The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT SHELACH

RAV DAVID SILVERBERG

            Among the topics addressed in the second half of Parashat Shelach is the mitzva of challa, which requires separating a portion from one's dough and giving it to a kohen (15:17-21).  Immediately thereafter, the Torah introduces the law known as par he'alem davar shel tzibur, referring to the special sin offering brought by the Sanhedrin in cases where they issued an erroneous ruling on a matter involving idolatry.  The Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 15:6) cites from Rabbi Yochanan the following explanation for the juxtaposition between these two subjects - the mitzva of challa, and the Sanhedrin's erroneous ruling concerning idolatry: "Whoever fulfills the mitzva of challa is like he renounced idolatry, and whoever neglects the mitzva of challa is as if he upheld idolatry."

            How might we explain this association between challa and idolatry?

            Rav Baruch Yitzchak Yissachar Leventhal, in his work Birkat Yitzchak (Jerusalem, 5706), suggests an explanation based on a simple distinction between challa and the similar obligation of teruma, which requires donating a small portion of one's produce to a kohen.  Teruma is optimally to be separated already during the collection of the produce in the fields.  Challa, by contrast, is separated at the later stage, when the grain has already been made into dough and is prepared for baking.  This basic distinction affects the broader implications and significance of these two mitzvot.  A farmer who tills the land and then collects his grain is very keenly aware of the Almighty's indispensable role in his success.  As much as he exerts himself in plowing and sowing, without rain his efforts are futile.  In this sense, teruma, which serves to remind the farmer of God's role in his field's production, is relatively instinctive and its message is quite easily inculcated.  Challa, however, applies even when an individual purchases grain or flour from the market for baking.  In this process, God's role is less evident; unlike the farmer, the baker can be easily blinded to his dependence on the Almighty for the success of his endeavors.

            Herein, Rav Leventhal suggests, lies the association between challa and idolatry.  The root of idolatry is the denial of a single force controlling and governing the universe.  The obligation of challa serves to remind us that even in successes and achievements that appear to us as the result of human initiative and ingenuity, God's role cannot be denied or overlooked.  Though it may seem at times that an individual achieved success independently, in truth, it was the Almighty who enabled him to do so.  To think otherwise is indeed a reflection of an idolatrous mindset.

            We might add that Rav Leventhal's analysis of the difference between challa and teruma may shed light on the association that the Torah draws between them, explicitly comparing challa to teruma ("ki-tvua't goren kein tarimu ota" – 15:19).  The Sifrei (cited by Rashi) explains this comparison as establishing a halakhic parity of sorts between teruma and challa, as they both have no minimum required shiur (quantity).  This halakhic parity perhaps reflects the broader message of challa as Rav Leventhal explained.  The Torah here emphasizes that challa must be separated while baking, to express our awareness of God's role in the success of our endeavors, just as teruma is separated in the fields.  Our appreciation of our dependence on God for success must be felt regardless of whether or not His involvement is evident.  Whether we work in the fields and depend on rain, or in the kitchen where we seem self-sufficient, we are equally dependent on His grace.  We must recognize the Almighty's hand even when His involvement is not readily obvious, just as we do in situations where His assistance is very clearly manifest.

*******

            In Parashat Shelach the Torah describes the scouts' forty-day tour of Eretz Yisrael, and pays particular attention to their visit to the city of Chevron.  When mentioning Chevron, the Torah finds it necessary to add that "Chevron was built seven years before Tzoan of Egypt" (13:22).  Of what relevance is this historical detail to the narrative of the sin of the scouts?

            The Gemara (Sota 34b), cited in Rashi's Torah commentary, rereads this verse as a reference not to the city's age, but rather to its quality.  According to the Gemara, this phrase should be understood to mean not that Chevron was built seven years prior to Tzoan, but rather that its quality was superior sevenfold to that of Tzoan, the finest region in Egypt.  Apparently, the Gemara understood this verse as underscoring the falsehood of the scouts' report, in which they spoke negatively about the Land of Israel in an effort to dissuade the nation from attempting to conquer it.

            The Ramban, by contrast, accepts the straightforward reading of the verse, whereby it emphasizes Chevron's ancient roots, and he suggests two different approaches in identifying the significance of this data.  First, he suggests that the Torah stresses the remarkable longevity of the three giants living in Chevron.  They were born, the Ramban asserts, to the man for whom the city of Chevron was first built, and thus the age of the city reflects the age of these inhabitants.  The Torah here seeks to emphasize these men's unusual strength and stamina, a factor that undoubtedly contributed to the scouts' intimidation and fear.

