Among
the classical commentators there is an approach that the motivation for the
majority report of the ten spies that Israel would be unable to capture the
land of Canaan was their desire to remain in the wilderness under the wings of
the Shechina. In the wilderness, the Israelites were free of earthly
endeavors, since all of their needs were provided miraculously, while upon
entering the Land, they would need to work their land, and their lives would no
longer be completely spiritual. Ḥassidic Master Rabbi Menaḥem Mendel of Riminov
(1745-1815) phrases the point thus: “They believed that they would be able to
achieve Divine service more easily in the wilderness than in the Land.” Shem
MiShmuel writes: “Being ‘a knowledgeable generation’ brought them to
reluctance to engage in plowing and planting, which are earthly activities, and
they preferred to remain in the wilderness, engaged in Torah and spiritual
service.”
Rabbi
Yitzḥak Nissenbaum (1868-1942), one of the early thinkers of religious Zionism,
writes that the spies “attempted to separate the Land and Torah.” The spies saw
Torah and the Land as being in opposition and contradiction to each other, with
the nation having to choose between the two. The ten spies thought that entry
into the Land would put Torah observance at risk, and chose Torah over the
Land. In essence, the spies’ approach was that Torah could be observed only in
the wilderness, where Israel was isolated from other nations and cultures.
Against
the ten spies, Joshua and Caleb argued that God had clearly expressed His will
that His chosen nation enter the Chosen Land in order to fulfill His mitzvot
specifically within her. Their message to the Israelites was: “if you truly
wish to fulfill Torah - ascend to the Land.”
The
nation, of course, accepted the majority report, and rejected that of Joshua
and Caleb, and in so doing caused generations of crying. “As a result of their
sin we remain in exile today, and God revisits the sin of the fathers on the
sons, the sin of the spies, because the sons are guilty of the fathers’ sin,
separating Torah and the Land, deciding that there can be Torah without the
Land.”
Following
the night of crying brought on by the spies’ report, we read:
And
they rose early in the morning, and got up to the top of the mountain, saying:
‘Behold we are here, and will go up to the place which the Lord has promised,
for we have sinned.’ Numbers 14:40
At first glance, this would appear to
constitute repentance, realizing the sin of the spies and rectifying it.
However, Rabbi Nissenbaum writes, those who were ready to “go up to the place
which the Lord has promised” as well separated the Land and Torah. “They too
believed Torah and the Land cannot be united, however, they chose the Land over
Torah. Their approach was that Torah and the Land are incompatible, and they
chose to leave Torah in the wilderness and ascend to the Land. They believed
that the Land can be Israel’s without Torah.” As such, this is actually the
“flip side” of the sin of the spies. Both groups erred in thinking that is
possible to separate God’s Torah and His Land.
Rabbi Nissenbaum’s conclusion (his
words were published seventeen years before Israel achieved statehood) was:
“without the Land our lives are missing numerous organs of the body of Torah.
Indeed, the nation of Israel must understand the necessity of the combination
of the Land of Israel and the Torah of Israel.”
No comments:
Post a Comment