spies? Perhaps the word קדשה is an allusion to the fact that the Israelites stayed there for a long period due to the negative report of the spies and its acceptance by the people. We are told in Deut. 1,46 that the people stayed at Kadesh a very long time (19 years according Rashi). It took another 19 years for the people to reach the borders of the land of Canaan after their departure from Kadesh. Seeing that we were told that Kadesh was near the border of the land of Canaan, the spies were responsible for the Israelites having to remain in that general area for 38 years.

וישיבו אותם דבר, and they brought back word to them (to Moses and Aaron). At this juncture the Torah glosses over the evil nature of their report and merely describes it as "a report." The Torah makes it a principle not to divulge the evil people perpetrated unless it became necessary to do so. One of the outstanding examples of that principle is the failure of the Torah to report that Chur was murdered on the day the people made the golden calf. Avodah Zarah 4 claims that even the sin of the golden calf itself was only recorded in detail to teach that if Israel were to sin again collectively, the memory of the sin of the golden calf would serve as proof that repentance would result in atonement of even such a severe sin. [the author's interpretation of that passage. In fact the Talmud says that the sin had only been committed in order to teach this lesson, Ed.] Similarly, in our instance; as long as the Israelites had not voiced a wish to return to Egypt (14,4) and had thereby rebelled against the Lord the Torah did not need to tell us what precisely had been the catalyst that prompted such a reaction by the people. Once the people voiced the wish to return to Egypt, however, the Torah had to reveal that the spies had slandered ארץ ישראל. The Torah had to tell us why the Jewish people had to remain in the desert for forty years.

ואת כל העדה, and to the whole community, etc. This means that the spies chose to report to Moses and Aaron when the latter were together with the whole community. They did not deliver their report in the privacy of Moses' office as would have been appropriate. Their intent was to embarass Moses in the eyes of the Jewish people.

Alternatively, the words וישיבו אותם דבר could have been meant to refer to the report the content of which the Torah is about to reveal. The Torah merely tells us that they first reported what they had to say to Moses. Immediately afterwards they told the people directly.

A third possibility is one which takes into consideration what we explained on verse one i.e. that the Israelites understood the spies' mission as having quite a different objective from what Moses intended the mission to be. The spies reported to Moses and Aaron according to their understanding of the mission; subsequently they reported to the people at large according to their understanding of the purpose of the mission.

זבת חלב ודבש [WE CAME INTO THE LAND … AND SURELY] IT FLOWETH WITH MILK AND HONEY — They stated this because no fabricated statement in which one does not say at least some true words at first can in the end be maintained (Sotah 35a).

AND SURELY IT FLOWETH WITH MILK AND HONEY. Since Moses had commanded them to see what the Land is, whether it is fat or lean²⁴Further, Verse 20. the spies reported to him that it is fat, and surely it floweth with milk and honey. And in answer to his question whether there are trees therein or not²⁴Further, Verse 20. they reported to him, and this is its fruit⁵²In Verse 27 before us. for so he had commanded them, to show it to him.²⁴Further, Verse 20. Now in all this they said the truth, and gave a report about those matters which they had been commanded [to find out],⁵³Verses 27-28. therefore they should [indeed] have said [as in fact they did] that the people that dwell in the Land are fierce and the cities are fortified;⁵³Verses 27-28. for it was their duty to bring back words of truth to them that sent them,⁵⁴Proverbs 22:21. and Moses had commanded them [to see] whether they are strong or weak,⁵⁵Verse 18. [and what cities they are that they dwell in], whether in camps, or in strongholds.⁵⁶Verse 19. But the wickedness of the spies consisted in saying the word ephes [“nevertheless” — ‘Nevertheless’ the people that dwell in the Land are fierce],⁵³Verses 27-28. which signifies something negative and beyond human capability, something impossible of achievement, under any circumstances, similar to the expressions: ‘Ha’aphes’ lanetzach chasdo (Is His mercy ‘clean gone’ for ever?);⁵⁷Psalms 77:9. The thought implied is clear: It is impossible to think that His mercy has been withdrawn forever. and there is none else; ‘ephes’ (there is no other) G-d.⁵⁸Isaiah 45:14. Here too, the thought suggested is abundantly clear: It is inconceivable that there is another deity beside the true One G-d. Thus the spies told Moses that the Land is fertile and surely it floweth with milk and honey⁵³Verses 27-28. and the fruits are good, but it is impossible to fight against the people because they are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.⁵³Verses 27-28.

וגם זבת חלב ודבש היא; not only is it a good land, but it deserves the superlative “a land flowing with milk and honey.” The land yields its bounty without man having to engage in backbreaking labour. It produces abundantly in all areas of agriculture and cattle breeding.