            Secondly, the Ramban suggests, this reference perhaps expresses the unique quality of the soil of Eretz Yisrael.  Despite being inhabited since antiquity, the region of Chevron was still capable of producing large, quality fruits, such as those which the scouts took with them, as reported in the subsequent verse (13:23).  The ancient roots of Chevron are thus a testament to the ground's ability to continuously produce adequate supplies of food for its inhabitants.

Shadal explains differently, claiming that the age of the city testified to its invincibility.  The scouts responded to their visit to Chevron by wondering how they could possibly conquer a city that has remained safe, secure and impenetrable for so many centuries.  If no other nation has been able to capture this city, they thought to themselves, Benei Yisrael have no reason to believe that they could do so, either. 

According to Shadal, then, the scouts doubted the Almighty's ability to change a longstanding reality, to bring an end to a condition that has been in place for centuries.  They failed to recognize that no challenge or obstacle is too great to overcome when God has guaranteed victory, as Kalev and Yehoshua later insist in response to the scouts' discouraging report, "Do not fear the nation of the land…the Lord is with us – do not fear them!" (14:9).

******

            We read in Parashat Shelach of God's angry response to the sin of the scouts, on account of which He decrees that the entire generation would perish in the wilderness.  The one exception, however, is Kalev, who did not join the other spies in discouraging the people from proceeding to Eretz Yisrael.  God declares, "But My servant Kalev – since he possessed a different spirit and was faithful to Me, I will bring him to the land into which he came, and his offspring shall inherit it" (14:24).  Rashi famously explains that God here does not merely exclude Kalev from the punishment decreed upon that generation, but grants him a special reward – the city of Chevron.  Kalev was not only spared the calamity that befell the rest of the nation, but was also awarded Chevron for himself and his offspring.  (This explains why God here makes no mention of Yehoshua, who was also allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael; since God speaks here of a special reward, and not merely of the exclusion from the decree, he does not mention Yehoshua, as only Kalev was granted this reward.)

            For what was Kalev rewarded?  The fact that he did not participate in the scheme of the spies renders him worthy of exclusion from the punishment decreed against them.  But why did he earn a special reward, as well?

            Rashi's comments to this verse indicate that Kalev was rewarded for opposing the scouts when they lobbied against proceeding to Eretz Yisrael.  As we read earlier (13:30), Kalev interrupted the scouts' downbeat report by insisting upon Benei Yisrael's ability to defeat the Canaanite peoples.  God rewarded his efforts by bequeathing to him and his offspring the city of Chevron.

            As Rav Moshe Feinstein notes in his Derash Moshe, it does not appear, at first glance, that Kalev should be deserving of such great reward for these efforts.  After all, he had spoken but one sentence before the scouts resumed their campaign to dissuade the nation from proceeding to Canaan, a campaign that proved, tragically enough, successful.  Why, then, was Kalev deserving of reward?

Rav Moshe suggested that Kalev was rewarded for the temporary impact of his arguments.  For at least a few moments, the people were awakened by his confidence in the nation's ability – with the Almighty's help – to conquer the Land.  Although his arguments were quickly drowned by the other scouts' pessimism, he did succeed in changing the people's hearts and attitude temporarily – and even temporary teshuva is deemed an invaluable achievement.  Rav Moshe notes in this context the halakha requiring the violation of Torah prohibitions when this is necessary to extend a person's life for even a few moments, because even a brief period of life is looked upon as something sacred that warrants suspending the Torah's laws.  Similarly, Rav Moshe claimed, even brief moments or temporary periods of inspiration and spiritual growth are deemed valuable, regardless of how quickly their effects vanish.  Kalev's efforts were therefore indeed significant, for even short-lived inspiration is a valuable accomplishment rendering one worthy of great reward.

