English translation — שלח ב

A.

At the end of our parshah¹

Rashi brings from Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan: Why is the section of the wood-gatherer juxtaposed to the section of idolatry? To say that one who desecrates the Sabbath is like an idolater, for it (idolatry) is also equivalent to all the commandments, etc.².

In Tosafos³

it stands: The incident of the wood-gatherer was at the beginning of the forty [years], immediately after the incident of the spies, as it says in the Midrash that he intended for the sake of Heaven, because Israel was saying: Since it has been decreed upon them not to enter the Land from the incident of the spies, they are no longer obligated in the commandments. He arose and desecrated the Sabbath in order that he be killed and others see.

According to this, the juxtaposition of the section of the wood-gatherer to the entirety of our parshah is understood,

where it speaks about the sin of the spies

(which is the main story in our parshah, and after it the entire sidrah is called – Parshas Sh'lach),

because the incident of the wood-gatherer came as a result of the incident of the spies.

Since the Torah places the portion of idolatry between the incident of the spies and the portion of the wood-gatherer,

it is understood,

that also according to the Tosafot the portion of the wood-gatherer is related to the portion of idolatry in the manner that Rashi brings from Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan,

and as Tosafot<sup>4</sup>

explains the Gemara<sup>5</sup>

"Moses our teacher knew that the wood-gatherer was liable to death, as it is said<sup>6</sup>

'its desecrators shall surely be put to death,' but he did not know by which death"<sup>7</sup>,

that "although<sup>*7</sup>

an unspecified death is strangulation,

from the reasoning he would compare it to an idolater who is stoned, for one who desecrates Shabbat in public is like a denier of the fundamental principle, a denier of Maaseh Bereishit"<sup>8</sup>.

And one may add: This connection

(of the portion of the wood-gatherer to the portion of idolatry)

is

(only)

in the very essence of the sin of Shabbat and idolatry.

But from the fact that the juxtaposition is not merely to a general sin of desecration of Shabbat,

but specifically to the sin of the wood-gatherer,

it is plausible to say,

that the portion of idolatry has a connection to the manner of desecration of Shabbat as it was with the wood-gatherer,

"for the sake of Heaven he intended."

And one must say,

Since all this is a part of Parshas Shelach,

whose main subject is the section of the spies,

one must say,

that also this matter has a connection to the content of "the incident of the spies."⁹

B.

One will understand this with an introduction of an explanation in the words of the Midrash that Tosafos brings: "That for the sake of Heaven he intended, for Israel were saying: Since it was decreed upon them not to enter the Land from the incident of the spies, they are no longer obligated in the commandments,

he stood and desecrated the Sabbath in order that he be killed and others will see."

At first glance, in order to bring out that one is still obligated in mitzvos – why did he specifically need to desecrate the Sabbath,

And especially since through this comes an additional very great sin "your blood for your souls" – a shedder of his own blood¹⁰

– he brings to this that "he should be killed",

He could have brought it out by transgressing another commandment,

Even a very minor sin,

Which is liable for lashes,

Monetary [penalty] and the like?

Also in Targum Yonatan¹¹

It states the general content that the wood-gatherer did not intend to desecrate intentionally but intended for the sake of Heaven,

But Targum Yonatan explains why he specifically desecrated the Sabbath: Because they then only knew "the decree of the Sabbath" but the punishment for desecrating the Sabbath – "the penalty of the Sabbath was not known to them",

So this was the intention of the wood-gatherer that through his deeds "the penalty became known

(of the Sabbath)

to all the house of Israel".

But according to the midrash

(cited in Tosafot)

that he did this in order to bring out that one is obligated in mitzvot,

it is not understood why he specifically chose desecration of Shabbat,

as above?

Then the explanation of this is — according to the words of the Maharsha¹²

on the question: how did he desecrate Shabbat in order to inform by which death is one judged for desecrating Shabbat?

He explains¹³

: Since he did not need to come to the melachah except "to know by which death etc.,

it is a melachah she-einah tzrichah legufah, like one who digs a pit and needs only its dirt, which is exempt according to Rabbi Shimon,"

and he elaborates: "And so one may say according to the midrash that Tosafot wrote etc. that it is also a melachah she-einah tzrichah legufah."

And according to this it is understood according to the midrash brought in Tosafos why he brought this out specifically through a forbidden labor on Shabbos,

because he did not want to commit a sin and specifically thereby should be the clarification mentioned above,

and this is specifically on Shabbos where a labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt

(for Rabbi Shimon)¹⁴,

until as it stands in Kedushas Levi^*14

– "if so he did not desecrate Shabbos at all".

3.

Nevertheless the Almighty said "the man shall be put to death, stone him, etc."¹⁵,

that he was liable to death – although it is revealed before Heaven that it was a labor that is not needed for its own sake,

and for the sake of Heaven he intended,

until that "he did not desecrate Shabbos at all"

(and in general – Torah and commandments)¹⁶

among Jews]¹⁷

explains the Maharsha<sup>12</sup>

that this is because "the witnesses did not know that they had warned him that he acted with this intent, and they are only matters of the heart, and they would have sentenced him to death based on the testimony."

is not the explanation in this that they stoned him by mistake

(due to the lack of knowledge of the witnesses)

– because Torah is indeed Torah of truth,

so if according to the truth<sup>18</sup>

according to his intent,

"he did not desecrate Shabbat at all",

the Almighty would not have commanded "the man shall surely be put to death, etc."<sup>19</sup>

Only the obligation of stoning "in human courts"²⁰

is according to the Torah of truth on the deed and action,

and since his action was an action of desecration of Shabbos,

this is according to the law of the lower court²¹

an action for which one is liable for stoning,

and it is entirely not relevant his intention²².