ויספרו לו, They told him, etc. The Torah specifies: "to him" instead of to them, i.e. Moses and Aaron. The trick the spies played on Moses was that whereas ostensibly they addressed their words to Moses, they ensured that the whole community could hear them at the same time. The Torah teaches us this nuance by adding ויאמרו without the suffix "to him"; in this way we would understand that they made sure the people would hear what they had to say.

וגם זבת חלב ודבש, “and it does flow with milk and honey.” Nachmaides writes that the word וגם “and also,” is in response to Moses having instructed the spies to find out if the land was “fat” or “lean” as well as to the question “does the country have trees or not?” The answer to the latter question was: “and this is its fruit.” Up until this point the spies reported the truth, replying to the questions that they had been asked to find out about. They should have continued to report that the people dwelling on the land were indeed stout hearted, and that they lived in fortified towns as Moses had also wanted to find out if the people were stout -hearted or weak willed. Their wickedness was displayed when they added the gratuitous word אפס, which is a term that introduces a contrary diminutive element, nullifying something that had been said before. It is a word that describes man’s impotence to carry out his plans; we find this word in Psalms 77,9 האפס לנצח חסדו, גמר אומר לדור ודור, “Has His faithfulness disappeared forever?” Will His promise be unfulfilled for all times?” By the use of this word they negated their previous statements about the excellence of the land into the reverse by proclaiming that their chances to conquer that land were nil,אפס .

Some truth. For if not so and their intention was only for the bad, why did they start with something that was the opposite of their intention. Rather one must say that “a falsehood…”

The beginning of their words were to grumble. For they should not have spoken to them like this.

באנו אל הארץ, "we have come to the land, etc." They meant that they arrived there without mishap. They added the words: "to which you have sent us," to make dear that they attributed their safe return from the land of Canaan to the fact that they had carried out Moses' commandment faithfully. Alternatively, they may have referred to the fact that 40 days earlier Moses had accompanied them on the commencement of their mission. They now acknowledged that Moses' merit then had assisted them in traversing the land and returning safely. Perhaps the words ויספרו לו were a reference by the Torah to the spies acknowledging that Moses' merit had assisted them. When the Torah failed to use the word לו after ויאמרו, the reason is that what followed applied to the Israelites as a whole and not to Moses in particular.

וגם זבת חלב ודבש, "and it does indeed flow with milk and honey." The word וגם, "and also," is justified as it is a continuation of a previous comment the spies made, namely that they experienced G'd's protective hand while traversing the land. The goodness of the land was an additional positive element they were able to comment upon.

בצרות is an expression for strength. Its rendering in the Targum is כריכן, a term for circular fortresses, for in the Aramaic language כריך means round.

אפס כי עז העם, it is impossible to conquer the land since we cannot defeat its people. Not only are the people tough, but the cities are fortified. The inhabitants of the land, the Amelakites hate us fiercely. They will engage in a preemptive war against us so that we should not even get near their borders.

אפס כי עז העם, "However the people are tough, etc." Seeing that Moses had specifically asked them to determine if the people who inhabited that land were strong or weak, they now had to report that the people were indeed formidable. Not only that but they dwelled in heavily fortified towns. They concluded that part of their report by mentioning that they had observed giants in the land. They stated this so that the Israelites should not think that the fact that the towns were fortified revealed weakness and lack of self confidence by the inhabitants.

אפס כי עז העם...והערים וגו', “But…the people are powerful,… and the cities greatly fortified.” Even though by saying this they contradicted what they had said previously, as Rashi had pointed out, by reporting that the people lived in fortified cities they had indicated that they were afraid of invaders, only if they lived in open, unwalled cities, did this signify their confidence in their ability to repel attackers. Perhaps the spies did not even realize that their factual report contradicted the conclusions they had drawn.

V. 28. אפס, eigentlich: dies alles ist aber nichts, verliert allen Wert, denn das Volk ist zu stark. בצרות גדלת מאוד, nicht הצרות גדלת, in ungemeiner Großartigkeit fest, von Riesen gegen Riesen befestigt; darum für gewöhnliche Menschen völlig uneinnehmbar. וגם ילידי הענק – siehe zu V. 22.

אפס כי עז העם היושב בארץ והערים בצורות גדולותת however “the people are very fierce, and the cities are fortified and great;” they described two major drawbacks to the assumptions that these people were easy to dislodge. In addition to this, they spoke of the giants they had seen, וגם ילידי ענק ראינו שם, “and we have also seen the children of Anak (a giant) there.” We have read in Deuteronomy 9,2, that Moses reminded the new generation of Israelites that they had heard about the awesome reputation of these giants already from their parents who had described them as invincible

והערים בצורות גדולות מאד וגם בני ענקים ראינו שם, “and the cities are greatly fortified, and we even saw descendants of the dreaded giants there.” They added further:

The words העם היושב עליה also mean that the people do not only dwell in towns but are scattered all over the land, i.e. they are not afraid of being attacked. You will find that Bamidbar Rabbah on verse 29 interprets the fact that the Amalekites dwelled in the South of the land as proof that they did not live in townships. The words היושב בה are a hint that only people of extraordinary physique are able to live on that land successfully.