*******

            The Torah tells that when the scouts returned from their visit to Canaan and began warning the rest of the nation of the fearsome military power of the Canaanite peoples, Kalev interrupted his peers to reaffirm Benei Yisrael's ability to conquer the land (13:30).  Rashi, based on the Gemara (Sota 35a), comments that Kalev shouted, "Is this all that the son of Amram [Moshe] has done to us!" as if he would proceed to protest Moshe's leadership.  Having drawn the people's attention, Kalev pointed to a number of miracles that Moshe had performed for them since leaving Egypt – the splitting of the sea, providing heavenly manna, and bringing quail from the sky.  If Moshe could perform such wonders for Benei Yisrael, Kalev insisted, then certainly he could lead them to victory over the armies of Canaan.

            The question arises, why did Benei Yisrael not accept Kalev's argument?  Why, in fact, did they lack confidence in Moshe's abilities, given the supernatural phenomena that he had already brought about for the nation?

            We may consider several explanations for the nation's response.  Firstly, it is possible that they did, in fact, accept Kalev's argument.  The subsequent verse tells that the other scouts responded to Kalev by arguing, "We cannot ascend to the nation, for it is stronger than us!"  But then, after insisting on the hopelessness of the campaign to capture Canaan, the scouts then resorted to a different argument: "They spoke evil of the land…saying: The land…is a land that consumes its inhabitants…" (13:32).  Rather than trying to prove Benei Yisrael's military inferiority, the scouts instead resorted to a different tactic, speaking negatively about the land.  One might claim that the people accepted or at least gave some thought to Kalev's contention, and this prompted the scouts to convince the people that even if they could capture the land, this campaign is simply not worthwhile, as the land is uninhabitable, a "land that consumes its inhabitants."

            Secondly, the events that preceded the incident of the scouts may have resulted in a growing mistrust of Moshe.  Recall that shortly before this incident, Benei Yisrael approached Moshe with a demand for meat, in response to which he turned to God to lament his inability to single-handedly lead the nation (see 11:1-15).  God replied by instructing Moshe to appoint seventy elders to serve as leaders under his charge.  This dramatic shift in leadership structure – from Moshe's exclusive authority to the appointment of seventy "understudies" – may have been perceived as the first stage of the decline of Moshe's leadership.  The people may have begun thinking that Moshe would soon step down and give way to one of the elders, and so his inspiring record – the splitting of the sea, the manna and the quail – did not calm their fears about confronting the Cananites under new leadership.  We might add as well the prophecy of Eldad and Meidad, who, according to Chazal (see Rashi to 11:28), predicted Moshe's death in the wilderness and Yehoshua's assumption of leadership as the nation entered Canaan.  This prophecy, too, likely fueled the people's fears upon hearing the scouts' report about the formidable Canaanite armies and fortresses.  Moshe's past accomplishments were irrelevant as far as they were concerned, as he would likely not be the one leading them in this campaign.

            Finally, we might suggest yet an additional factor.  Over the course of time, extraordinary events can begin to appear ordinary.  As awesome and inspiring as the splitting of the sea was, with time Benei Yisrael perhaps began to grow accustomed to the memory of this phenomenal event, such that it became less phenomenal.  This would apply all the more so in the case of the manna, a miracle that occurred each day and thus likely lost its miraculous flavor.  The inspiring impact of the miracles noted by Kalev had perhaps already begun to fade, and they therefore failed to provide the reassurance the people needed ahead of their campaign to capture Eretz Yisrael.

            The message of this failure could perhaps be applied to personal achievement, as well.  Just as Benei Yisrael grew accustomed to the miracles brought about by Moshe, so does each person naturally grow accustomed to his own achievements.  After somebody accomplishes a feat and feels a justifiable degree of pride, the sense of achievement might begin to wane as the days pass; with time, a person will gradually look upon the feat as something ordinary, rather than an impressive achievement.  As in the case of the Benei Yisrael, the memory of that achievement will then be ineffective in encouraging him to pursue even higher goals.  Accomplishments of the past should provide a person with reassurance and confidence to undertake even greater and more ambitious goals, proving to him his ability to overcome challenges and hurdle the obstacles that stand along the road to greatness.

******

            Before Moshe sent the spies on their mission to scout the Land of Israel, he issued a number of instructions, the final of which being that they should bring a sampling of the land's fruit to show the rest of the nation.  He concluded this instruction by adding, "and it is the time when the first grapes ripened" ("ve-ha-yamim yemei bikurei anavim" – 13:20).  Of what relevance is this fact to the instructions Moshe conveyed to the spies?

