English translation — שלח א

A.

From the verse "Vayahas Kalev et ha'am el Moshe etc." ¹,

Rashi cites "Vayahas Kalev",

and explains: "hish'tik et kulam".

At first glance one learns,

that Rashi with his explanation comes to interpret the word "vayahas" — that it means "hish'tik".

But based on this it is difficult:

a)

Why does Rashi quote the word "

(vayahas)

kelev" when he explains only "vayahas"?

At the end of all his explanations in our verse, Rashi again stands on the word "vayahas" and explains: "language of silence,"

and brings there examples from other places where "has" means silence — so how can one say that with his very first explanation "vayahas kalev — hishtik et kulam" he intends to interpret the word "vayahas"

(something that he does only at the very end)?

c)

Why does he add

(after his explanation "vayahas — hishtik")

the words "et kulam"?

And the question is a double one:

(a)

What does Rashi innovate by saying "et kulam"; even without Rashi we would ostensibly know it,

because the simple explanation of "vayahas kalev et ha'am" is,

that he silenced the entire people?

b)

Even if you say that without Rashi we would not know that "et ha'am" means the entire people,

and therefore Rashi needs to explain it,

it is however difficult: this very explanation "et kulam" explains the words "et ha'am" — not the words "vayahas kalev".

So why does Rashi say it on "vayahas kalev"

(and in continuation of his translation "hishtik")?

(b)

B.

Regarding Rashi's innovation "et kulam" and the continuation of his innovation to the interpretation "hishtik",

one could seemingly answer:

The Targum Onkelos

(which is close to the plain meaning of Scripture <sup>2</sup>,

and in many places Rashi brings a proof from Onkelos)

translates "vayahas Kalev — ve'atzit Kalev"

(he made the people listen to themselves)

— and also Rashi can interpret thus,

as we find similar to it — "<b>haskeis</b> veshama"<sup>3</sup>.

Also one can interpret "vayahas" from the language of incitement<sup>4</sup>,

that Kalev spoke to them,

persuaded them,

according to <b>both</b> interpretations it is understandable,

that "et ha'am" means simply: Kalev made that the

(whole)

people should listen to Moshe; or he persuaded the

(whole)

people that they should "be" to Moshe

(i.e.,

that is,

on Moshe's side).

But according to Rashi "vayahas — he silenced",

one is seemingly compelled to learn,

that "vayahas Kalev" does not refer to "the people" — because in the previous verses it is only told that the spies spoke,

but it is not mentioned that also the people said anything — and consequently one would learn,

that Kalev silenced only the spies.

And the words "the people" do not refer to the "vayahas" itself,

but to the purpose of "vayahas" — that he silenced the spies so that the "people" should listen to his words<sup>5</sup>.

Therefore Rashi says "he silenced <b>all of them</b>",

that Kalev made silent

(not only the spies,

but also)

the entire people <sup>6</sup>,

<b>according to the plain meaning</b> of the verse "vayahas Kalev the people"<sup>7</sup>.

One cannot, however, answer thus: a)

To learn that "vayahas Kalev the people" means that he silenced someone else "et" <b>because of </b>"the people" — is very far from the plain meaning,

and Rashi does not need to negate it at all.

b)

When with the words "et kulam" Rashi means the entire people,

then the question becomes

(above s.1)

even stronger: why does he not quote from the verse also the words "et ha'am"?

c.

Afterwards Rashi stands on the words "el Moshe",

and explains: "lishmo'a mah sheyedaber beMoshe" — that "el Moshe" means

<b>not</b> to Moshe himself — because that has no continuation to "vayahas — <b>hishtik</b>",

but rather)

<b>about</b> Moshe — that Calev will speak about him.

Here too it is not understood — and in continuation of earlier: what compels Rashi to explain that "vayahas" means "he silenced",

and consequently he must learn that "el Moshe" means,

to &lt;b&gt;Caleb's&lt;/b&gt; words &lt;b&gt;about&lt;/b&gt; Moses; he could have explained that "vayahas" means "vayatzit" or "vayasit" which then one could learn "el Moshe" — to Moses — literally &lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;?