עמלק יושב וגו׳ THE AMALEKITES ABIDE [IN THE LAND OF THE SOUTH] — Because they had already been “burnt” by Amalek, the spies mentioned him first in order to terrify them (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Sh'lach 9).

They also said, Amalek dwelleth in the land of the south⁵⁹Verse 29. by which they intended to allege that there was no direction from which they could enter the Land, as all [its inhabitants] are strong men, for Amalek dwells in the south, and the Canaanite in the west and in the east, and the Amorite in the mountains.⁵⁹Verse 29. Thus they reported that which they had been sent [to find out], in such a way as to discourage the people’s confidence by means of allusion [and not openly], because they were afraid of Moses and Aaron. Thus they gave an answer to all that Moses commanded them [to ascertain], except for his statement [that they were to see] whether they are few or many,⁵⁵Verse 18. to which they gave no reply at all, nor did they report back [whether it is] good.⁵⁶Verse 19. This is because they intended to tell the people afterwards by way of an evil report, it is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof,⁶⁰Verse 32. [thus implying] that its people are few but very strong. Now the people understood their intention and so all the congregation which was present began to murmur, this being the sense of the expression, And Caleb stilled the people,⁶¹Verse 30. for he silenced them and said, We should go up at once, for we are well able to overcome it,⁶¹Verse 30. meaning: “It is true that the people are strong, but we shall be stronger than them and their fortified cities.” Therefore Caleb said lah [“it” — we are well able to overcome ‘it,’ the word ‘it’ referring to the Land, and including the people and their fortifications]. Then the spies spoke up again, explaining their words clearly, and said, We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we,⁶²Verse 31. meaning: “Even if the people came out unto us into the field⁶³II Samuel 11:23. we are not able to contest them in battle, and we surely cannot capture any of their great and fortified cities.” For the meaning of the expression to go up ‘against the people’ is similar to [what Goliath said]: choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me,⁶⁴I Samuel 17:8. which is an expression for those fighting in battle formation.

עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב, “Amalek lives in the southern part of the land.” Although this nation was not at risk from invasion by the Israelites, the spies added this comment to illustrate that invading the land from any direction would pose insurmountable obstacles. They began to indirectly shake the confidence of the people, as at this moment they still were afraid to confront Moses directly. They answered on all the points Moses had asked them to report except if the population was large or small. They also did not give a direct answer to Moses’ question if the land was טובה, “good,” as they intended to mention later that the land consumed its inhabitants, planning to frighten the people who even if they were to conquer the land, would not survive in it for long. Their approach to the subject was: there are not too many people there, but the ones that are there are overpoweringly strong. The people understood what the spies were hinting at, and began to complain about the whole prospect they were facing. This is why Calev intervened with his attempt to silence the majority as we read in verse 30:

Because they had been burned by Amalek. Even though it was true that they dwelled there, as it is written “the Amaleki and the Cana’ani dwell in the valley…” (Bamidbar 14:25). Rashi infers this because the Torah writes “go up by the mountain” (v. 17) and it was the Emori and the Chiti who dwelled there. Thus, since the Emori and Chiti dwelled in the mountain, while Amalek dwelled in the valley, they should not have mentioned Amalek first. Rather it was “to frighten them…”

V. 29. עמלק וגו׳, es ist damit das ganze Land skizziert. Amalek im Süden, Chitti usw. Bewohner des die Mitte des Landes von Nord gegen Süden durchziehenden Libanongebirges, das Gestade des Meeres und des Jardens sind die Abdachungen gegen West und Ost. Amaleks Schwert hatten sie bereits empfunden. Es gehörte nicht zu den Bewohnern des Landes. Allein sie befanden sich in seiner Nähe und konnten seinen Überfall beim Eroberungsversuch zu fürchten haben.

עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב, “the Amalekites reside in the southern region of that land.” The spies implied that before asking about the fierceness of the inhabitants of that land further north, they should first ask about the Amalekites who live near the southern border, the area slated for invasion first. This was the same Amalek whom their fathers had not been able to completely defeat when they had just come out of Egypt.

ועל ידי הירדן AND BY THE יד OF THE JORDAN — יד means what it literally implies: beside the Jordan. They meant: the Canaanites live on the bank of the Jordan and therefore you will be unable to cross it.

והאמורי יושב בהר, “and the Emorites dwell in the mountainous regions. The Canaanites dwell along the shores of the Sea, as well as along the river Jordan. They meant that there was no unpopulated region through which to enter this land.

ויהס כלב AND CALEB STILLED [THE PEOPLE] — he caused all of them to be silent.

ויהס כלב את העם, he silenced the people who had begun to raise their voices, as they did afterwards when the Torah reports in 14,1 “all the people raised their voices and the cried the whole night.”

