English translation — שלח א

Sicha 1<pg>48</pg>

A.

"And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bore it upon a pole between two; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs."<sup>1</sup>

And Rashi explains the order of carrying the fruits — "Eight took a cluster, one took a fig, and one a pomegranate; Joshua and Caleb took nothing, because their entire intention was to spread an evil report; just as its fruit is unusual, so its people are unusual."

And it requires explanation: Behold, Moses our teacher commanded them<sup>2</sup>

"And you shall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land,"

And how did Joshua and Caleb exempt themselves and not take anything<sup>3</sup>?

And this "that their entire intention

(of the spies)

to bring out an evil report was their intent,"

behold, they were required to take from the fruit of the land to fulfill the command of Moses, and it is obvious that their intention was for good,

to show the praise of the land<sup>4</sup>.

And one cannot say that the words of Moses "and you shall take from the fruit of the land" are not considered a command that they are obligated to listen to his voice,

since it was not by a command of G-d<sup>5</sup>,

for on the contrary, the Holy One, blessed be He, said<sup>6</sup>

"Send for yourself,

according to your understanding,

I do not command you; if you wish, send."

And so in what is written in Parsha Devarim<sup>7</sup>

"And you approached me, all of you, and said, 'Let us send men before us,'"

And in Rashi there on the verse<sup>8</sup>

"And the matter was good in my eyes" — "In my eyes and not in the eyes of the Place — if in the eyes of Moses it was good, why did he mention it in rebuke? A parable: like a person who says to his friend etc. 'Even I agreed to your words, perhaps you would retract when you see that I do not prevent, and you did not retract'" — It is simple that since in practice Moses sent them, they are the agents of Moses,

And consequently also the detail in the words of Moses<sup>9</sup>

"And you shall take from the fruit of the land" is his command and his mission.

2.

And behold, the source of Rashi

(In this that Joshua and Caleb did not take anything)

Is in the Gemara<sup>10</sup>,

But in the Gemara there, two reasons are brought for the matter: "Joshua and Caleb did not carry anything — if you wish, say because they were important, and if you wish, say that they were not in that counsel."

And it appears,

that the two answers differ regarding the fulfillment of the mission,

whether after the spies turned from kosher people into "wicked ones"¹¹

and went "in evil counsel"¹²

to speak slander about the land,

Moshe's mission was nullified or not.

<pg>49</pg>

For according to the first reason that Yehoshua and Kalev did not carry "because they were considered important",

it is understood,

that essentially they were required to bring fruits of the land except that they were exempted from the act of carrying the fruits due to their importance,

and if so, Moshe's mission was not nullified; but according to the second reason "that they were not in that counsel" it can be said,

that since the spies went "in evil counsel",

then the entire mission was nullified¹³

.

[And we must explain the difference between the two approaches according to the halachah — whether the twelve men that Moshe sent are one entity,

and Moshe's sending was a general command to all of them

(like an obligation upon the public),

and when part of the mission is nullified, the whole is nullified; or it is a command to each and every one of them individually].

And accordingly,

since Rashi in his commentary on the Torah adopts the second reason in the Talmud,

that "Yehoshua and Kalev did not take anything because their entire intention was to spread an evil report,"

behold he holds that the entire mission was nullified,

and therefore they were not obligated to bring fruits.

[And the reason that Rashi did not adopt the first explanation,

one can say simply,

that since this was the command of Moshe "And you shall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land",

it is not possible that because of their importance Yehoshua and Calev would not fulfill the command].

But this is completely the opposite of the plain meaning,

for Calev and Yehoshua returned from spying out the land and reported to those who sent them about the praise of the land,

"The land is very very good"¹⁴,

and also they endeavored to persuade them to go up to the land

("We can surely do it"¹⁵

; "If the Lord delights in us etc. do not fear them"¹⁶),

that is, the mission of Moshe was actually fulfilled by Yehoshua and Calev.

And so it is implied from Rashi on the verse¹⁷

"And Yehoshua son of Nun and Calev son of Yefuneh lived from those men who went to spy out the land" — "This teaches that they took the portion of the spies in the land and arose in their place for life",

and that is because the mission of Moshe

(to all twelve men)

was fulfilled by them,

and therefore they took their portion etc. and arose in their place.