Even if you say that according to Rashi,

the only interpretation that one can learn in vayahas is the language of silence — still even according to this interpretation one could have learned "el Moshe" literally,

that Caleb made them silent in order that they should listen &lt;b&gt;to&lt;/b&gt; Moses.

And although in the verse it is not related that Moses &lt;b&gt;then&lt;/b&gt; said anything — one can however learn,

that Caleb made them quiet with the claim that they should listen to Moses,

as some of the commentators of Scripture learn&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

— or: &lt;b&gt;el Moshe&lt;/b&gt;

(they should hear Moses's &lt;b&gt;opinion&lt;/b&gt; *&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

what he

(Caleb)

is going to tell them)

vayomar aleh na'aleh etc. —

(and the interpretation of "vayahas etc. el Moshe" will be: "vayahas

(he silenced)

" &lt;b&gt;through&lt;/b&gt; his claim "el Moshe"),

and after that — "vayomar

(Caleb)

aleh na'aleh veyirashnu otah".

Why must Rashi learn "el Moshe" — to &lt;b&gt;Caleb's&lt;/b&gt; speech &lt;b&gt;about&lt;/b&gt; Moses,

and not &lt;b&gt;to&lt;/b&gt; Moses?

4.

When Rashi explains "to hear what He would speak with Moshe"

(then Kalev had made everyone quiet in order that they should listen to his words about Moshe),

Rashi explains the means how he carried it out: "He shouted and said, 'Is this the only thing that Ben Amram has done for us? ¹⁰

The listener would think that he came to speak in his disparagement,

And because they had in their heart [anger] against Moshe because of the words of the spies,

they all became silent to hear his disparagement ¹¹.

He said, 'Did he not split the sea for us, and bring down the manna for us, and provide the quail for us?'"

Here too one must understand: From where does Rashi derive that Kalev said specifically <b>these three</b> matters which Moshe had done for them

(split the sea,

brought down the manna and provided the quail),

Moshe had indeed done for the Jews a <b>great many</b> things,

beginning with the <b>main</b> thing — <b>Yetzi'at Mitzrayim</b>.

Why are specifically these three things relevant here ¹²?

The question is even stronger: Rashi's commentary is apparently taken from the Gemara &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

; and in the Gemara it states that Caleb said "He took us out of Egypt and split the sea for us and fed us the manna."

But Rashi &lt;b&gt;changes&lt;/b&gt; and writes differently than in the Gemara: he &lt;b&gt;omits&lt;/b&gt; "He took us out of Egypt" and &lt;b&gt;adds&lt;/b&gt; "and brought us the quail"&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;?

5.

Then Rashi stands on the words "We will surely go up" and says: "Even to the heavens, and He says make ladders and go up there,

we will succeed in all his words."

It is also not understood in this: the simple explanation of "aleh na'aleh" is apparently,

going up to the Land of Israel — and analogous to "lo nuchal la'alot"¹⁵

which the spies said,

by which is meant to go up to Eretz Yisrael.

From where does Rashi take that "aleh na'aleh" means "even to heaven etc."?

Commentators say¹⁶,

that Rashi's compulsion to learn "even to heaven etc." is from the double language "aleh na'aleh"; when Kalev would have meant the ascent to Eretz Yisrael — it would have been sufficient to say only

(one time)

"na'aleh".

One cannot, however, learn this way,

because in several places one finds,

that in order to emphasize a matter,

one says not only the "verb" but also the "infinitive"

(as in the earlier portion ¹⁷

where it says "yerek yerek"; and also in our verse itself "yakhol nukhal"* ¹⁷)

— one can also say here simply,

that "aleh na'aleh" means to the Land of Israel,

and the doubling of the language is for emphasis and strengthening of the matter.

Why does Rashi learn that this means "even to heaven etc."?

6.