ויהס כלב את העם, Caleb silenced the people, etc. Seeing that an ordinary individual is not capable of silencing a people numbering hundreds of thousands, the Torah adds the words אל משה, to tell us that he silenced them in order to make them listen to Moses, not to himself. We know from Deut. 33,5 that Moses' rank was equivalent to the rank of a king. Caleb invoked the awe and respect due to a king in order to silence the people. Having invoked Moses' authority, he said: "we most certainly are able to to go up and take possession of the land." He meant that in spite of the other spies' having said: "we cannot overcome this people," he felt that the Israelites would be able to prevail.

ויהס, he silenced them by using his psychological insights.

ויהס כלב את העם, “Calev silenced the people.” He did so by proclaiming loudly:

Them all. Even though the verse explicitly says “the people,” [so why does Rashi mention it]? There is another difficulty: The verse does not mention that the people spoke up! The answer is that Rashi refers to the spies, meaning that he silenced all the spies, so that they would not speak at all, in order that the people would hear what Caleiv would say about Moshe.

V. 30. ויהם, Hifil von הסה, lautverwandt mit חשה schweigen. הסה bezeichnet immer ein unterdrücktes Lautwerden. So Habakuk 2, 20; Secharja 2, 17 und sonst. Kaleb versuchte das Volk zum Schweigen gegen Mosche zu bringen. Sofort nach dem Bericht der Botschafter war der Unwille des Volkes gegen Mosche ausgebrochen. Wir begreifen, dass, da es sich hier gleichzeitig um eine Verteidigung Mosche handelte, nicht Josua, sondern Kaleb hervortrat. Bei der engen Beziehung Josuas zu Mosche wären dessen Versicherungen von wenigem Gewichte bei dem Volke gewesen.

Caleiv silenced. The Sages said that Yehoshua did not speak because as he started to speak the people silenced him by saying: Shall this cut-off head speak? The commentaries explain: Their accusation was that since Yehoshua had no son he was not concerned about the generation being annihilated. However, it seems to me that they suspected that Yehoshua wanted to enter the Land of Israel so he would be the generation’s leader, while as long as they were in the Wilderness he was only the head of a tribe. This is the meaning of “cut-off head.” However, when Caleiv spoke everyone understood that he was not speaking for his own benefit. Rather, he spoke “to Moshe” — in that Moshe was their leader, and not for the benefit of Yehoshua or himself.

ויהס כלב את העם אל משה, “Caleb silenced the people toward Moses;” From this line you can glean what must have been left out here, i.e. that Moses was trying unsuccessfully to interrupt the report of the spies, until Caleb succeeded to silence them, even if only briefly. 38 years later in Deuteronomy 1,29, Moses reminds the people that he had tried to give them encouragement to proceed with carrying out G-d’s command to mount an attack against the inhabitants of that land.

אל משה means he silenced them that they should hear what he was going to say about Moses. He cried aloud saying: “Is this the only thing the son of Amram has done to us?!" — One who heard him thus speaking believed that he was about to speak to his disparagement, and because they had something in their mind against Moses through the spies’ statements, all of them kept silent to hear his disparagement. He, however, said: “Did he not divide the Red Sea for us, and bring down the Manna for us, and collect the quails for us?!” (Sotah 35a).

אל משה, so that Moses would have a chance to reply. Perhaps Moses replied with the words he referred to in Deuteronomy 1,29: “I told you not to be scared and not to be afraid of the inhabitants of that land, etc.”

עלה נעלה וירשנו אותה כי יכול נוכל בה, “We shall surely ascend and conquer it, for we can surely do it.” Calev did not contradict the facts his colleagues had cited, but he contradicted the conclusions they had drawn from these facts. This is why he used the pronoun לה, which referred to the cities of these people. When his colleagues heard this they became more outspoken, contradicting Calev outright by stating:

The listener. Since it is written “because he possessed in him a different spirit” (Bamidbar 14:24), it implies that there were two spirits, one in his mouth and one in his heart. To the spies he said “I am with you in your plan” but in his heart he said the truth. Consequently he was able to silence them. However Re’m explains that it was because Caleiv called Moshe “son of Amram” rather than calling him by name that they thought he was with them. He referred to Moshe in this way so that they would err and think that his intention was to slander.

עלה נעלה WE CAN INDEED GO UP — even to heaven, if he were to say “Make ladders and go up there”, we should listen to him because we would be successful in all his words (in all he bids us do) (Sotah 35a).

Calev reinforced Moses’ words by saying: עלה נעלה, it is appropriate for us to ascend for they will not be able to stand up against us to prevent us from progressing;

Even to heaven. For if not so, Scripture should have said “נעלה וירשנו” (we can go up and we shall possess it), why did it need to add the word עלה (using the repetitive phrase “עלה נעלה” lit. we can go up, go up). Rather this means that we can go up to anywhere, even to heaven. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Why did they speak about overcoming them, surely they were not in heaven? The answer is that this is what they were saying: Even if they have in heaven a great celestial power supporting them, such that we would not be able to expel them, we can still go up. Because celestial powers do not affect Israel, for they override the celestial powers. Thus we can surely go up and overcome their celestial powers.

