וידבר ה׳..אל משה לאמור, G'd spoke to Moses to say: Why was the word לאמור needed here, seeing the instructions were given only to Moses? Perhaps the Torah wrote לאמור to indicate that Moses had permission to tell the people that he had received the instructions to despatch spies from G'd. [The author is always at pains to prove that Moses had no right to relay anything G'd had told him unless especially told to do so; he bases himself on Yuma 4. Ed.] The Torah may also have wanted to prevent the impression being created that Moses initiated the idea of sending out spies and that he was of the same mind as the people in this respect. By telling the people that he had been commanded to select the spies he had made it plain that he would not have done so unless G'd had commanded him. The word לאמור was especially necessary in view of our sages' interpretation of the word לך meaning לדעתך, (verse 2) "in accordance with your understanding but not because you have to." In other words, G'd gave permission for the spies to go but He certainly did not command the expedition. It may have been hoped that when Moses told the people how he had been told by G'd to send the spies that they would reconsider and understand that their request to send spies revealed a lack of faith in G'd.

שלח לך אנשים, "send out men for yourself, etc." We need to analyse why the word לך was written here. I have already quoted that our sages in Sotah 34 understand the word as indicating permission rather than a command. This leaves us with the puzzle why G'd would consent to an initiative which He knew would result in disaster. Before explaining all this let me begin with an introduction to the problem. Whence did the whole terrible disaster originate? If we were to see the fact that spies were sent out as the root cause of the disaster then Joshua certainly should have learned a lesson and should not have sent out spies before capturing Jericho (compare Joshua 2,1). It follows that the idea of sending spies to help in the conquest of the Holy Land was not objectionable in itself. If the reason the mission failed was due to the calibre of the spies, this too is hard to accept seeing that the Torah testifies that Moses sent out righteous men, men of whom G'd had approved.

We may glean a better understanding of the subject when reading the words of the Yalkut Shimoni item 742 that the Israelites came to Moses asking to send spies. Moses said that this was unnecessary seeing G'd had already given His assurance that they would defeat the Canaanites. Thereupon the Israelites countered saying that the local inhabitants were aware of the plans of the Israelites to invade their country and that is why they had hidden all their valuables. As a result the Israelites would be deprived of a great part of what G'd promised them as they would not inherit much more than the mere soil. They convinced Moses that it was in order to make G'd's words come true that they wanted to send out spies. This is why Moses is quoted in Deut. 1,23 as having given his consent to this request. This is also why in Deut. 1,22 the Torah describes the spies' mission as ויחפרו לנו, "that they may dig up for us (hidden treasures)." Moses was trapped by the words of the Israelites. Thus far the Yalkut.

Spies may have more than one mission then. 1) They have to find out the best approach to invade a country. They also have to determine if the whole army has to be involved in the campaign or if it suffices to send a relatively small number of troops. We find evidence of this in Joshua 7,3 where the spies told Joshua that 2-3000 soldiers would be enough to capture the town of Ai. This kind of spying, or reconnaissance in our language, would be repeated each time a specific target such as a town was to be captured. 2) The other kind of spying involves something of a more comprehensive nature. The spies' mission is to evaluate whether the target is capable of being captured. This is the kind of spying that the Israelites had in mind when they requested from Moses to send out spies. This kind of mission presupposes a lack of faith in G'd's power or willingness to help the Jewish people attain their objectives. Moses perceived this and that is why the Midrash tells us that Moses reacted negatively to their request at first. The Israelites tricked Moses into agreeing to the spy scheme as it made searching all over the land of Canaan a legitimate endeavour. Joshua too sent the spies for a necessary purpose, one that did not denigrate G'd's part in the preparations to conquer each part of the land of Canaan. The only thing about the scheme of sending out spies which was flawed was the purpose, not the scheme itself.

We may therefore understand G'd's command or consent for Moses to send out spies as G'd agreeing for Moses to send out spies provided their mission was what Moses understood it to be, i.e. to discover the hidden treasures of the Canaanites, but not if the spies' mission were to determine if the land was capable of being captured by the Israelites. I will explain that Moses may have misunderstood G'd's command as to the function of the spies. Or, he may have understood correctly but seeing that G'd had not denied him the sending out of the spies he failed to divine what G'd really had in mind when He granted His consent. G'd had given hints to Moses as He always does to His servants. As to the question why G'd gave His consent seeing that he knew what was going to happen, we must conclude that if G'd had denied the people's request the result would have been even worse.