And furthermore: It is a great difficulty to say in Rashi on the Torah that Moshe's mission was a general command to all, and when part of the mission was nullified, the whole was nullified — for this is not the plain meaning of the verse.

And on the contrary,

Yehoshua and Calev went together with them and did not separate from them when they saw that they were of evil counsel

(according to the plain language of Rashi¹⁸

that their going was "of evil counsel",

and even before their going Moshe prayed concerning Yehoshua¹⁹

"May HaShem save you from the counsel of the spies").

3.

And this will be understood by prefacing the difference between the language of the Talmud and the language of Rashi,

for in the Talmud it is stated briefly "that they were not in that counsel",

whereas Rashi elaborates in his language²⁰

"because their entire intention was to spread slander, just as its fruit is unusual, so its nation is unusual".

And the difference between them simply is: according to the language of the Gemara one can say,

that this that Joshua and Caleb did not carry fruits with the spies is because they did not want to do any matter that could be interpreted that they are in one counsel with them,

even though the actual carrying and bringing of the fruits&lt;pg&gt;50&lt;/pg&gt;

was not in that any negative thing; but Rashi adds and emphasizes,

that the "counsel" of the spies was also in the bringing of the fruits themselves,

and therefore Joshua and Caleb did not participate with them in the carrying of the fruits — not only so that there would not be a place for error that they are in one counsel with them in general,

but they did not want to take a part in this act of the bringing of the fruits,

because the intention of the spies

(also)

in this act was "to bring out an evil report."

— But this does not exempt them from fulfilling the mission of Moshe²¹.

Thus one must understand: From where does Rashi [derive] that the very bringing of the fruit was with the intention "to spread an evil report",

and behold, from the plain sense of the scriptural verses it implies the opposite,

that the spreading of the evil report of the spies began after they showed the fruit to Israel,

and as it is written^*21

"And they told [him] etc. We came to the land etc. And moreover it flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit.

Nevertheless, the people is strong etc. and the cities etc.",

and thus it also implies in Rashi's commentary there,

that this is the "bit of truth" that they said in order that the lie that they said afterwards be established²².

4.

And one must say the explanation in all this:

It is known,

that among the commandments of the Torah there are commandments whose main point is the action,

the deed of the commandment,

like the commandment of tefillin of the hand,

that the commandment is to lay tefillin,

and there are commandments whose main point is the result and the effected object,

like the head-tefillin,

in which the main point of the commandment is that they be on the head, as it is said²³

"And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes"²⁴.

And likewise there is room to investigate in the essence of the mission of "and you shall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land,"

if the main intention of the mission in this was only the effect and the result that they would return and show to the children of Israel the fruits,

or that there was an obligation also on the act of taking.

For since Moshe emphasized in his words "and you shall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land,"

the act of taking,

behold the action of the person

(the agent),

the taking of the fruits and their carrying,

they are a primary part of the mission.

And it can be said

(with difficulty at least),

that the method of the Talmud is like the first alternative,

that their mission was the effect and the result,

and therefore we are not concerned with the act of carrying the fruits,

for there is no obligation of carrying,

but that the fruits be brought

(in whatever way it may be)

to Moshe and Israel.

And based on this, the two reasons in the Talmud are understood why Yehoshua and Kalev did not bring fruits

(And they were not concerned to fulfill Moshe's command "And you shall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land")

— "Because they were considered..

that they were not in that counsel",

And this is that&lt;pg&gt;51&lt;/pg&gt;

In any case, Moshe's mission was fulfilled by others and the command did not apply to each individual to bring fruits,

And for this the reason of "they were considered" and "that they were not in that counsel" suffices,

that they would not strive that the mission be fulfilled specifically through them.

5.

And it must be said,

that Rashi's method in his commentary on the Torah is not so,

but rather that "and you shall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land" was an obligation of the person

(according to the plain sense of the language),

and essentially there was an obligation upon each one of the twelve men to take and carry the fruit of the land

[and as we also find an opinion in Chazal²⁵,

that all of them carried fruits,

also Yehoshua and Calev²⁶].