ויהס is an expression denoting silence. Similar is, (Zechariah 2:17) “Be silent, (הס) O all flesh”; (Amos 6:10) “Be silent (הס): for we may not mention [the name of the Lord]”. So is the manner of people: he who wishes to silence a group of men says “sst” (This sibilant sound is therefore used to command silence).

וירשנו אותו כי יכול נוכל לו, for as soon as we shall ascend in that direction they will flee from us seeing that these inhabitants of Canaan have already a defeatist attitude toward us.

חזק הוא ממנו [FOR] THEY ARE STRONGER ממנו — They said this, — if this were at all possible (i.e. if one may be permitted to say so of God) — with reference to the Omnipresent (ממנו, stronger than “He”, they thus uttered blasphemy) (Sotah 35a; Arakhin 15a).

לא נוכל לעלות, for they will stand up against us and will prevent us from making progress just as happened after the sin when the Torah describes the Amalekites (described as Canaanites) descending and inflicting casualties in 14,45.

The spies retorted by bad-mouthing the land of Canaan saying that even supposing that the Israelites were able to overcome the local inhabitants, the land was not worth having as it consumed its inhabitants.

לא נוכל לעלות אל העם כי חזק הוא ממנו, “we cannot ascend to that people for they are stronger than we.” The meaning of the expression is not limited to a war of aggression. The majority of the spies meant that even if the Canaanites would leave their fortified towns and wage war against the Israelites in open territory the Israelites would not be a match for them. The wording is parallel to that used by Goliath when he challenged the Israelites to a duel. (Samuel I 17,8)

About the One above. Since it is written “כי חזק הוא ממנו” (for he/it is more powerful than we) while it should have written only “כי חזק ממנו” [i.e. the word ‘“הוא — he/it”’ is superfluous and can be expounded]. Also, above (v. 28), [in reference to the nation], the word הוא (he/it) is not written, only “אפס כי $אז העם” (however the nation is mighty). Therefore, [the word “הוא – he/it” that is written here] refers to “the One above…” (Gur Aryeh) It is impossible to say that [the phrase “more powerful] than we” refers to Israel, since this would imply that Israel were also strong and only that they are stronger. This would be similar to Rashi’s explanation on the verse “[greater] and more powerful than you” (Devarim 9:1), that you are powerful but they are even more powerful than you. But here this explanation is improbable, because the spies likened themselves to locusts in relation to the people who lived in the Land. Rather, “[they said it] about the One above.”

אכלת יושביה [A LAND] THAT EATETH UP THE INHABITANTS THEREOF — “In every place which we passed we found them (the inhabitants) burying their dead". — But, as a matter of fact, the Holy One, blessed be He, did this (caused many deaths amongst them at that time, and so the Canaanites were engaged in burying their dead) for the best, in order to occupy them busily with their mourning so that they should pay no attention to these (the spies) (Sotah 35a).

AND THEY BROUGHT FORTH ‘DIBATH’ (AN EVIL REPORT OF) THE LAND WHICH THEY HAD SPIED OUT UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The meaning of this is that the spies left Moses and Aaron and [went around] saying in the [people’s] tents that it is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.⁶⁰Verse 32. For at first when they spoke to the people in front of Moses and Aaron [saying] that the Land … floweth with milk and honey but that the people are fierce,⁵³Verses 27-28. and Caleb said, for we are well able to overcome it,⁶¹Verse 30. the people hesitated [between these two opinions], and there were some of them who [still] trusted in their power and strength, and some of them [who trusted] in the help of the Eternal against the mighty.⁶⁵Judges 5:23. Then the spies spread the evil report in front of the people themselves, as it is written, the Land through which we have passed to spy it out, is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof, etc.,⁶⁰Verse 32. until they caused the whole congregation⁶⁶Further, 14:2. to complain, this being the sense of the verse stating, and they returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up an evil report against the Land.⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 36. This happened because when the spies saw the [Amorite] people whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks,⁶⁸Amos 2:9. the fear of them was fallen upon them⁶⁹Esther 8:17. and they made the hearts of their brothers melt.¹³Deuteronomy 1:28. And when they saw that the Israelites were still considering going up [to the Land], and that Joshua and Caleb were encouraging them to do so, they invented a false report in order to frustrate their [intention of] going up by all possible means.
Know that he who “bringeth forth ‘dibah’” is a fool⁷⁰Proverbs 10:8. who speaks falsely, but he who tells a truthful [bad report] is called “one who ‘brings’ dibah,” as it is said, and Joseph brought ‘dibatham ra’ah’ (evil report of them) unto their father.⁷¹Genesis 37:2. This shows that when Scripture uses the expression “he ‘brings’ dibah” it means that he tells the truth as he sees, and when it uses the expression “bringeth forth” [which is in Hebrew a different verb], it means a false report. See also Ramban ibid., Vol. I, p. 449. It was for this [false report] that they were punished by death through a plague, as it is said, And those men that ‘brought forth’ an evil report of the Land, died by the plague before the Eternal.⁷²Further, 14:37. Thus, in speaking of the spies having brought forth an evil report, Scripture by using the word ra’ah (evil) wishes to emphasize that not only was their report false but that it was also of an exceedingly evil nature.