At the end of his commentary on the verse he says: "vayahas — language of silence",

and brings examples for this.

Is not understanding what Rashi means with his commentary "vayahas language of silence",

until after his commentary on "aleh naaleh": That which he earlier precedes his commentary on "el Moshe" — one can explain,

that &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; comes in continuation of his commentary "he silenced everyone"

(that he silenced everyone in order "to hear what He would speak with Moshe"),

and therefore Rashi juxtaposes the two commentaries.

Why does he however also comment on the words "aleh naaleh" before "vayahas language of silence"?

7.

Then the explanation in all the above,

that with his commentary on "vayahas Kalev" and "el Moshe",

Rashi warns incidentally two questions which arise when one learns the verse:

a)

What does the verse mean with the counting "and Caleb silenced the people"; he could have immediately begun "and Caleb said, 'Let us go up and possess it'" — why does he relate an additional matter,

that before his saying "Let us go up" he silenced them ¹⁸?

b)

The spies did not just say that they would not be able to conquer the Land of Israel,

Moreover: they <b>altogether</b> did not say that they would not be able to conquer the Land of Israel,

they only said "But the people that dwells in the land is strong, etc." from which it was understood that they would not be able to enter the Land of Israel; so Caleb should have first refuted their arguments,

and then say "Let us go up"?

And the two questions Rashi answers with his commentary on "And Caleb silenced" and "To Moses",

as follows.

Ch.

When one comes to reject an opponent's claim,

and especially when the other holds strongly to his claim,

it is usually that he does not want to listen at all to what the second says and consider whether the other is right.

And even when he hears — it is without attention.

And this Rashi says,

that the action of "vayahas Kalev" consisted in that "he silenced &lt;b&gt;all of them&lt;/b&gt;": he made silent

(not only the spies but also)

all those Jews who held with the spies,

until even the spies themselves who wanted to influence the people that "&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; we are able to go up"; they all were silenced and listened to Kalev's speech &lt;b&gt;in the praises&lt;/b&gt; of Moshe

(—&lt;b&gt;thinking&lt;/b&gt; that he would speak in his disparagement).

And therefore Rashi stands on "vayahas Kalev"

(not only on the word "vayahas"),

because Rashi is here on

(not the &lt;b&gt;translation&lt;/b&gt; of the word "vayahas" — that he explains mainly at the end of his commentary — but)

the &lt;b&gt;novelty&lt;/b&gt; that was in &lt;b&gt;vayahas Kalev&lt;/b&gt;,

that Kalev silenced &lt;b&gt;all of them&lt;/b&gt;

(also those who wanted to hear &lt;b&gt;disparagement&lt;/b&gt; of Moshe),

that even they listened

(and hearkened)

"what he would speak about Moshe" — to Kalev's words about Moshe's ..

&lt;b&gt;praises!&lt;/b&gt; &lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

It remains however not understood: if the spies had spoken in denigration of Moses,

then it is understandable that through his words about Moses' virtues he contradicted the arguments of the spies; but the spies did not speak at all about Moses,

they only argued "But the people who dwell in the land are strong, etc.,"

now how could his words about the virtues of Moses have worked when he did not touch upon their arguments?

— Therefore Rashi teaches,

that he spoke about such virtues of Moses which <b>refuted</b> the arguments of the spies,

as follows.

9.

The arguments of the spies were,

in general,

comprised of three matters: a)

The might of the people and the strength of the cities in Eretz Yisrael itself — "The people that dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified very great, and also we saw the children of the giant there."

b)

Also on the way,

even <b>before</b> one enters Eretz Yisrael,

there are found from the seven nations — "The Hittite and the Jebusite and the Amorite dwell in the mountain,

and the Canaanite dwells by the sea and along the Jordan" — which will not allow passage to come into Eretz Yisrael.

c)

When they mentioned the nations which are found on the way to Eretz Yisrael,

they said first of all "Amalek dwells in the land of the Negev" — although Amalek is <b>not</b> from the seven nations — as Rashi says "Because they had already been burned by Amalek, the spies mentioned him in order to frighten them."

