Why [is the chapter of the spies] adjacent. Rashi is questioning why the chapter of the spies is adjacent only to the chapter of Miriam, for it should have been adjacent to the chapters of both Korach and of Miriam. The Torah should have placed the dispute of Korach first, followed by the chapter of Miriam and afterwards the chapter dealing with the spies, for the dispute with Korach took place in Chatzeros while the affair with the spies took place [later] in Paran. He answers that it is “because she was punished…” and therefore the chapters were not written in the order [that they happened] so that we learn this concept. If the chapters had been written in order, even if the incident with the spies would have been placed before Miriam, one would not have learnt this concept, because perhaps they were merely written in chronological order. Re’m. (Nachalas Yaakov) I have already written on several occasions that Rashi does not give a reason for juxtapositions except where there is something superfluous, or a linguistic change, etc. which indicates that the Torah is particular about the juxtaposition. Similarly here, when the Torah writes “Moshe sent them from the desert of Paran” this is seemingly superfluous, for it is written above (12:16) “they camped in the desert of Paran” thus it is obvious that they were sent from there. Rather the Torah is certainly informing us of the place from where they were sent to teach us that even though they had traveled from Chatzeros and arrived at the desert of Paran, and they should have accepted reproof, nonetheless they sinned. This is in contrast to the explanation of Re’m.

According to your opinion. Rashi is answering the question: Surely it is evident to Hashem that they would sin through this dispatch. If so, why did Hashem command them to send the spies, which would cause punishment to come upon them so that they would not enter the Land of Israel, but die in the desert? In response Rashi answers that “I am not commanding you.” Re’m explains that Rashi is expounding this from the word “send” and not from the word “for yourself.” Since it is written “all of you approached me and said let us send men before us…” (Devarim 1:22), it is certain that Moshe conferred with Hashem and that the reply came that they should be sent. It is evident that this response was granting permission and not giving a command because it was a response to a question, which indicates granting permission rather than giving a command. Concerning the word “לך” (for yourself) one must either say that this is a manner of speech, as in “the rain has passed הלך לו (and gone)” (Shir Hashirim 2:11). Alternatively, one may expound that when Hashem saw that the spies would sin, He referred to them with Moshe’s name — “send for yourself.” However, when Hashem saw the elders, and that their actions would be correct, he called them after His name, as it states “gather seventy men for Me” (Bamidbar 11:16) Re’m.

Moshe conferred. (Gur Aryeh) The Ramban asks: According to Rashi’s explanation that Moshe consulted with the Shechinah as to whether to send the spies, he also sinned because Hashem had said that the land was very good. Furthermore, we find written explicitly in Parshas Devarim (1:23) “the matter was favorable in my eyes,” but if so, why was it favorable in his eyes? The apparent explanation is that Yisroel certainly wanted to send the spies, for they wanted to spy out the route and the towns that they would encounter.” It is usual for someone who does not know the way to send out spies — this was a correct and conscientious attitude toward a mitzvah. Similarly, Moshe sent spies to Yazer, and Yehoshua sent two men to Yericho. Consequently Moshe said “it was favorable in my eyes.” However, Hashem who knows the thoughts of man understood their evil intent and said to Moshe “Send them if you wish … I have said to them…” See there for further detail.

An opportunity for error. As [our Rabbis] say “if one comes to defile we allow him.” (Nachalas Yaakov) This does not mean that Yisroel would err in misunderstanding the spies’ words, rather that the spies would err. This refers to their statement “a land which consumes its inhabitants” (v. 32) where the spies erred, as Rashi explains there.

With his permission. Meaning that it was not by Hashem’s decree, for this was only of their own volition. One should not say that “by the word of Hashem” refers back to the word “them” (i.e., Moshe sent them), meaning that those sent were “by the word of Hashem” even though their sending was not, because nothing about their selection had yet been mentioned. Therefore how could the Torah say “[Moshe] sent them” which by implication refers back to those mentioned previously. On the contrary, the Torah should have said “by the word of Hashem” in reference to their journey. Rather, “them” is a general reference to the people mentioned, to teach that their dispatch would be of their own volition.

Refers to distinction. Meaning that generally the term אנשים refers to distinction, when it comes as a description as in “you shall be strengthened and be a man” (Melachim I 2:2). However when it does not come as a description, as in “the men said” (Bereishis 19:12), “the men who were at the entrance of the house” (ibid. v.11), “send for yourself men” (v. 2 above), all of these refer to regular men, not men of distinction. Re’m.