ארץ אוכלת יושביה, even though the people living there are strong, this is not a compliment to the land; rather it means that it is only due to their exceptionally hardy constitution that they were able to survive in that land. Ordinary people would die there because the climate is so hard to take.

וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה, "and all the people we have seen within it, etc." This may either mean that the country devours its people in spite of their outstanding physical prowess, or it may mean that the only people who are able to survive in that country, i.e. בתוכה, are the אנשי מדות, the men of especially great stature.

ויוציאו דבת הארץ....אל בני ישראל, “They slandered the land of Israel ..in their report to the Jewish people.” The principal effrontery of the spies was the fact that they reported to and appealed to the people directly, instead of making their report to the commander-in-chief, Moses, who was the one who had selected them for their mission by going around to the tents of the people and telling them that the land of Canaan was devouring its inhabitants, whereas originally in the presence of Moses and Aaron they had praised the land, describing how it was flowing with milk and honey. This was a treacherous and underhanded manner of discharging their task. Originally, they had only described the people in that land as strong, which by itself was not too serious a departure from what they had been asked to report about. When Calev had assured the people of his conviction that they would be able to successfully conquer that land the people had still tended to believe him. There were at that time, still quite a number of the people who possessed either self confidence or trust in G’d’s ability and willingness to help them conquer that land. When the spies had become aware of this, they embarked on an intensive campaign to undermine the confidence of those people by spreading the stories of the many people they had observed dropping dead. This was another example of misinterpretation. G’d had allowed even giants to collapse, in order to demonstrate how tenuous was even those supermen’s hold on life, whereas the spies, bent of interpreting everything in the most negative manner, concluded that the climate of the land causes the collapse of its inhabitants. In order to counter the impression Joshua and Calev had made on the people, the spies now resorted to fabrications, deliberate exaggerations, etc. The expression להוציא דבה means more than to highlight the negative aspects of something, it means to spread tales of a negative character that are entirely fictitious, represent as facts figments of the imagination of the tale-bearer. The party spreading such untruths hopes to make them believable because he had initially told his listeners a considerable number of true facts. This is also why the Torah reports Joseph as bringing דבתם רעה, “evil reports,” about his brothers to his father. He had reported a number of facts faithfully, so that his fabrications would also be believed by his father, Genesis 37,2, It was this latter aspect of the spies’ activities that caused G’d to punish them by making these ten men die on the spot through the plague. (14,37)

Burying the dead. Rashi’s inference is because it is written “the land through which we have passed … is a land which consumes,” but the words “the land through which we passed” are apparently superfluous; for this is not the beginning of their statement, such that they need to state which land they were referring to. Therefore Rashi explains that wherever we passed we saw that it was consuming its inhabitants — because they were burying the dead. R. Yaakov Triosh

V. 32. דבת) ויציאו וגו׳ siehe zu Bereschit 37, 2). In dieser Verlästerung des Landes gipfelt ihr Verbrechen. Nicht ויביאו, wie bei Josef, sondern ויציאו sie produzierten, erdichteten Böses vom Lande (רמב׳׳ן). Damit schreckten sie das Volk vollends zurück. Selbst wenn es gelänge, das Land zu erobern, so wäre dessen Besitz geradezu ein Unglück. Es ist ein Land, das seine Bewohner aufreibt. Es ist nicht für Menschen gewöhnlichen Schlages berechnet. Es fordert Riesenkonstitutionen. Gewöhnliche Menschen sterben darin hin. Daher ist auch die Bevölkerung von so ungewöhnlicher Größe. Die Kleinen und Schwachen kommen nicht auf (רמב׳׳ן).

וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי מדות, “and all the people we saw inside it are men of great size.” The spies said that they did not attribute the fact that people seemed to die like flies in that land to their having a weak constitution to start with. Alternate interpretation: “do not think that these people died from excessive drinking and eating; they are very robust persons and appear to eat and drink quite normally.”

אנשי מדות MEN OF GREAT STATURE (lit., of measure) — tall and high men, in speaking of whom one feels compelled to give their size, as is stated, for instance, with reference to Goliath (I Samuel 17:4): “his height was six cubits and a span” . Similar to this phrase are: (II Samuel 21:20) “a man of great stature"; (I Chronicles 11:23) “a man of great stature.