These three matters in the words of the spies,

expressed various opinions and arguments that created the conclusion "We are not able to go up."

And it is understood,

that the order of the arguments was from the light to the severe:

At first they argued that due to the strength of the people and the fortification and greatness of the cities in the Land of Israel,

they would not be able to conquer them.

But with this argument they were not satisfied.

They knew that Jews are believers, children of believers,

and consequently they certainly believe that since the Almighty commanded to go to Eretz Yisrael,

He will certainly perform miracles for them — for they have already themselves seen the miracles of the Almighty — and they will conquer even a strong people.

Therefore they cunningly acted and mentioned Amalek,

thereby hinting,

that just as in the war of Amalek the Jews became lukewarm,

as above,

because they themselves gave a place for it to be "the dog comes and bites you",

in that they had <b>a doubt</b> "Is the Lord in our midst or not?" ²⁰

(the spies had hinted that)

so it might be also now: because among the Jews there is again such a doubt,

and the proof is that they said to Moses "Let us send men before us and let them spy out the land for us" and did not rely on the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, "I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt to a good and spacious land" &lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

(they had,

that is,

a doubt in that which the Almighty had promised them — analogous to the doubt "Is the Lord among us or not?"),

it could be that because of this sin the Almighty will not perform miracles for them.

But even with this argument they could not satisfy themselves: since even &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; their saying "Let us send men before us etc." the Almighty agreed and said "Send for yourself men and let them explore etc."

(and it is self-understood that the sending of the spies was a preparation that afterwards they should go to the Land of Israel &lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;)

— then surely the Almighty will give them strength to be able to conquer the Land of Israel,

— therefore they added a third argument "and the Hittite and the Jebusite and the Amorite etc. and the Canaanite etc. by the Jordan",

because of which — "and you will not be able to cross"; with this they meant,

that even if the Almighty will show miracles at the &lt;b&gt;conquest&lt;/b&gt; of the Land of Israel — because He commanded the Jews to conquer the Land of Israel,

but there is no proof that He will perform miracles also in matters that are merely a &lt;b&gt;preparation&lt;/b&gt; for the conquest of the Land of Israel.

And on this Kalev said three matters which Moshe did — split the sea for us and bring down the manna for us and provide the quail for us — thereby refuting the three aforementioned claims of the spies.

Yud.

On their claim "The people that dwells in the land is strong, etc.",

he answered: "Split the sea for us" — also at the Splitting of the Sea there should have been a war,

which by nature they could not have been victorious,

and yet then it was seen that "split the sea for us" and it did not even come to a war

(The Almighty Himself waged war for the Jews and consequently now too the Almighty will wage war for them with the "people that dwells in the land"²³).

and this is indeed connected with &lt;b&gt;war&lt;/b&gt; against "the nation that dwells in the land",

he could not bring them a proof from the Exodus from Egypt — there was no situation of war there,

on the contrary: the Egyptians actually drove the Jews to leave Egypt &lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

; therefore he said "Split the sea for us",

which at the Splitting of the Sea was "The Lord &lt;b&gt;waged war&lt;/b&gt; for them etc." &lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;]

On their claim "Amalek dwells in the land of the Negev",

he answered "Give us the quail" &lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

: also the claim "Who

"He will feed us meat" was only "they seek a pretext"²⁷,

and nevertheless — "He gave us the quail".

From this it is understood,

that also after the sending of the spies, the Almighty will show them miracles;

and to the claim "and the Hittite and the Jebusite etc. and by the Jordan" was his answer to them "Bring down for us the manna": also the manna that was in the wilderness,

was not an essential matter — the entire <b>going</b> in the wilderness was indeed only a preparation for arriving in the Land of Israel²⁸,

and nevertheless "Bring down for us the manna" — is indeed compelled from this,

that the Almighty will make miracles also on the way,

during the <b>preparation</b> for the conquest of the Land of Israel²⁹.