Another meaning of the word לך may relate to the definition of אנשים, men of valour, righteous people. G'd told Moses that these men were righteous לך as long as they were in Moses' presence, facing him. As soon as they would turn around and begin their mission the wreath of piety they wore on their heads would begin to crack wide open. Sotah 35 interprets the words וילכו ויבאו, "they went and they came" in verse 26 of our chapter as meaning that their departure could be compared to their return. They were wicked when they returned as they had been wicked the moment they set out on their mission. Moses had an uncomfortable feeling about this and this is why he gave Joshua a special blessing praying that he should not follow the advice of the wicked. Bamidbar Rabbah 16,1 states: "but the spies whom Moses sent out were wicked. How do we know this? Because the Torah wrote שלח לך אנשים." This Midrash sounds very enigmatic. How do the words שלח לך אנשים prove that the men in question were wicked? We must therefore assume that the author of that Midrash understood the word לך as we have explained it, i.e. "you Moses think that they are אנשים, righteous men, but as soon as they commence their mission they will become wicked on the way out." A simpler way of explaining the word לך is: "in your eyes Moses they may be righteous; but in My eyes they are wicked." This would again raise the problem why G'd approved of sending such men when our sages have said that G'd Himself selected the spy who was to represent each tribe (based on verse 3 על פי השם)? Perhaps the reason they were already called "wicked" at the beginning of their mission was that they shared the view of the Israelites as a whole that they should investigate if the land could be conquered by them at all. This lack of faith in G'd stamped them as "wicked."

Alternatively, the reason they are referred to as wicked was that they carried out a mission initiated by the people who delegated them and whose intent was wicked. When a messenger allows himself to be used by a wicked person for a wicked mission he himself becomes wicked. On the other hand, when a messenger is sent on a sacred errand, then by accepting the errand he himself shares in the sanctity of the person who has delegated him. This enables us to understand why people who, individually, had been known as righteous people at that time became "wicked" when they became tools of the ones on whose behalf they accepted the mission.

Still another way of understanding the word לך is that G'd wanted this mission to be known as something Moses had initiated not as something He Himself had initiated.

Or, the word לך means that the mission ought to be the one Moses perceived it to be as contrasted with what the Israelites wanted it to be. The comment by the Talmud that לך means בדעתך, means "according to what you, Moses, have in mind, not according to what they, the Israelites, have in mind."

The word לך may also be an allusion to what our sages said in Shemot Rabbah 5,23 on the words עתה תראה, after Moses had complained about the ways of G'd's conduct when the Israelites' fate worsened after his appointment as their leader (compare Exodus 5,22-6,1). The Midrash says that the word "now" means that whereas Moses would live to experience G'd's war against Pharaoh, he would not live to experience what He would do to the 31 kings of the Canaanites. In order for G'd to fulfil this prophecy without Moses being demoted as king and leader of the Israelites, the entry of the Israelites would be delayed by 40 years as a result of the failure of the mission of the spies whom he sent out. According to this interpretation Moses would benefit by this mission. This is in line with the usual understanding of the word לך when it appears in a context similar to the one here.

ויתרו את את ארץ כנען, "they shall tour the land of Canaan, etc." why did the Torah write ויתורו instead of לתור, "in order to tour?" The words אשר אני נותן are also difficult. Once G'd had mentioned the name of the place the spies were to tour there was no need to write: "which I am about to give to the children of Israel." Who did not know that this is what G'd was about to do?