            Seforno explains that as the season's fruits had only begun to ripen, Moshe realized that the quality of the sample brought by the spies would not be of a high quality.  He nevertheless felt confident in the superior quality of Eretz Yisrael's fruits that even these relatively low-quality fruits would impress the people and be effective in endearing the land to them.

            Chizkuni claims that this clause serves to explain the preceding segment of the verse, in which Moshe admonishes the scouts, "Be courageous [ve-hitchazaktem] and take from the fruit of the land."  The reason why this task required a degree of courage, Chizkuni suggests, is because when the fruits begin ripening landowners hire guards to protect their fields from intruders.  Moshe bid the spies not to fear from these guards and to courageously seize a sampling of fruit to show the rest of Benei Yisrael.

            Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch explains along generally similar lines, claiming that seizing a sample of fruit required courage because this was not the season for picking and transporting fruits.  As the fruits had only begun to ripen, a group of people transporting fruit would likely arouse the suspicion of the native Canaanites.  Moshe thus had to reassure the spies to place their trust in God and show courage and faith by taking a sample of fruit despite the risks involved.

            Interestingly enough, the Iyei Ha-yam commentary to Masekhet Sota (34a) suggests the precise opposite approach (see also Malbim).  In his view, the fact that the spies visited Canaan during this period allowed them to camouflage themselves as merchants.  As the ripening season had begun, merchants from throughout the region had started descending upon the country to purchase fruits.  The spies could thus easily disguise as merchants and thereby avoid suspicion.  The Iyei Ha-yam compares this tactic to Yehoshua's instructions to the two spies he dispatched to the city of Jericho prior to the nation's crossing of the Jordan River.  According to one view cited by Rashi in his commentary to Sefer Yehoshua (2:1), Yehoshua commanded the spies to disguise as merchants selling earthenware utensils in order to avoid suspicion.  Similarly, the Iyei Ha-yam contends, Moshe's intent was for the spies to disguise as merchants who had come to Canaan to purchase fruit, and for this reason he sent them during this season and instructed them to bring some fruit back with them to the Israelite camp.

******

            The Torah tells towards the beginning of Parashat Shelach that as Moshe prepared the scouts for their excursion into Canaan, he changed the name of one of the scouts: Hoshea, the representative from Efrayim, was now named Yehoshua (13:16).  Rashi cites the Gemara (Sota 34b) as explaining that this name change actually served as a prayer that God should protect Yehoshua from the scheme of the other scouts.  Already at this point, Moshe suspected that the scouts might seek to dissuade the people from entering Canaan, and he therefore uttered a prayer on behalf of his student, asking "Y-H yoshi'akha" – "the Almighty shall save you" from the sinister plot of the other spies.

            Similarly, the Gemara tells that during the spies' excursion, Kalev separated from the other spies and went to Chevron, to pray by the tomb of the patriarchs that God should save him from the influence of his peers.

            Upon reading these passages, the question immediately arises as to how we may reconcile the prayers of Moshe and Kalev with the famous Talmudic dictum, "Ha-kol bi-dei Shamayim chutz mi-yir'at Shamayim" – everything is under God's jurisdiction except for the fear of God (Berakhot 33b).  God exerts control over everything in the universe with the exception of man's free will; only the human being can decide whether to live a life of virtue or of sin, to obey or to defy divine authority.  What purpose is there, then, in praying for divine assistance to overcome sinful influences?  If God does not exert control over free will, how might we understand the meaning of these prayers that He should protect Yehoshua and Kalev from the pressure and influence of their peers?

            The Ben Ish Chai (Rabbi Yosef Chayim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his Ben Yehoyada commentary to the Talmud (Masekhet Sota), answers by distinguishing between two manifestations of the yetzer ha-ra (evil inclination).  In some instances, a person will be tempted to sin due to an internal drive that threatens to overpower his conscience.  The individual is fully aware of the sinful nature of the act in question, and he nevertheless feels tempted.  But spiritual frailty also manifests itself in the tendency to mistake right for wrong, and vice versa.  People commonly transgress not due to an overpowering drive or desire, but because their moral clarity is obscured.  They misidentify sin as virtue, and piety as sacrilege.