D.

According to this is understood the connection of the portion of the wood-gatherer to the portion of idolatry:

Regarding idolatry, one finds a special matter that is not found in the other commandments of the Torah: Every Jew, even the most insignificant of the insignificant,

when it comes to a test of idolatry,

he sacrifices his life "even if it is only to do some act alone against the belief in the One G-d, such as bowing to an idol even though he does not believe in it at all in his heart"²³.

And it requires explanation: The main sin of idolatry is the belief in the heart,

he considers as an entity one of all the creations besides the Most High,

an angel,

sphere or star²⁴,

he accepts

(the idol worship)

as a god²⁵,

and when "he does not believe in it at all in his heart" this is not the sin of idolatry,

he has not separated himself from the Most High,

and on the other hand,

even when he does not sacrifice his life, he does not receive any punishment because it is an act under duress²⁶.

Only because this is a matter of idolatry,

even though this is not the content of the sin of idolatry,

it is called among Jews down here the prohibition of idolatry,

and he sacrifices himself for this.

And this is the continuation of the portion of the wood-gatherer on the Sabbath day to the portion of idolatry:

The labor of Shabbos is indeed entirely connected with his thought and intention – "Intentional labor the Torah forbade",

Therefore²⁷

one is not liable for a labor that is not needed for its own sake

this is entirely not an act of desecration of Shabbos]²⁸

– Nevertheless,

since the act in itself as it appears in the world is an act of desecration of Shabbos

(Because the fact that it was a labor not needed for its own sake was entirely not apparent in the act),

according to the true Torah law,

stoning comes upon him for the act.

5.

Based on all the above one will also understand the connection in content of the incident of the wood-gatherer to "the incident of the spies":

It is explained in several places²⁹

that the reason why the spies wanted to remain in the desert and not enter the Land of Israel,

is because the main occupation of Jews in the desert

(where they did not need to occupy themselves with the matter of making a livelihood etc.)

was in the study of Torah

(and as the saying of our sages³⁰

: The Torah was given to be expounded only to eaters of the manna),

that the study of Torah is its essence – the understanding and comprehension³¹

in intellect and thought³²

(and also – bringing it down into speech³³)

; but not so in the Land of Israel,

where there is indeed "six years you shall sow your field etc. you shall prune your vineyard"³⁴,

and in the inner dimension – the main service there is – deed,

practical commandments

(and especially the fulfillment of the commandments dependent on the Land^*34),

and good deeds in general

(good deeds).

With this one will understand the words of the midrash

(brought in Tosafot)

mentioned above: that Israel would say, since it was decreed upon them not to enter the Land from the incident of the spies, they are no longer obligated in the commandments.

From the plain meaning of the language of the midrash it is implied,

that they did not mean to rebel against the Most High, heaven forbid, by that which they would not fulfill commandments,

but³⁵

"they are not obligated in the commandments".

And superficially it is perplexing: What is the reason of their initial assumption?

they would have said "since the decree of death was decreed upon them"³⁶

and the like – one could still explain their initial reasoning

(with great difficulty – at any rate),

that since their judgment for death was concluded,

they are like a dead man and they have no obligations.

But what is the initial reasoning "since it was decreed upon them not to enter the land etc. they are no longer obligated in the commandments"?

Only according to the above it can be said that this itself was their initial reasoning: since the matter of entering the land is indeed

(primarily)

for the sake of fulfillment of the commandments in action,

they considered,

"since it was decreed upon them not to enter the land from the incident of the spies they are no longer obligated in the commandments" – to them the service of fulfillment of the commandments in action does not apply

and especially since many many commands were given as a preparation for entering the land³⁷

(that in the merit of these commandments one will enter the land of Israel³⁸)],

and their entire service consists only in the study of the Torah

(in thought and speech)

– "they are not obligated in the commandments".

And upon this comes the continuation of the story of the wood gatherer – "He stood and desecrated the Shabbos in order that he be killed and others see": This brings out,

that also in the matters whose entire content is "intentional work",

and he did it "for the sake of Heaven" not to transgress the will of Hashem – nevertheless,

also in this the main thing is – the actual deed,

which is why the Torah of Truth says that the halachic ruling below is that this is desecration of Shabbos and it carries the penalty of stoning.

And this taught the Jews who then remained in the desert,

that even though "it was decreed upon them not to enter the Land",

this is only that they do not come to the essence of fulfillment of commandments in deed,

as it is in the Land of Israel; but also they,

remaining in the desert,

the service pertains mainly as it comes down into actual deed

(to the extent that it is applicable in the desert³⁹),

Because the main essence of the mitzvah – connection and attachment with the Above,

is through the action of the mitzvah.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Shlach 5719,

Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh Re'eh 5739)