According to our commentary that the whole scheme of sending out the spies was made Moses' project by the Torah's using the word לך, as well as the other alternatives which we suggested as possible explanations, plus the other condition, that the spies be אנשים, men known as righteous people, the Torah added yet another condition to make this mission an acceptable one. It is that the people doing the spying be aware that it was G'd who was about to give them this land. The words mean that the spies were not to evaluate whether the Israelites (by themselves) would be able to conquer the country and to disinherit its inhabitants. There was no question that they would not be able to do that. They would not be able to conquer even a single town in that land by themselves. The only way the Israelites would be able to do that would be if אני נותן להם, "if I give it to them." Seeing that the land was to be a gift to the Israelites from G'd, it was up to the Donor to ensure the recipients would not face difficulties in obtaining their gift. To this end G'd would have to do the fighting on behalf of the Jewish people. It would be one of the objectives of G'd to show the spies during their tour of the country that G'd would subdue even the most powerful people. In order for the people to appreciate the power of G'd, the people He would subdue had to appear as invincible by natural means. This is why G'd showed the spies the strength of the Amalekites and the giants that still lived in that land. He showed them cities which were fortified beyond one's imagination so as to convince them that G'd certainly did not expect the militarily inexperienced Israelites to wage such a war. He wanted to drive home the point that conquest of that country and its people was G'd's task, not theirs.

This is the reason that the Torah wrote the otherwise unnecessary words אשר אני נותן, "which I am about to give." The spies were quite correct when they reported that the country could not be conquered by the Israelites. We still need to explain why the Torah wrote ויתרו instead of the expected לתור, and why the word ארץ כנען had to be mentioned. I have seen that Yalkut Shimoni was aware of this difficulty and explains that the Torah wanted to allude to who the person was through whose merit the Israelites were going to receive this gift. Isaac had been born to Abraham and Sarah when his parents had a combined age of 190 years which is the numerical value of the word כנען. This is, of course, a homiletical comment. I believe that more to the point is the verse in Deut. 9,5 that Israel did not inherit the land of Canaan due to their own merit but due to the wickedness of the people dwelling there and to G'd's desire to keep His promise to the patriarchs. The other reason was that it was ארץ כנען, the land named after Canaan who had been cursed by his grandfather Noach for his behaviour and whose descendants had followed in his footsteps so that now their measure of guilt had overflowed and called for divine retribution.

תשלחו, "you (pl) shall despatch." In this instance the singular שלח used by the Torah in verse 2 was not adequate. The reason may have been that the Torah wanted the men chosen to be listed in this order, i.e. one man per tribe, not more and not less.

אלה שמות האנשים, These are the names of the men, etc. Why did the Torah repeat this seeing it had already written: "and these are their names, etc." in verse 4? We may understand this by reference to Sotah 34. Rabbi Yitzchak said: "we have a tradition that the names of the spies recorded in the Torah reflect their deeds;" The name סתור בן מיכאל describes that the man bearing that name contradicted the words of G'd, etc." So far the Talmud on the subject. We have noted that Moses renamed Joshua so as to protect him against the advice of wicked people and we asked why this was necessary. This means that Joshua's name did not reflect the fact that he was wicked. It was necessary to write: "and these are their names" in order to show us why Moses was concerned about the character of these people, i.e. he did not like their names. Whereas I wrote earlier that Moses had the feeling that these men might be wicked because of the word לך, this was not an absolute as the word לך could have other connotations as I have demonstrated. Moses may have been alerted to the potential wickedness of these people when he reflected on their names. Alternatively, Moses did have his suspicions about the enterprise and any men who would be delegated to act as spies; however, had it not been for their names, Moses could not have justified his suspicions.

ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, Moses called Hoshea son of Nun Joshua. We already mentioned that our sages said that Moses prayed concerning Joshua. Why did he have to change his name in addition? Perhaps Moses wanted to give Joshua additional power to resist wicked advice seeing that the first three letters of his name now represented the three letters making up the tetragram. The letter י which Moses added to Hoshea's name has a numerical value of 10 and symbolised that he could resist the advice of ten of his colleagues. It would also eventually enable him to inherit the share of ארץ ישראל that the ten wicked spies would forfeit due to their conduct. This is based on a comment in Chagigah 15 according to which each person has a place allocated to him both in גן עדן and in גיהנם. If he merits it he will occupy his place in גן עדן, whereas a wicked person will occupy both his own place in גיהנם as well as the place left vacant by his pious colleague.

וישלח אותם משה, Moses sent them on their way, etc. Why did the Torah need to write the first half of this verse; we have heard about this both in verse 3 and in verse 16? Perhaps the verse was meant to tell us that Moses accompanied them a short distance when they departed as this is a halachic requirement. The Torah speaks about לתור to indicate that Moses warned the spies that they were engaged in a dangerous mission.