IT IS A LAND THAT EATETH UP THE INHABITANTS THEREOF; AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WE SAW IN IT ARE MEN OF GREAT STATURE. If a land is bad and has scanty and poor water so that the Land miscarrieth,⁷³II Kings 2:19. it does not sustain men of great [physical] stature, and its inhabitants are weak and flabby, small in size and lacking in strength! [So the question appears in what way is the spies’ statement that the Land produces men of great stature an evil report?] But the evil report of the spies consisted in saying that the Land has an overpowering atmosphere and a heavy nature, and its water and fruits are thick and heavy, so that [the fruits] grow to a very large size, such that people of an average temperament cannot take them, unless they are giants and men of powerful build who are naturally strong and exceptional in their height and stature. Therefore the Land supports very tall men but brings [premature] death to the rest of the people, as is the nature of coarse foods. The spies then continued and emphasized the strength of the giants, for at first they said, and moreover, we saw the children of Anak there,⁵³Verses 27-28. and now they exaggerated and called them nephilim [a word which implies that they were so enormous that the hearts of those who saw them “fell” through fear]; saying to the people, and there we saw the Nephilim, the three⁷⁴Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai (Verse 22). sons of Anak who are of the ancient Nephilim⁷⁵Verse 33. about whom you have heard, for the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.⁷⁶Genesis 6:4. And since the nature of the Nephilim who lived in the times of Noah was known throughout the world, the spies mentioned that these sons of Anak were their descendants, in order to frighten them, and to terrify them.⁷⁷II Chronicles 32:18. Therefore the spies said now, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.⁷⁵Verse 33.

ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי מדות, “it is a land which consumes its inhabitants, and all the people we saw therein were of enormous proportions.” Nachmanides writes that the spies described the land and its water as health hazards, causing premature births of fetuses and instead of the people who were of outsize dimensions having outsize children, their children were obviously poorly, undersized and below average stature. They tried to convince their peers that the land of Canaan, by reason of its climate, can support only giants, not average sized human beings such as the Israelites. It was not surprising therefore that that land produced giants, as its fruit, its produce, was such that only giants and supermen could assimilate its waters and its produce in their bodies successfully. When previously they had described the presence of giants in that land as limited to singular sightings, now they described the inhabitants as all being giants, אנשי מדות. They took pains to trace the origins of these giants to prehistoric (pre-deluge) eras, implying that they had already then been so powerful that they had survived the deluge without being in Noach’s Ark. (verse 33)

הנפילים (lit., the fallen ones) — Anakim who were descendants of Shemchazai and Azael who fell from heaven in the generation of Enosh (cf. Targum Jonathan on Genesis 6:4 and Rashi on Niddah 61a s. v. בני אחיה).

בני ענק, descended paternally from giants

מן הנפילים, the original ones of which the Torah had written that they lived in antediluvian times (Genesis 6,4)

Who fell. As the Torah writes (Bereishis 6:2), “the sons of the lords saw the daughters of man…” For if not so, why is “הנפילים” (the giants) written twice? Rather it is certain that the second term “הנפילים” literally means fallen (from the root נפל — to fall), and there we saw those who fell from heaven, Shamchazai and Azael.

ונהי בעינינו כחגבים, "we felt in our own estimation as if we were grasshoppers (by comparison to them), and so we appeared in their eyes." The spies revealed by this comment that they felt vastly inferior even to the people in that land that did not fit the description of being men of stature. They knew this when comparing their own physiques to that of the average person whom they had observed.

V. 33. את הנפילים .ושם ראינו וגו׳, jene uralten Riesen אשר מעולם אנשי השם (Bereschit 6, 4) von deren gewaltiger Größe und Stärke die Sagen der Vorwelt voll sind, die haben wir dort in Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit gesehen; es sind dies die zu Chebron wohnenden Riesengeschwister, die ילידי הענק (Verse 22 und 28) בני ענק מן הנפילים sind die übrigen im Lande wohnenden Anakiden, die auch von den stammen (siehe oben V. 22).

הנפילים בני-ענק, “the Nephilim, descendants of Anak (giant);” anyone who took a look at these people would be overawed by them and feel totally inadequate, scared that they would attack him.”

ושם ראינו את הנפילים, “and there we have seen the Nephilim; some commentators believe that these people were very tall people who had fallen out of the sky, as in Job 14,18 הר נופל יבול, “mountains collapse and crumble,” where the words describe a great height.

וכן היינו בעיניהם AND SO WE MUST HAVE BEEN IN THEIR EYES — We heard them say one to another; “There are ants in the vineyards that look like human beings (Sotah 35a).

מן הנפילים, maternally descended from those giants.

כחגבים, anything low considers itself as like a grasshopper when compared to something much taller. We find proof of this in Isaiah 40,22 היושב על חוג הארץ ויושביה כחגבים, “compared to the One Who is enthroned above the vault of the earth views its inhabitants as if they were grasshopper.”

