The vision of the Land of Israel and the complexity sufferings

For Parashat Shlach - Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald- 5780

The Sin of the Spies is one of the traumatic events that has dramatically affected the history of the Jewish people. At the time, it delayed an entire generation at the entrance to Eretz Yisrael, and as a result, the generation that left Egypt died in the desert. On the night of the return of the spies, instead of an overwhelming joy over the news of entry, they wept needlessly.  בכיה של חנם

וכתיב (במדבר יד, א) ותשא כל העדה ויתנו את קולם ויבכו העם בלילה ההוא אמר רבה אמר ר' יוחנן (אותו היום ערב) תשעה באב היה אמר להם הקב"ה אתם בכיתם בכיה של חנם ואני קובע לכם בכיה לדורות

"And it is further written: “And all the congregation lifted up their voice and cried and the people wept that night” (Numbers 14:1). Rabba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That night was the night of the Ninth of Av. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: You wept needlessly that night, and I will therefore establish for you a true tragedy over which there will be weeping in future generations" (Taanit 29a)

'The Sin of the Spies' wounded the initial, conscious, simple relationship between the people and their land, leaving a scar that required reconnecting. It reoccurs when political and security issues are on the agenda and need solutions. To learn from past failure experiences, you must go back to this Parasha, and turn on its countless aspects.

In recent weeks there has been an argument over President Trump's plan for Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria and its complexity, and we would like to shine on the complexity of the debate considering the Parasha.

The spies' “reconnaissance intelligence information” had two sections and one conclusion. In the "Land and Infrastructure" section, they reported on the good of the land:

...וַיַּרְא֖וּם אֶת־פְּרִ֥י הָאָֽרֶץ...וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ בָּ֕אנוּ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר שְׁלַחְתָּ֑נוּ וְ֠גַם זָבַ֨ת חָלָ֥ב וּדְבַ֛שׁ הִ֖וא וְזֶה־פִּרְיָֽהּ׃

"…as they showed them the fruit of the land. This is what they told him: “We came to the land you sent us to; it does indeed flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit." (Bamidbar 13:26-27).

In the "enemy" section, they reported on its military strength and fortifications:

אֶ֚פֶס כִּֽי־עַ֣ז הָעָ֔ם הַיֹּשֵׁ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְהֶֽעָרִ֗ים בְּצֻר֤וֹת גְּדֹלֹת֙ מְאֹ֔ד וְגַם־יְלִדֵ֥י הָֽעֲנָ֖ק רָאִ֥ינוּ שָֽׁם׃

"However, the people who inhabit the country are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large; moreover, we saw the Anakites there". (ibid 28).

And in the second, there was not only a report but also an "estimate" that went beyond their mission:

אפס שהיא מורה על דבר אפס ונמנע מן האדם שאי אפשר בשום ענין

"however" (efes, which also means nothing or nonexistent), which indicates a thing's nothingness and inaccessibility to a person in that it is impossible in any way. (Ramban ibid) In their opinion the occupation is impossible.

The commentators were divided: Rashi says the first section had a true report as part of the manipulation in the second section:

כָּל דְּבַר שֶׁקֶר שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִים בּוֹ קְצָת אֱמֶת בִּתְחִלָּתוֹ, אֵין מִתְקַיֵּם בְּסוֹפוֹ:

"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" (Rashi 27)

But Ramban thinks the two sections were reporting the truth:

והנה בכל זה אמרו אמת והשיבו על מה שנצטוו

"And note that they spoke truthfully in all of this and answered what he commanded…. for they were to answer truthful words to the one who sent them" (Ramban ibid).

Their sin was in the "assessment" that the mission was impossible:

אבל רשעם במלת אפס

"Rather their evil was with the word, "however" – efes…" (ibid).

To Ramban we could say that there was a complexity and a dilemma between the two sections: first, showing the good of the land and its fruits, the fulfillment of the dream and the Divine promise to arrive in the land of milk and honey, and why is the land worth fighting for and conquering it. And the second one, showing the military might of the inhabitants of the country and why it is from dangerous to impossible to conquer it! For the Ramban this is a real scenario of a complex and challenging reality. It was precisely in this situation that they should have stuck to the vision and not be confused. And that was Caleb's response:

וַיַּ֧הַס כָּלֵ֛ב אֶת־הָעָ֖ם אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר עָלֹ֤ה נַעֲלֶה֙ וְיָרַ֣שְׁנוּ אֹתָ֔הּ כִּֽי־יָכ֥וֹל נוּכַ֖ל לָֽהּ׃

"Caleb hushed the people before Moshe and said, “Let us by all means go up, and we shall gain possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it.” (ibid 30)

The complexity of the situation is not ignored, but when there is a compass of values, a vision of complexity is not a neutralizing motive but a challenge that must be dealt with successfully!

The History is back. Unlike every nation and country, in all the intersections of Israeli history, there were complexities and dilemmas.

"קשר הקודש של ישראל עם ארצו הקדושה אינו דומה לקשר טבעי, שכל עם ולשון מתקשר על ידו אל ארצו".

"Israel's holy relationship with its holy land is not like any other natural connection, which every nation and language communicates with it to its own land" (Olat Reiyah part 1- 203)  

שָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת טוֹבוֹת נָתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכוּלָּן לֹא נְתָנָן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי יִסּוּרִין, אֵלּוּ הֵן: תּוֹרָה וְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

“Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, all of which were given only by means of suffering, which purified Israel so that they may merit to receive them. These gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-Come” (Berakhot 5a).

The complexity of a 'gift' received by means of suffering! The suffering not only of the body but also of the soul and the peace of mind in the dilemmas and complexities of inheriting and settling the land.

Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and Israeli towns across Judea and Samaria sponsored by the US is a significant event, and an important milestone in the connection of the Jewish people to their homeland.

However, if it is conditional on the mere establishment of a Palestinian state, it is out of the question. Is it right to accept it and win sovereignty, as with the ‘47-partition plan, assuming that the Palestinians are never likely to agree to it? And what if they do?!

And who would insist that this agreement not be used in the future for unilateral moves, internal initiatives, or international pressures from the outside? And, because of these concerns, should we relinquish the achievement of applying US-recognized sovereignty?

This is a difficult and complex dilemma! Here too, the value compass and vision of the long-term inheritance should guide us.