Shlach Answers



Shelach 5722.

Alef.

1. The phrase “VeUlam Chai Ani” usually precedes some action. Yet in this case, prior to the action that is described starting with “Im Yiru Et HaAretz…”, reference is made to the people who tested God @ ten times and failed to listen to His Voice. Consequently, RaShI is suggesting that the opening phrase should be understood as an introduction to the later statement despite what is stated in between.

2.  Levush HaOra understands RaShI’s comment as two separate statements rather than a single one. The two statements relate to the phrase “U’Chevodi Yemaleh Et Kol HaAretz” in different ways. According to the first interpretation, it is part of the oath, i.e., “By My Life, Whose Glory Fills the entire land”—it adds gravitas to the Promise made by HaShem. According to the second interpretation, the phrase “U’Chevodi Yemaleh Et Kol HaAretz” explains why instead of HaShem Destroying all those lacking faith in Him immediately, He Chose instead to have them die over a protracted forty year period. It is transposed (“MeSuras”) from the beginning of the verse to its end. If they all died immediately, it would lead to the conclusion warned about by Moshe that HaShem is not Powerful enough, KaVeYachol, to conduct the people through the desert. Therefore in order to prevent a Chilul HaShem, and thereby assure that people will believe that “His Glory Fills the entire earth, the punishment is doled out accordingly

3. 

Arachin 15a-b

It was taught: R. Judah said, With ten trials did our forefathers try the Holy One, blessed be He:

two at the sea, two because of water, two because of manna, two because of the quails, one in

connection with the golden calf, and one in the wilderness of Paran,

‘Two at the sea’: one at the going down, the other at the coming up. ‘At the going down’, as it is written: Because there were no graves in Egypt [hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness]? ‘At the coming up’: That is in accord with what R. Huna taught, for he said: The Israelites of that generation were among those of little faith; as Rabbah b. Mari expressed it; for Rabbah b. Mari said: It is written: But they were rebellions at the sea, even at the Red Sea; nevertheless He saved them for His name's sake. This teaches that Israel were rebellious at that very hour, saying: Just as we go up from this side, so will the Egyptians go up from the other side. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Prince of the Sea: Cast them out on the dry land! He answered: Sovereign of the Universe, is there a slave to whom his Master gives a gift and then takes it away from him again? He said to him: I shall give you [afterwards] one and a half times as many of them. He said before Him: Sovereign of the Universe, is there any slave who can claim anything against his master? He said: The brook of Kishon shall be surety. At once he cast them on the dry land, as it is written: And Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the sea-shore.

‘Twice because of water’: at Marah, and at Refidim. ‘At Marah’, as it is written: And when they came to Marah, they could not drink, and it is written: And the people murmured against Moses. ‘At Refidim’, as it is written: They encamped in Refidim and there was no water to,drink, and it is also written: Wherefore the people strove with Moses.

‘Twice because of the manna as it is written: ‘Do not go out’, whereas they did go out. Do not leave over, but they did leave over.

Twice because of the quails’: of the first and second quails. With the first: When we sat by the fleshpots;  with the second quails: And the mixed multitude that was among them.

‘With the golden calf’: as it happened.

‘In the wilderness of Paran’: As it happened.

The term “VaYenasu” (and they tested) leaves nothing to the imagination to the point where it becomes necessary to state “KeMashma’o” (in accordance with its simple meaning). The clarifying word is necessary only when there is ambiguity about the word in the biblical text. “Eser Pe’amim” (ten times) on the other hand is not so clear cut. Depending upon how you read the text, it is not necessary to come to the exact number “ten” unless you put your mind to do so. For example, why do the “two at the sea” have to be necessarily viewed as two as opposed to one? Inserting the word “KeMashma’o” after “Eser Pe’amim” reflects the view that the number ten is to be taken literally in this instance rather than simply indicating “a number of times.”

4.  Perhaps RaShI feels that if the biblical text chose to use the term “ten”, then it has to be literally honored as opposed to being viewed as a general term for multiplicity. The text could have said “Harbeh” (many) but apparently preferred not to.

Beit.

1.  The two questions addressed by RaMBaN are: a) Why in 14:24 is only Kalev mentioned and not Yehoshua? b) Why in 14:30 is Kalev mentioned before Yehoshua, while in 14:38 Yehoshua is mentioned before Kalev?

2.  RaMBaN does not attribute changes in order to style or literary preference, but rather to some underlying rationale. Ibn Kaspi is more given to attribute changes in order to nothing more than literary style. (This parallels the dispute between R. Akiva and R. Yishmael, where the former interprets every word, letter and extra lines on the letters [Ketarim] whereas the latter famously proclaimed “Divrei Tora KeLashon Bnai Adam” [the words of the Tora are like the speech of human beings, i.e., people are not always that precise and do not insert significance into every stylized utterance that they make.[)

3.  a) The difference between 13:27 and 14:8 is not arbitrary as Ibn Kaspi might suggest. The spies begrudgingly admitted that Canaan was a land flowing with milk and honey BUT…

On the other hand, Yehoshua and Kalev assert that Canaan definitely is a land flowing with milk and honey and therefore the Jews should make every effort to enter and inherit it.

b) The specific order in 12:1 reflects who initiated the critique of Moshe, i.e., Miriam, and therefore maintaining the same order in 12:5 is important because the punishments are not equal. Even though there is a view that Aharon was momentarily afflicted with Tzora’at for having listened to his sister’s attack upon Moshe, Miriam’s Tzora’at remains for a week. Consequently the person who began the conversation, who is mentioned first, becomes significant. Once again, RaShI’s approach and even that of Ibn Ezra to some extent, would be sensitive to this but not that of Ibn Kaspi.

Gimel.

1.  When HaShem Says that everyone will die in the desert, one might have thought that this includes entire families. Just as the adults will be “LaVaz” so too the children and what the people said in 14:3 will turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ohr HaChayim says that HaShem specifically Notes that the children will not meet up with the same fate as the adults and that they would not end up “LaVaz”.

2.  While HaShem could simply have stated that the people’s predictions for their children would not come true, Ohr HaChayim understands the verse as stating that HaShem will Go further than that, and specifically bring the children who will not die in the desert,  into the land of Canaan, as had been promised to the entire people before the sin of the spies. Ordinarily the “Vav” before a verb could be understood as serving as a “Vav HaHipuch” reversing a past tense into a future tense. But in this case, since there is a two-stage promise by HaShem, i.e., not to allow the children to die and to bring them to the land of Canaan, the “Vav” is treated as the beginning of a separate clause.

Daled.

1.  R’E”M: Since the Jewish people removed their hearts from HaShem, HaShem Moved His “Heart” from them. An example of the principle of Mida KeNeged Mida.

      Gur Aryeh: HaShem would never Remove His “Heart” from the Jewish people. It only appeared to be so since the Jewish people removed their hearts from Him. Passively, HaShem Ends up being distant from the Jews, but not because of any Movement on His Part; only because of their movement away from Him.

2.  Since originally HaShem’s Plan was for the Jews to enter the land of Canaan, it could be thought that the Decree that He just Pronounced to the effect that the Jews would die in the desert was just a bluff and that He would rescind it either sooner or later. Ibn Kaspi understands from the phrase “VeYedatem Et Tenuati” that the decree will not be reversed and therefore the Jews should prepare for it to enforced.

3.  The Beiur insists that the phrase suggests some movement on the part of HaShem away from the people. Consequently, even if He does not Initiate such movement, the fact that it takes place puts Beiur in the camp of R’E”M as opposed to Gur Aryeh.

3