And therefore Rashi did not adopt the first reason in the Gemara,

that Yehoshua and Calev took nothing "because they were important",

for he holds that they were obligated in the obligation of the person of "and you shall take from the fruit of the land".

And for this reason Rashi cannot be satisfied with the language of the Gemara that the reason they did not take [fruit] is "because they were not of that counsel" — for this language can be interpreted

(as above)

that they did not want there to be room for error that they had any connection to the counsel of the spies at all — because this is not sufficient to nullify an explicit command of Moshe Rabbeinu "and you shall take from the fruit of the land."

And therefore Rashi writes "Yehoshua and Calev did not take anything because the spies intended only to speak slander, [saying] 'just as its fruit is unusual, so its people are unusual,'"

so it must be said,

that Rashi's intention is not that the spies explicitly said to Bnei Yisrael "just as its fruit is unusual etc." — for as above,

it is explicit at the beginning of their speech "and they told him and said, 'We came to the land to which you sent us, and indeed it flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit,'"

and in Rashi's commentary this is the "bit of truth" at its beginning that the spies said in order to sustain the falsehood they came to say afterwards "but the people are strong etc." — rather, Rashi's intention is,

that this was only their intention in bringing the fruits.

For the actual act of bringing the fruits was in a manner that appeared to Bnei Yisrael that thereby they fulfilled Moshe's mission "and you shall take from the fruit of the land,"

but they had a hidden intention,

that by saying a bit of truth,

this would authenticate the falsehood of "but the people are strong etc."

(for Yisrael would say "just as its fruit is unusual, so its people are unusual").

And according to this manner it is explained how it is possible that Yehoshua and Kalev did not take anything²⁷

:

If there was no intention of slander

(on the part of the spies)

in the act of bringing the fruits,

it is simple that Yehoshua and Kalev would have participated with them to fulfill the command and mission of Moshe "and you shall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land"

(which is an obligation of the person as above)

;

But since there was here a good deed

(bringing fruits that show the goodness of the land and its praise)

together with an undesirable intention,

so then it is no longer possible for them to take anything,

for if they also participate in bringing fruits from the goodness of the land,

then they are assisting a transgression

(their evil intention of the spies in the deed&lt;pg&gt;52&lt;/pg&gt;

the bringing),

and assistance to a transgression overrides the fulfillment of Moses' mission.

And perhaps this is not a rejection,

but rather this was Moses' intention,

that they should not take fruits in a manner of assisting a transgression,

and on the contrary this nullifies the purpose of the mission.

6.

And one must say a lesson in the service of man from Rashi's explanation this:

It is known²⁸,

that the main error of the spies was in this, that they wanted to do their service primarily in thought and also in speech

(the study of Torah and the intentions of the commandments)

and they did not want to descend to the world of action and to fulfill practical commandments dependent on the Land.

And since this is so,

a person is liable to err in the other direction and to think that since the action is the main thing²⁹

behold, the intention of the heart and the thought of the mind are not so relevant.

And about this Rashi teaches us,

that their hidden intention "to spread an evil report" caused the fulfillment of Moses' command to become a matter of transgression and slander.

And the measure of good is greater,

for from here we learn to what extent the virtue of good intention and desirable thought in the performance of the commandments reaches.

And as the saying: a commandment without intention is like a body without a soul³⁰,

that the action of the soul in the body is not in a peripheral or particular matter,

but the soul changes the existence of the body from the opposite of life to life.

And likewise in the intention of the commandment,

that the intention gives life to the commandment.

And the main thing of this matter is through the study of the inner dimensions of the Torah,

the Torah of Chassidus,

in which there is a kind of revelation of the reasons of the Torah of the future as is known.

And it can be said that in this manner is the obligation to believe in Moshiach and to await his coming³¹,

which must be³²

with inwardness and truth,

from the depth of the heart,

And this³³

He will hasten and expedite the true redemption and the fulfillment of the promise³⁴

"And I will give you a heart of flesh,"

speedily, in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Motzaei Shabbat Kodesh Parshat Shlach 5738)