וראיתם את הארץ מה היא, "and you will observe the nature of the land." This was a reference to the climate of the land, the topography of the land such as whether it had many natural sources of water, and if such sources of water were pure or contaminated, etc. Moses referred to those aspects of the land which anyone traversing it can determine with ease. When he told the spies to evaluate the people, i.e. ואת העם היושב עליה, he asked them to evaluate if the nature of the people, their health, their strength, etc. reflected that the land they lived on had contributed to these people's being healthy, etc. Moses suggested that the health of its inhabitants was proof of the goodness of the land these people dwelled on. Seeing that it could be argued that if the people were extremely robust this might be due to such factors as healthy living habits, in particular not overindulging in sex, he asked the spies to find out if the people were numerous or relatively few in numbers. If the people were numerous this too would be testimony to the topographical and climatic conditions being favourable.

Why did the Torah always mention the positive alternative first whereas when describing the size of the population Moses chose to mention the negative aspect, i.e. an underpopulated country first? In view of the manner in which Moses phrased his instructions we must conclude that he considered it a positive factor if the spies would find the land underpopulated, i.e. if its population was מעט.

Perhaps Moses connected the number of people in the land to the strength of these people. If the people were exceptionally strong this would be proof of the quality of the land as only in very few places on the globe does the land produce such powerful people. If, on the other hand, the population would be found to be numerous, there are many countries which are fully populated. Moses remained consistent in always naming the positive alternative first. This also explains why Moses spoke about "the land" first and about "the people" next only to revert again to "the land."

ומה הארץ אשר הוא יושב בה, "and what is the earth like that the people dwell on." In this verse Moses referred to the infrastructure and standard of living that the spies would find in the land of Canaan. Were the houses the people lived in of sound construction? Were their chattels of good quality, etc? We will find in Deut. 6,10 that Moses describes the towns and houses the Israelites would inherit in the land of Canaan as of good quality. Moses asked the spies also to find out whether the towns were planned defensively, i.e. as fortresses surrounded by walls or whether they were open cities, as these factors had great bearing on the beauty of the respective towns. Bamidbar Rabbah 17 claims that Moses gave the spies a sign suggesting that fortified cities were an indication that its inhabitants felt insecure, etc. whereas open cities testified to the people's confidence in their ability to repel any potential intruder. This is pure homiletics. The plain meaning of the words is that the questions all related to the quality of the land and that Moses took it for granted that the people were of exceptionally great physique and included giants. One did not have to send out spies to find out this well known fact. The only reason Moses referred to the physical prowess of the people was to emphasise the miracle G'd would perform in disinheriting these people of their land.

ומה הארץ השמנה היא, and what about the land, is it fat, etc.? Did this land impart its fat to the fruit it produced without becoming impoverished, or was it such that after each harvest it became impoverished, רזה, so that it had to be given a year's rest before being sown again?

היש בה עץ, is it wooded, etc.? The word עץ refers to the variety of trees to be found there. The words אם אין mean if there is any known kind of tree that cannot be found in that land? This is what Moses had in mind when he said in Deut. 8,9 that the land of Canaan was a land that lacked nothing (good).

למקום ההוא קרא נחל אשכול, he called that place: "the valley of the cluster." The subject in the verse is G'd who had named this place in anticipation of its significance in the future. We know this because the Torah described the spies at arriving at נחל אשכול before any mention was made about their having cut off a cluster of grapes. [Besides, the word קרא as opposed to ויקרא shows that the place had already been known by that name. Ed.]

The Torah writes: אשר כרתו משם בני ישראל, "which the Israelites had cut from there." You may well ask that many people on many occasions have cut clusters of grapes in that valley. Why would the cluster the Israelites had cut there be singled out? The remarkable thing was that though only 12 Israelites had come there at the time, the Torah describes them as if they were the whole Jewish people, i.e. בני ישראל. Seeing that these 12 men were the representatives of the people the Torah describes them as the people, i.e. בני ישראל. We find something parallel in Exodus 12,6 where the Torah writes: ושחטו כל עדת ישראל "and the whole community of Israel will slaughter." As a rule the priest slaughtered the Passover; seeing he was the delegate of the people the act of slaughtering is attributed to the people themselves.