At that time they were righteous. (Kitzur Mizrochi) Maharan raises a difficulty: Is it not written “Moshe called Hosheia … Yehoshua” (v. 16)? If so, even before their journey he sensed their wickedness. It appears to me that this is no difficulty, because Hashem had already said to him “send for yourself — according to your opinion” and they would be given the opportunity to err. If so, he certainly knew of their evil intent and designs. (Gur Aryeh) answers that [they were righteous] only then, to the exclusion of afterwards, because immediately after they were appointed their designs became evil.

May Hashem save you. Thus “he called” is in the sense of a prayer, as in “And there Avram called in the Name of Hashem” (Bereishis 13:4), and the lamed of ליהושע is in place of על (for). Rashi’s proof to expound in this manner is that if not so, what is the reason to name him here? (Gur Aryeh) There is a difficulty: Why did he pray for Yehoshua and not for Caleiv? But this is not a difficulty, because it is great disgrace for a person whose student does not act properly, for people will say “if he had not learned from his teacher to act in this manner, he would not have done these things.”

This was the worst. For Egypt is to the south of the Land of Israel, and one going from there to the Land of Israel is traveling northwards. One must therefore say that the “south” mentioned here is the south of the Land of Israel, and Chevron is there and it was set aside for the burial of the dead being the most inferior of places in the Land. Re’m.

Some countries. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe first mention “what the land is” when he should have first mentioned the people of the land, which was most important. Thus he explains that “the land” refers to the nature of the land — because “some countries…” and this is the most important factor.

He gave them a sign. For if not so, how would they know if they were strong or not? Therefore the verse writes (v. 19) “הבמחנים אם במבצרים” (lit. are they in open) or are they in fortified [cities]” which is the explanation of “if they are strong or weak.” However one should not explain it is a separate subject. You should also see if their cities are fortified or open, because if so the Torah should have written “המחנים אם מבצרים” (lit. are they open or are they fortified). The Targum also indicates this, translating it as הבפצחים (are they in fortified [cities]). Re’m writes that the statement “and how are the cities” (v. 19) refers back to the first subject of whether they are strong or weak, even though there is a break between them, and that this is common. Maharam raises a difficulty: If fortified cities indicate that they are weak, why was Yisroel not happy with the spies report when they heard that the cities were fortified — meaning that they were weak? Another question is asked: If this was an accurate and proven sign, why did the spies say that the people were strong and the cities were fortified, without fear that they would be caught in a falsehood? And if it was not a clear sign, how could Moshe give it to them as a sign? One cannot say like Nachalas Yaakov that the sign referred to their residences — that if they live in open cities then they are strong — however the fortified cities were for beauty. For it is written “the nation is mighty … and the cities are fortified” (v. 28). [The cities] with a hei implies that they lived in them, for if not so, it should have said “and fortified cities” without a hei. A further question is asked: Why in each case did Moshe place for us first what was good, such as “is it fat?” or “is it good?” whereas concerning strength he first said “are they strong?” and afterwards he said “are they weak?” For if they were strong then it would not be easy to conquer them. It appears that one question is answered by the other. What was the reason that each question began with a hei — (is it/ are they…) and ended with אם (or…) such as “הטובה אם רעה” (is it good or bad) and likewise all the other questions? On the contrary, it should have either said “הטובה היא הרעה” (is it good, is it bad) both with a hei, or both with אם — “אם טובה אם רעה” ([is it] either good or bad). For a question prefaced by a hei is the same as using אם. Furthermore, why in the case of “החזק הוא הרפה” (are they strong or weak) did it use a hei for both the question and its opposite, rather than saying אם? The answer is that here he was only asking about a matter and its opposite, such as “is it good or bad” or “is it fat or lean” but he did not mention anything in between. Therefore it was necessary to begin with a hei and end with אם, given that אם is not as indicative of a doubt as is the hei preceding a question. For we often find that אם refers to something certain, as Rashi writes in Parshas Mishpotim (Shemos 22:24). Thus he ended with אם as if to say “you will see that if it is not fat, then it will be lean” the matter being almost certain such as “if it is not soft then it will be hard.” This indicates to us that Moshe only gave a sign that if they lived in open cities then they were certainly strong, given that they relied on their strength. However if they lived in fortified cities, it was possible that they were still strong and that the fortified cities were for beauty or grandeur. Thus he first asked if they were strong, referring to whether they lived in open cities. But he also concluded with the hei to indicate that even if they lived in fortified cities, it was appropriate to ask this question with a hei because perhaps they were strong and the fortifications were for beauty. However if he had began by asking “הרפה” (are they weak) it would have been more appropriate to say “אם חזק” (or strong), because those who live in open cities are certainly strong. In this case (writing “are they weak” first) we would not have learned anything more, given that one would always has to start with a hei when inquiring about something that one does not know. R. Yaakov Triosh.

