Commentary for Numbers 13:18

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.