11.

Based on this, however, it becomes difficult: Since through "And Caleb silenced the people toward Moses" through his saying Moses' virtues,

he had already refuted the arguments of the spies — why did he need to add "We shall surely go up and possess it"?

One cannot answer,

that after he had refuted all the arguments of the spies

(which is hinted in the words "toward Moses"),

he concluded the conclusion and outcome of this: "We shall surely go up etc." — because from the wording of the verse "&lt;b&gt;And he said&lt;/b&gt; We shall surely go up etc." it is proven,

that this was a special statement

(and &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; the outcome of "toward Moses"),

— therefore Rashi teaches that "עלה נעלה" means

(not ascending to Eretz Yisrael,

but a new matter)

: "even to the heavens etc."

Caleb thereby added a matter &lt;b&gt;new&lt;/b&gt;,

that even if Moshe would say "make ladders and go up there"

(to the heavens)

which is not merely a matter where one needs to arrive at miracles,

but*&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

it is entirely not within the category of the existence of the world — even in such a case "we will succeed in all his words"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;.

And after Rashi explains the &lt;b&gt;connection&lt;/b&gt; of "ויהס כלב" to the arguments of the spies,

which are brought in the &lt;b&gt;preceding&lt;/b&gt; verses

(in which the &lt;b&gt;precise&lt;/b&gt; interpretation of the &lt;b&gt;word&lt;/b&gt; "ויהס" is not so relevant),

he interprets the &lt;b&gt;meaning&lt;/b&gt; of the word "ויהס" that it is "language of silence"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

— and in the manner of &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; at the beginning of &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; parshah: first he brings "שלח לך

(and also the word)

אנשים" and explains "why is it adjacent etc." to &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt;,

and afterwards he brings down &lt;b&gt;again&lt;/b&gt; "שלח לך"

(but not "אנשים")

and explains details.

12.

Among the matters of "the wine of Torah" in the commentary of Rashi of ours — although both Joshua and Caleb were not in the counsel of the spies,

there are, however, particular virtues in each of them relative to the other.

The virtues in Caleb over Joshua:

a)

Joshua was saved from the counsel of the spies through the prayer of Moses³²,

but Caleb accomplished it with his own prayer that "he went³³

and prostrated himself on the graves of the patriarchs so that he would not be enticed by his companions to be in their counsel"³⁴.

b)

When <b>Joshua</b> and Caleb said that one would be able to enter Eretz Yisrael,

the "entire congregation"

(even those who were not so strongly influenced by the arguments of the spies ³⁵)

wanted "to stone them with stones" ³⁶,

but when "Caleb silenced" he silenced all of them,

all the Jews

(even the spies themselves)

listened to him

(as above section 8).

c)

When <b>Joshua</b> and Caleb said "and you, do not fear the people of the land",

they explained it through intellect — "their shadow has departed — the righteous among them have died" ³⁷

; but <b>Caleb</b>,

in addition to his arguments through intellect "did He not tear for us etc." which contradicted the arguments of the spies,

he added "we shall surely go up even to the heavens",

that even when Moses would say a matter of "impossibilities" which has absolutely no place in intellect "we will succeed in all his words".

And it can be said,

that the three matters mentioned above are dependent on each other,

as follows.

13.

From the advantages of "elevation from below to above" over "drawing down from above to below": a)

"drawing down from above to below",

since it comes from above,

it does not pass through so much through the lower realm.

But by "elevation from below to above" — the "lower realm" itself becomes elevated³⁸.

b)

Through this refinement and elevation of the lower realm,

one fulfills, as it were, the desire and yearning above, of "You desire the work of Your hands"³⁹,

and consequently through this is drawn a much higher light than the light that is drawn from above of itself⁴⁰.

And therefore,

specifically Kalev ben Yefuneh was saved from the spies through his own prayer — elevation from below to above⁴¹,

he specifically had the power to silence them all; to effect a nullification and an elevation also in the <b>staff</b> until — even in the <b>spies</b>.