וילכו ויבאו, they went and they came, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us that the spies "went" when we have already been informed of their going on their way in at least three verses? Our sages in Sotah 35 say that the Torah wanted to compare their return to their departure. Just as they returned with wicked advice their departure had already been marked by with evil intent." Why was the Torah interested in informing us of this detail? All that mattered was the advice they came back with!

We may understand the verse better when we keep in mind something we learned in Kidushin 39. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Yaakov as saying that when we find a מצוה written in the Torah and its reward is spelled out, the reward is paid only after the resurrection, i.e. a considerable period of time even after one's death. This explained the famous incident when a father ordered his son to climb a tree and take the young chicks and the son fell off the ladder and was killed. This occurred in spite of the fact that he had been in the process of fulfilling both the commandment of שלוח הקן and the commandment of honouring his father at one and the same time. In both instances the Torah promised long life for the fulfilment of this commandment (Deut. 5,16, Deut. 7,22) To the question of what happened to the fulfilment of the Torah's promise of longevity, Rabbi Yaakov answered that the Torah referred to a life which by itself was long, i.e. that the fulfilment of that commandment assured one that one would be resurrected in due course. The Talmud adds that Rabbi Yaakov was an eye witness to the occurrence mentioned. To the question that perhaps the son who climbed the ladder had sinful intentions at that moment, the answer given is that G'd does not punish someone for mere sinful intentions when these intentions have not yet been translated into practice. The Talmud then questions that idolatrous intentions are punishable even if they had not been carried out. The Talmud answers that Rabbi Yaakov also made the following statement: "should you believe that there is a reward in this life for מצות performed, then why did the fact that the son was involved on a sacred mission not at least protect him against this mishap? Do we not have a rule enunciated by Rabbi Eleazar that people engaged in the execution of a sacred duty do not suffer mishaps either on the way out or on the way home from such a מצוה?" The Talmud answers that the ladder in question was not stable and under conditions of obvious hazard Rabbi Eleazar's dictum does not apply. There is another difficulty here and that is that the Talmud in Sotah 21 comes to the conclusion that being involved in the performance of a מצוה does protect the person involved against a new hazard though it does not save him from an existing hazard which he had been aware of at that time. In view of all this, what proof does Rabbi Yaakov have to offer that the מצוה did not protect the son in the example he witnessed against idolatrous thoughts while he climbed the ladder The Talmud in Sotah quotes the opinion of Rav Yosef that the act of performing a מצוה protects that person against hazards as well as against becoming guilty of a culpable sin. His opinion is refuted by the example of Doeg and Achitofel whose immersion in Torah study did not protect them against the sin of bad-mouthing David so that they both became heretics in the end. Seeing that Rav Yosef's theory has been refuted, how can the Talmud in Kidushin 39 justify refuting the opinion of Rabbi Yaakov? [The author appears to mean: "what other alternative is there to explain the phenomenon Rabbi Yaakov had witnessed?" Ed.]

Some scholars make distinctions between the performance of different categories of מצות. According to these authorities the example in Sotah where the Talmud said that even being engaged in the performance of a מצוה does not protect one against the evil urge dealt with someone who did not perform the מצוה לשמה, for the sake of performing G'd's bidding but for an ulterior motive. When the Talmud asks why being engaged in the performance of a מצוה should not protect such a person against committing a sin (inadvertently) the question referred to someone who performs the מצוה לשמה, for the sake of Heaven. This distinction is nonsense. If there were some substance to that distinction the Talmud should have rejected the query arising from the boy who fell off the ladder by merely stating that he did not perform the commandments in question for the sake of Heaven. This would have been a far more plausible scenario than the forced explanation that he might have entertained idolatrous thoughts at that moment. Such an answer would also have forestalled the question why the deed did not at least protect the son against the wiles of the evil urge. Performance of a commandment for ulterior motives certainly could not be presumed to protect such a person against the evil urge.