            The sin of the scouts, the Ben Ish Chai claimed, falls into the latter category.  The scouts felt, for one of a variety of possible reasons, that it was wrong for Benei Yisrael to proceed to the land, that they bore the responsibility to expose the "truth" about Canaan and warn the people.  And this manifestation of the yetzer ha-ra, that of misapplied reasoning and perception, is indeed subject to divine control.  A person is independently able and expected to control his instincts and resist his sinful drives, but he may – and should – pray for divine assistance in achieving clarity of thought, in avoiding misperception.  Moshe did not pray that Yehoshua should muster the internal strength to resist the pressure of the spies; Yehoshua was expected to do this on his own.  Instead, Moshe prayed – in the Gemara's words – that God should save him "from the counsel of the spies," from the misdirected thought and reasoning that led the scouts to their catastrophic conclusions.

            Thus, while it is undoubtedly true that yir'at Shamayim lies outside God's jurisdiction, this applies only to the strength and resolve required to resist internal and external pressures and temptations.  This resistance can come only from an individual's own efforts.  We do, however, depend on the Almighty's grace and kindness to grant us the clarity and perspective we need to draw accurate lines between good and evil, between right and wrong, between virtue and sin.

******

            The final verses of Parashat Shelach (15:37-41) introduce the obligation of tzitzit, which requires affixing fringes to the corners of a four-cornered garment that one wears.  Among the many interesting halakhic issues that have received attention by the poskim regarding this mitzva is the question of whether the obligation applies to sheets and blankets with which one covers himself as he sleeps.  Does covering oneself with a sheet constitute "wearing" to the effect that it would require tzitzit?

            One factor that must be considered when addressing this question is the status of kesut layla – a nighttime garment.  Halakha exempts a kesut layla from the tzitzit obligation, but the Rishonim disagree in defining this term.  As the Shulchan Arukh cites (O.C. 18:1), the Rambam held that this exemption refers to the time-frame of the nighttime hours: any garment worn at nighttime requires tzitzit, even if it is normally worn during the day, whereas any garment worn by day requires tzitzit, even if it is normally worn at night.  The Rosh, by contrast, held that nighttime garments are exempt from tzitzit even when worn during the day, and, conversely, daytime garments require tzitzit even by night.  Hence, according to the Rambam, sheets are eligible for the tzitzit obligation despite being designated primarily for nighttime use.  In his view, if a person sleeps during the daytime hours, the sheets could potentially require tzitzit.

            Indeed, the Sefer Ha-yerei'im (401) writes that since – in his view – the kesut layla exemption applies to any kind of garment that one wears at nighttime, but not to nighttime garments that one wears by day, four-cornered sheets and blankets require tzitzit.

            There is, however, a second issue that must be considered.  The Mordekhai (Menachot 541) claims that sheets and blankets do not require tzitzit because covering oneself with linens does not constitute derekh levisha, an experience of "wearing" a garment.  Since they are used as a covering, rather than worn as a garment, they are not included in the tzitzit obligation.  The Beit Yosef indeed observes the widespread practice not to affix tzitzit to the corners of linens, and, accordingly, in the Shulchan Arukh (18:2) he rules leniently on this issue.

            However, the Magen Avraham (18:3) questions the Mordekhai's ruling in light of a comment of Tosefot (41a) that no distinction is made by Halakha between levisha (wearing) and ha'ala'a – placing a piece of material over oneself.  According to Tosefot, it would seem, even covering oneself with a four-cornered blanket suffices to require tzitzit.  In light of this debate, the Magen Avraham rules that one should affix tzitzit to woolen four-cornered blankets.  Since many halakhic authorities rule that garments made from other materials (besides wool) require tzitzit only on the level of Rabbinic enactment, there is greater room for leniency with regard to sheets made from these materials.  Therefore, we may rely on the Mordekhai's position exempting sheets from tzitzit.  Woolen garments, however, require tzitzit on the level of Torah obligation according to all views, and the Magen Avraham therefore advises affixing tzitzit to the corners of woolen sheets and blanket.  Clearly, however, common practice does not follow this position.

            Interestingly enough, Rav David Yosef (son of Rav Ovadya Yosef), in his Halakha Berura (vol. 1, p. 376), applies the Mordekhai's ruling to sheets that hairdressers commonly place upon their customers during haircuts.  Since these sheets, too, are merely "placed" and not "worn," they do not require tzitzit according to the view of the Mordekhai.  Rav David adds several other reasons for exempting barbers' sheets from tzitzit, including the fact that the sheet does not belong to the customer, and he thus bears no obligation to affix tzitzit to it while he "wears" it.