And through that which he elevated also the staff,

he drew down a light <b>entirely unlimited</b>⁴²,

where even the limitation of "impossibilities"⁴³ does not apply

— ascend we shall ascend even <b>to the heavens</b>.

13.

The lesson from all the above in our service [of G-d]:

Every Jew,

in whatever place he may find himself — for wherever a Jew comes, it is indeed "from Hashem are the steps of a man established" ⁴⁴

— he is an agent of the Almighty to make of that place "the Land of Israel"⁴⁵

: that the environment in which he finds himself should be such that there is recognizable the matter which is the virtue of the Land of Israel specifically — that "<b>always</b> the eyes of Hashem your God are upon it"⁴⁶

— not only on Shabbat and Yom Tov,

but "from the beginning of the year until the end of the year"⁴⁶.

And since a Jew knows that "the Holy One, blessed be He, does not come with a complaint against His creatures"⁴⁷

and especially when he sees how many and many of his friends have succeeded in this particular mission and they have made their environment into a Jewish environment,

"the Land of Israel"

(a "Jewish" piece of earth),

therefore he believes that also he has the power to make of his environment "the Land of Israel".

But the evil inclination comes and begins to argue with him,

that he has special difficulties and therefore he cannot bring a proof from his friends who succeeded in their mission.

And since the evil inclination is indeed an expert in his craft⁴⁸

he finds for each one arguments that are particularly suited to him:

With one he argues,

that <b>the</b> <b>environment</b> in which <b>he</b> finds himself,

is worse than all others — "a stiff-necked people dwelling in the land, etc." the strength of materialism of that place is stronger than in the entire world;

A second one says,

that he

(the Jew who needs to carry out the mission)

is not worthy of such a holy work;

And to a third he comes with a claim,

that until he will arrive at the essence of the mission there are found &lt;b&gt;side&lt;/b&gt; obstacles,

which do not allow arriving at it to make the place into a place of Torah.

Upon this comes the directive "Tear the sea for us and bring down the manna for us and give us the quail".

So even in a case when in the environment he must overcome the dominance of materiality; the Jew who must carry out the mission has failed in a sin; and in addition there are side obstacles there

(And even in a case when the difficulties are so strong until it seems to him that the fulfillment of the mission is

(apparently)

A matter of "impossibilities"⁴⁹)

— Always does the Almighty give the power to break through all difficulties and carry out his mission.

Second.

The evil inclination is however a "clever one",

He comes with a new pretext: It is indeed true that a Jew,

On a mission of the Holy One, blessed be He,

Who is "omnipotent" and "nothing is wondrous for God" ⁵⁰,

Can break through all difficulties — but the Almighty Himself says indeed that "the man who is fearful and faint of heart shall go and return to his house" ⁵¹

(Because in order to be victorious in a war one must go with strength and certainty that one will surely be victorious ⁵²),

Is since from time to time doubts fall into you whether you will be able to carry out the mission,

It is better that "he shall go and return to his house"

— On this comes the instruction of Kalev: Kalev himself was afraid "lest he be drawn after his colleagues to be in their counsel."

And nevertheless he did not abandon the mission in which Moshe had sent him,

rather "he prostrated himself on the graves of the forefathers"

(in the manner of elevation from below to above — through <b>his</b> service),

and

Through this he effected,

that not only was he saved from the counsel of the spies,

but also "he silenced <b>all</b> of them" — he had transformed even the spies,

that even they listened to his words "We shall surely go up and possess it."

And through this conduct not to be influenced from any difficulties,

not to reckon with any calculations⁵³

And to proceed with the work to make the entire world a place of Torah — "Eretz Yisrael"

(in spirituality)

— one will merit the fulfillment of the prophecy "In the future<b> Eretz Yisrael</b>

(in physicality)

will spread to all lands"⁵⁴,

with the coming of Mashiach our righteous,

may he come and redeem us speedily, truly.

(From the maamar and sicha of Shabbos Parshas Shlach 5726)