I believe that the correct answer to our problem is that the eventual conclusion which the Talmud accepts is the viewpoint of Rav Yoseph that while a person is engaged in the performance of a מצוה it does both protect him against hazards as well as save him from giving in to his evil urge. This is the reason that Rabbi Yaakov raised the whole problem when he witnessed the death of the son who was engaged in the performance of not only one but two מצות at the time. This son was still engaged in the performance of the מצוה when he descended the ladder in order to bring the chicks to his father. Since we find that the Talmud in Sotah rejected the viewpoint of Rav Yoseph based on the fact that neither Doeg nor Achitophel were protected by their immense amount of Torah study against the wiles of the evi urge, this is not a satisfactory refutation of Rav Yoseph's approach to the subject. The Talmud in Chagigah 15 states that the Torah study of both Doeg and Achitophel had never been for the sake of Heaven. They had always entertained ulterior motives so that their Torah study had always been flawed. The fact that they fell victim to Satan's urgings therefore does nothing to undermine the theory that the performance of a מצוה protects the doer against hazards and saves him from the evil urge. According to Tossaphot both Achitophel and Doeg had been guilty of sins before they accumulated the merit of Torah study. Their Torah study was more important to them than their reverence for G'd the Lawgiver. No wonder that their מצות did not protect them against the evil urge.

Furthermore, even assuming that we would accept at face value the opinion which refutes Rav Yoseph's approach basing itself on the fate of Doeg and Achitophel, all this would prove is that the merit of תורה does not protect such a person at the time when he is not actively engaged in studying Torah. At the time Doeg and Achitophel fell victim to the evil urge they had not been engaged in Torah study. Rav Yoseph had only claimed that the protective powers of מצוה performance are in force at the time the person in danger is actively engaged in the performance of the מצוה. The Talmud never tried to refute this aspect of Rav Yoseph's theory as expounded by Rava. [Anyone studying the text in Sotah 21 will find that Rav Yoseph considers the protective powers of Torah study as superior to the protective powers of the performance of any other category of מצוה. Ed.] Although Rava is forced to reconcile a statement in the Baraitha by explaining that the difference between the protective power of the merit of Torah study-vis-a vis the merit of performing any of the other מצות is like the difference between נר מצוה ותורה אור, that a single מצוה is like a candle and can only protect against forthcoming hazards, whereas the Torah is like the source of light itself, his words are not compelling. We can safely say that an ordinary מצוה has the power both to ward off hazards as well as save one from the evil urge during the period the endangered person is actively engaged in performing the מצוה. When a person is not engaged in the performance of a מצוה, the protective powers of the last מצוה he did perform are non-existent. As far as the merit of Torah study is concerned, however, such merit protects both against hazards as well as against the evil urge while one is engaged in such Torah study. When one is not engaged actively in Torah study the merit of one's previous study provides protection against hazards but not against the evil urge. When the Talmud there discusses what kind of merit protects the wife suspected of infidelity against the lethal effects of the מים המאררים, the cursed waters, the merit of Torah is one such factor though women are under no obligation to study Torah. They are protected by the Torah study of their husbands in accordance with the view expressed in Sotah 21 by Ravina. When we follow this approach Rabbi Yaakov proved from the incident with the ladder that even being engaged in the performance of a מצוה does not protect the person performing it in this world.

Furthermore, when we examine the whole subject more profoundly we can even understand the Talmud in Kidushin according to the view expressed by Rava in Sota 21. We had a difficulty, namely that even if the person performing the מצוה had been guilty of harbouring idolatrous thoughts at the time, at least he should have been saved from physical danger even if his merit did not protect him against the evil urge, just as it does protect (for a limited period) the Sotah, the woman suspected of infidelity who drank the cursed waters. In that instance we speak about a woman who most certainly is guilty of a major misdemeanour and yet her merits provide protection for her even according to the viewpoint of Rava. In our instance (Rabbi Yaakov's witnessing the death of the son who was actively engaged in the performance of both honouring his father and sending away the mother bird before taking her young) the merit was immediate and yet it did not help. In order to answer how this could have happened to the son the only answer is that he was engaged in idolatrous thoughts at the time he carried out his father's bidding. Such thoughts made him the equivalent of a total heretic and stripped him of all protective merit he had ever accumulated. He had made himself equivalent to a Gentile in all respects so that no מצוה performed previously could act as a shield for him. Alternatively, we may say that when one is engaged in idolatrous thoughts the מצוה one proceeds to perform in such a state of mind does not confer any kind of protection. Rabbi Yaakov counters all questions by saying that if we would asssume that the promise of reward in the Torah applied to our lifetime, the promise of the Torah of longevity would indeed have protected the son against becoming guilty of a sin which brings disaster in its wake. Even Rava who holds that the merit of the מצוה protects against disaster, accepts that this includes protection against committing the kind of sin which brings disaster in its wake.