A righteous man. For it is written afterwards “you shall strengthen yourselves, and you shall take some fruit of the land,” thus there were trees. Re'm explains that if the land is fat then there would naturally be trees and he had already asked them if the land was fat or lean. Even though the Rabbis expounded that [the tree that] he was talking about [refers specifically to] Iyov (Bava Basra 15a), Rashi simply writes “a righteous man” because this is closer to the simple meaning of the verse.

First ripening. Rashi is answering the question: The Torah should have stated “ביכור ענבים” (“first ripening of the grapes” rather than “ביכורי — first ripenings”). Therefore he explains that it refers to the days in which the grapes were first ripening, referring to the days in which they ripen but not implying a plural.

The length and width. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Why did they go the length and width, for if they wanted to go throughout the whole land, they would still not have gone everywhere? [The answer is that] one sees that the land is different along its length and width, because the eastern or western reaches are different, as are the northern and southern. Therefore, they traveled in this manner to see all of the differences.

At the grave of the Patriarchs. For if not so, why would he have gone to pray there instead of praying in another place. Rather one must say that it was because of the graves of the patriarchs.

Built up. Rashi uses the word מובנה (lit. built up) which has the connotation of proliferation as in “and I will also be built (bear children) through her” (Bereishis 16:2).שנים (years) has the connotation of times, meaning that Chevron was seven times better than Tzo’an in Egypt.

This informs you. A question is widely asked: Even according to the simple understanding of the verse there is a question as to what the verse is coming to teach you. The answer is that Rashi’s words here mean “Now [that I have explained this] the verse is easily understood…” Because according to the simple understanding there is a difficulty as to the significance of it being built seven years before, but according to the Midrashic explanation it is understandable that seven “informs you…”

Barren. Boulders. Indicating a barren land which produces no fruit, as does a fertile land.

With a cluster of grapes hanging from it. [The meaning is] as if Scripture had written “from there they cut off a branch with one cluster of grapes” rather than interpreting [that they cut off] “a branch” by itself and a “cluster” by itself; for if so why would they have cut off the branch at all, since it had no fruit.

Do I not know that it was with two? Meaning that when it is written “they carried it,” it implies that there were two, given that the minimum number of plural (i.e. they) is two. Why then does the Torah say “two”? The reason why Rashi did not explain this on the verse (apparently, in the text of Rashi that the Sifsei Chachomim had, this is a continuation of Rashi’s previous comment), is because one would have said that “two” refers to the branch — that they carried the branch on one pole and the cluster of grapes on another. However according to the explanation that there was a branch with a cluster of grapes hanging from it, one concludes that the branch and the cluster are one. Therefore there is a difficulty as to why is it written “two,” and Rashi answers that it was with two poles.

Eight took the cluster. Meaning that when Moshe said “take from the fruit of the land” (v. 20) it implied that they should take some of every fruit, so why did they only take three types, as the Torah writes “one cluster of grapes … some figs and some pomegranates.” Rather it is certain that “eight took one cluster…” Rashi then explains why they did not take from every fruit, for surely Moshe had said to take from all of the fruit. He explains that it was “since the sole purpose of the others…” For if they had not intended to deliver a slanderous report, they should not have taken a whole cluster of grapes, and they would have been able to take all of the [other kinds of] fruits of the land, or they should not have taken a cluster at all. You should know that they intended to deliver a slanderous report, because we say in the Gemara (Sotah 34a) that “if you want to know [how much one of them weighed]…” But one could ask: What can you learn from the stones that that they erected in Gilgal? Perhaps there is a difference and here they were not carrying a load commensurate to their strength. Rather it is certain that the inference here is because if they had not carried commensurate to their strength, why did they take only three types of fruit? Thus it is certain that they intended to deliver a slanderous report. Re’m quotes the Gemara and Rashi in Maseches Sotah which explain all of this.

To compare their going. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi explains in the Gemara (Sotah 35a) that “they went” is apparently superfluous, and given that it is written “and came,” Scripture should have merely said “they came to Moshe.” The explanation of his comment is that since the Torah had already recounted that “they returned from spying the land” (v. 25), why does it now mention their departure? Rashi answers that is was “to compare…”

To Moshe. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source? Perhaps they brought it back even to Yisroel! The answer is that if “them” here refers back to “the entire congregation of the Bnei Yisroel” mentioned above, why is it necessary to repeat “and to the entire congregation” afterwards.