Say to each other, “there are ants.” There many who find difficulty with this statement: It is written “and so we appeared” which implies “like grasshoppers,” while Rashi explains that we heard them saying “there are ants.” Re’m amends Rashi’s words to read “grasshoppers…” However this does not appear correct, firstly because in every text it is written “ants.” Furthermore, if they were truly “like grasshoppers” when comparing their relative sizes, the comparison being that a hundred grasshoppers piled on each other reach the height of a person, and similarly the giants were the height of a hundred people. If so the Torah should have been brief and merely written “we were like grasshoppers in comparison to them.” Why did it add “and we were [like grasshoppers] in our eyes” which merely reflects how they appeared. Furthermore, there is a difficulty: Did the giants not see that all of the other inhabitants of the land were not giants, and if so why did they say “there are ants in the vineyards like people” as if they had never seen people other than giants like themselves. The answer is that it is a known phenomenon that one who looks down from a height, sees an object as being smaller than one who is standing on the ground and looking at the same object that is high up. The reason is that the sense of vision is like a flame, and it is the nature of a flame to rise and bring the object being viewed towards the eye. Thus, neither of them sees the object according to its actual size. The spies intended to deliver a slanderous report with each and every statement, thus they said “all the people that we saw there were men of great stature,” meaning that they are not used to small people like us. Then they said “we were like grasshoppers in our eyes” meaning that we were standing below and looking at the height of the giants, and we measured ourselves in comparison to them as the size of a grasshopper in comparison to a man. But in truth we were even smaller than this because we were looking upward and thus misrepresented their height. They concluded “and so we appeared in their eyes” meaning that according to the error that we made in looking up from a low position, to measure ourselves as being larger that than our true size, so too the giants erred in looking down from a height to measure us as being smaller than reality. Thus we were not considered like anything in their eyes, only as ants. Consequently they do not fear us at all, even though we are 600,000. Now there is a difficulty: Perhaps they knew how to measure correctly and did not err. If so what is meant by “and so [we appeared]?” Also perhaps Hashem made us appear large in their eyes. Therefore Rashi explains that we heard them saying “there are ants.” R. Yaakov Triosh

Die Tatsache übrigens, dass sich in Palästina noch Reste der vorsündflutigen Nefilin befanden, dürfte mit jener Auffassung (Sebachim 113a) übereinstimmen, nach welcher לא ירד מבול לא׳׳י, Palästina von der Sündflut verschont geblieben. Es dürfte dann dem Lande von der urwüchsigen Kraft der Erde bewahrt geblieben sein, die sich unter einer kenaanitischen Bevölkerung nur in Produzierung leiblicher Größe bewährt, ebenso aber es zum Boden des Gottesvolkes geeignet haben mochte, das durch Erfüllung des Gottesgesetzes dort das Ideal geistiger und sittlicher Menschengröße anstreben und mit ihr eine paradiesische Wiederverjüngung der Erdwelt beginnen sollte (siehe Bereschit 3, 19). Vergessen wir nicht, dass nach der Lehre der Weisen leibliche Kraft und Gesundheit eine der Vorbedingungen höchster Geistesentwickelung bildet und, wenn uns nicht alles täuscht, das, was, wo die Geistesarbeit brach liegt, gigantische Leiber erzeugt, bei einem Menschenstamm vorzugsweise geistiger Richtung, von geistiger Tätigkeit verbraucht werden könne, ohne dem Größenwuchs der Leiber zugute zu kommen.

בני ענק, according to one opinion cited by Rashi, the necks of these people reached almost to the sun. (Exaggeration, of course).

ענק — They were thus called because it seemed as if the sun was draped around their necks (מַעֲנִיקִים) because of their height (Sotah 34b).

וכן היינו בעיניהם, like grasshoppers, or even less significant. They did not bother to harm us as they did not think we represented a threat to them.

Who make the sun a necklace. Rashi in the Gemara explains “as if their necks extended through the ‘window’ through which the sun emerges.” He explains “who made the sun a necklace” as meaning that the opening through which the sun is viewed became like a necklace around their necks. One might ask why Rashi did not make this comment above on the verse “we also [saw] the offspring of the giant ($)” (v. 28). The answer is that their forefather may have been called ענק (giant) and thus they were called the sons of the giant ($) after him, similar to the term “the sons of Noach ($)” we apply to all mankind. But here it is written “there we saw the נפילים (lit. fallen ones).” Rashi has a difficulty as to why they were so called, and said that it must have been because they were they sons of Shamchazai and Azael. And if so, there is a difficulty as to why they were called “the sons of the ענק (giant),” rather it must be because they make [the sun] a necklace (ענק). (See Tosafos Succah 22).

The spies, referring to themselves add that they therefore felt as if they were as small as grasshoppers by comparison. This is not the only example where small creatures are compared to grasshoppers. Compare Isaiah 40,22.