We have established that according to the view of Rav Yoseph a person is protected from the evil urge during the time he performs a מצוה. Rava also agrees that such a person is at least protected against the evil urge leading him into a sin which by itself leads to disaster for him in this life. This is why our verse here has to provide the answer to the question why the מצוה the spies were engaged in did not protect them against falling victim to the evil urge to commit a sin which would lead to immediate disaster? After all, the Torah has written explicitly that they went at the command of G'd through Moses. This fact should have protected them from the disaster that overtook them. In order to explain this the Torah wrote וילכו ויבאו, "they went and they came back," i.e. that their departure was not motivated by the desire to perform a מצוה, just as their return was not motivated by a desire to be שלוחי מצוה, men who had been delegated to perform a מצוה. On the contrary, their whole mission was one in which they they were engaged in being sinful. As a result the so-called מצוה the spies were engaged in by carrying out Moses' mission did not protect them against disaster.

Looking ot our verse from a moral/ethical point of view, the words וילכו ויבאו may be understood in connection with something we have learned in Sotah 3. Kabbalists interpret the statement in the Talmud that one does not commit a sin unless a רוח שטות, had taken possession of the prospective sinner first to mean that if an outstanding personality is faced with the temptation to commit a sin he does not fall victim to such temptation until after his soul has left him and has been replaced by an inferior soul called רוח שטות, a sense of folly or madness. Seeing that our verses bear testimony to the fact that the spies had been outstanding personalities, Princes of Israel, the Torah testifies that when they returned to Moses with an evil report הלכו, they had just departed, i.e. their former spirit had departed from them and been replaced by an inferior, foolish one, and it was in this new capacity that they "arrived," i.e. came back.

The word וילכו also hints that this trip the spies took to the land of Canaan was their only and final one. They would never again come to that land. It was what we call הליכות עולם, something final, absolute. The words ויבאו אל משה explain why they did not already die on the way seeing they had perverted their mission. G'd honoured Moses who had despatched these spies by allowing them to return to their commander-in-chief. Had they died on the way, Moses would have been accused of all kinds of things. Under the circumstances, the fact that the spies had been able to traverse the land for forty days without one of them coming to any harm was in itself proof that they had been under G'd's protection all the time. Their very safe return should have strengthened the people's faith in G'd's ability and willingness to help them defeat the powerful people inhabiting that land. The whole episode is a prime example of Hoseah 14,10: ישרים דרכי ה׳ צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם, "the paths of the Lord are smooth; the righteous can walk on them while the sinners will stumble on them."

אל מדבר פארן קדשה, to the desert Paran at Kadesh. Why did the Torah not mention the place קדש at the time when Moses despatched these spies? Perhaps the word קדשה is an allusion to the fact that the Israelites stayed there for a long period due to the negative report of the spies and its acceptance by the people. We are told in Deut. 1,46 that the people stayed at Kadesh a very long time (19 years according Rashi). It took another 19 years for the people to reach the borders of the land of Canaan after their departure from Kadesh. Seeing that we were told that Kadesh was near the border of the land of Canaan, the spies were responsible for the Israelites having to remain in that general area for 38 years.

וישיבו אותם דבר, and they brought back word to them (to Moses and Aaron). At this juncture the Torah glosses over the evil nature of their report and merely describes it as "a report." The Torah makes it a principle not to divulge the evil people perpetrated unless it became necessary to do so. One of the outstanding examples of that principle is the failure of the Torah to report that Chur was murdered on the day the people made the golden calf. Avodah Zarah 4 claims that even the sin of the golden calf itself was only recorded in detail to teach that if Israel were to sin again collectively, the memory of the sin of the golden calf would serve as proof that repentance would result in atonement of even such a severe sin. [the author's interpretation of that passage. In fact the Talmud says that the sin had only been committed in order to teach this lesson, Ed.] Similarly, in our instance; as long as the Israelites had not voiced a wish to return to Egypt (14,4) and had thereby rebelled against the Lord the Torah did not need to tell us what precisely had been the catalyst that prompted such a reaction by the people. Once the people voiced the wish to return to Egypt, however, the Torah had to reveal that the spies had slandered ארץ ישראל. The Torah had to tell us why the Jewish people had to remain in the desert for forty years.

