Parshat Shelach  25 Sivan 5761, 16 June 2001

by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

Efrat, Israel - The worst sin of the Bible is the sin of the scouts - which, according to our Sages, happened on the 9th day of Av, the anniversary of the destruction of both our Temples. Ten of the twelve scouts returned from their reconnaissance mission to Israel with a negative report: they urged against the attempt to conquer and settle the promised land.

But how can these princes of the tribe go against the very grain of the Bible, turn their backs on Abraham's vision of the covenant which included the borders of the Land of Israel, deny the goal set by G-d and Moses? Where did each of the major leadership groups in the desert go wrong?

When the negative report is announced to the Israelites, Moses falls on his face before the entire congregation (Numbers 14:5). Apparently he realizes that to a certain extent the fault lies with him. After all, it was he who sent the scouts on their mission in the first place, and every leader knows that one dare not establish a commission of enquiry unless one is ready to accept their recommendations. Moreover, Moses never even screened the report before it was given in order to mitigate or modify the content. The people might logically conclude that Moses was ready to accept whatever decision the scouts would come to. The Ralbag explains Moses' strange behavior by suggesting that this Master of Prophets was so close to G-d that he became removed from the mentality of his people. He might never have conceived of the possibility that a decision could be taken against the Land of Israel and against the will of the Divine. Whatever the reason may have been, in the final analysis Moses neither aborted the report nor did he make a valiant effort to convince the Israelites of the centrality of the Promised Land for their future.

Aaron, according to the midrash, was unalterably opposed to remaining in the desert or returning to Egypt. However his words were not taken that seriously. After all, at the Song of the Red Sea Moses chants "You're hands will prepare the Sanctuary of G-d" (Exodus 15:17) - and so obviously the Priestly Class would look forward to a permanent structure for many more respectable ceremonies in the Land of Israel.

The Ten Princes of the Tribes who voted against the conquest of Israel might very well have done so in order to secure their political positions. The Holy Zohar suggests that at least they were subconsciously aware of the very real possibility that upon entering the Promised Land there would be new elections, and that perhaps they would not be re-elected. It was to their advantage therefore to remain in the desert where their power was assured.

Most interesting is the role of Joshua who was after all slated to be Moses' successor. He himself opposed the negative decision of the scouts but apparently did not succeed in convincing the nation. Why not? The Sages of the Talmud suggest that he did open his mouth to attempt to marginalize the negative report: however he was soon quieted "when the masses cried out, 'shall a broken head (rosh ketiya) speak out?'" (B.T. Sotah 35a) What is the meaning of this strange term of dismissal, broken head, which the Israelite mob used for Joshua? Rashi (ad loc) interprets the word to mean that since Moses was a Levite his children were not entitled to inherit a portion of the Land of Israel. Since he had no actual stake in the land, they felt that he ought be disenfranchised. The Netziv however, in his Biblical commentary Ha'Amek Davar gives a fascinating insight

"the people were suspect that Joshua wanted to bring the Israelites into the Land of Israel in order that he could be the 'head of the entire generation', as they had been informed would occur. As long as they remained in the desert - with Moses as a leader - Joshua would only be a small time leader, a broken head rather than a great head (rosh hagadol)".

Shabbat Shalom.

Return to Ohr Torah Stone