ואת כל העדה, and to the whole community, etc. This means that the spies chose to report to Moses and Aaron when the latter were together with the whole community. They did not deliver their report in the privacy of Moses' office as would have been appropriate. Their intent was to embarass Moses in the eyes of the Jewish people.

Alternatively, the words וישיבו אותם דבר could have been meant to refer to the report the content of which the Torah is about to reveal. The Torah merely tells us that they first reported what they had to say to Moses. Immediately afterwards they told the people directly.

A third possibility is one which takes into consideration what we explained on verse one i.e. that the Israelites understood the spies' mission as having quite a different objective from what Moses intended the mission to be. The spies reported to Moses and Aaron according to their understanding of the mission; subsequently they reported to the people at large according to their understanding of the purpose of the mission.

ויספרו לו, They told him, etc. The Torah specifies: "to him" instead of to them, i.e. Moses and Aaron. The trick the spies played on Moses was that whereas ostensibly they addressed their words to Moses, they ensured that the whole community could hear them at the same time. The Torah teaches us this nuance by adding ויאמרו without the suffix "to him"; in this way we would understand that they made sure the people would hear what they had to say.

באנו אל הארץ, "we have come to the land, etc." They meant that they arrived there without mishap. They added the words: "to which you have sent us," to make dear that they attributed their safe return from the land of Canaan to the fact that they had carried out Moses' commandment faithfully. Alternatively, they may have referred to the fact that 40 days earlier Moses had accompanied them on the commencement of their mission. They now acknowledged that Moses' merit then had assisted them in traversing the land and returning safely. Perhaps the words ויספרו לו were a reference by the Torah to the spies acknowledging that Moses' merit had assisted them. When the Torah failed to use the word לו after ויאמרו, the reason is that what followed applied to the Israelites as a whole and not to Moses in particular.

וגם זבת חלב ודבש, "and it does indeed flow with milk and honey." The word וגם, "and also," is justified as it is a continuation of a previous comment the spies made, namely that they experienced G'd's protective hand while traversing the land. The goodness of the land was an additional positive element they were able to comment upon.

אפס כי עז העם, "However the people are tough, etc." Seeing that Moses had specifically asked them to determine if the people who inhabited that land were strong or weak, they now had to report that the people were indeed formidable. Not only that but they dwelled in heavily fortified towns. They concluded that part of their report by mentioning that they had observed giants in the land. They stated this so that the Israelites should not think that the fact that the towns were fortified revealed weakness and lack of self confidence by the inhabitants.

The words העם היושב עליה also mean that the people do not only dwell in towns but are scattered all over the land, i.e. they are not afraid of being attacked. You will find that Bamidbar Rabbah on verse 29 interprets the fact that the Amalekites dwelled in the South of the land as proof that they did not live in townships. The words היושב בה are a hint that only people of extraordinary physique are able to live on that land successfully.

ויהס כלב את העם, Caleb silenced the people, etc. Seeing that an ordinary individual is not capable of silencing a people numbering hundreds of thousands, the Torah adds the words אל משה, to tell us that he silenced them in order to make them listen to Moses, not to himself. We know from Deut. 33,5 that Moses' rank was equivalent to the rank of a king. Caleb invoked the awe and respect due to a king in order to silence the people. Having invoked Moses' authority, he said: "we most certainly are able to to go up and take possession of the land." He meant that in spite of the other spies' having said: "we cannot overcome this people," he felt that the Israelites would be able to prevail.

The spies retorted by bad-mouthing the land of Canaan saying that even supposing that the Israelites were able to overcome the local inhabitants, the land was not worth having as it consumed its inhabitants.

וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה, "and all the people we have seen within it, etc." This may either mean that the country devours its people in spite of their outstanding physical prowess, or it may mean that the only people who are able to survive in that country, i.e. בתוכה, are the אנשי מדות, the men of especially great stature.

ונהי בעינינו כחגבים, "we felt in our own estimation as if we were grasshoppers (by comparison to them), and so we appeared in their eyes." The spies revealed by this comment that they felt vastly inferior even to the people in that land that did not fit the description of being men of stature. They knew this when comparing their own physiques to that of the average person whom they had observed.