Some truth. For if not so and their intention was only for the bad, why did they start with something that was the opposite of their intention. Rather one must say that “a falsehood…”

Because they had been burned by Amalek. Even though it was true that they dwelled there, as it is written “the Amaleki and the Cana’ani dwell in the valley…” (Bamidbar 14:25). Rashi infers this because the Torah writes “go up by the mountain” (v. 17) and it was the Emori and the Chiti who dwelled there. Thus, since the Emori and Chiti dwelled in the mountain, while Amalek dwelled in the valley, they should not have mentioned Amalek first. Rather it was “to frighten them…”

Them all. Even though the verse explicitly says “the people,” [so why does Rashi mention it]? There is another difficulty: The verse does not mention that the people spoke up! The answer is that Rashi refers to the spies, meaning that he silenced all the spies, so that they would not speak at all, in order that the people would hear what Caleiv would say about Moshe.

The listener. Since it is written “because he possessed in him a different spirit” (Bamidbar 14:24), it implies that there were two spirits, one in his mouth and one in his heart. To the spies he said “I am with you in your plan” but in his heart he said the truth. Consequently he was able to silence them. However Re’m explains that it was because Caleiv called Moshe “son of Amram” rather than calling him by name that they thought he was with them. He referred to Moshe in this way so that they would err and think that his intention was to slander.

Even to heaven. For if not so, Scripture should have said “נעלה וירשנו” (we can go up and we shall possess it), why did it need to add the word עלה (using the repetitive phrase “עלה נעלה” lit. we can go up, go up). Rather this means that we can go up to anywhere, even to heaven. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: Why did they speak about overcoming them, surely they were not in heaven? The answer is that this is what they were saying: Even if they have in heaven a great celestial power supporting them, such that we would not be able to expel them, we can still go up. Because celestial powers do not affect Israel, for they override the celestial powers. Thus we can surely go up and overcome their celestial powers.

About the One above. Since it is written “כי חזק הוא ממנו” (for he/it is more powerful than we) while it should have written only “כי חזק ממנו” [i.e. the word ‘“הוא — he/it”’ is superfluous and can be expounded]. Also, above (v. 28), [in reference to the nation], the word הוא (he/it) is not written, only “אפס כי $אז העם” (however the nation is mighty). Therefore, [the word “הוא – he/it” that is written here] refers to “the One above…” (Gur Aryeh) It is impossible to say that [the phrase “more powerful] than we” refers to Israel, since this would imply that Israel were also strong and only that they are stronger. This would be similar to Rashi’s explanation on the verse “[greater] and more powerful than you” (Devarim 9:1), that you are powerful but they are even more powerful than you. But here this explanation is improbable, because the spies likened themselves to locusts in relation to the people who lived in the Land. Rather, “[they said it] about the One above.”

Burying the dead. Rashi’s inference is because it is written “the land through which we have passed … is a land which consumes,” but the words “the land through which we passed” are apparently superfluous; for this is not the beginning of their statement, such that they need to state which land they were referring to. Therefore Rashi explains that wherever we passed we saw that it was consuming its inhabitants — because they were burying the dead. R. Yaakov Triosh

Who fell. As the Torah writes (Bereishis 6:2), “the sons of the lords saw the daughters of man…” For if not so, why is “הנפילים” (the giants) written twice? Rather it is certain that the second term “הנפילים” literally means fallen (from the root נפל — to fall), and there we saw those who fell from heaven, Shamchazai and Azael.

Say to each other, “there are ants.” There many who find difficulty with this statement: It is written “and so we appeared” which implies “like grasshoppers,” while Rashi explains that we heard them saying “there are ants.” Re’m amends Rashi’s words to read “grasshoppers…” However this does not appear correct, firstly because in every text it is written “ants.” Furthermore, if they were truly “like grasshoppers” when comparing their relative sizes, the comparison being that a hundred grasshoppers piled on each other reach the height of a person, and similarly the giants were the height of a hundred people. If so the Torah should have been brief and merely written “we were like grasshoppers in comparison to them.” Why did it add “and we were [like grasshoppers] in our eyes” which merely reflects how they appeared. Furthermore, there is a difficulty: Did the giants not see that all of the other inhabitants of the land were not giants, and if so why did they say “there are ants in the vineyards like people” as if they had never seen people other than giants like themselves. The answer is that it is a known phenomenon that one who looks down from a height, sees an object as being smaller than one who is standing on the ground and looking at the same object that is high up. The reason is that the sense of vision is like a flame, and it is the nature of a flame to rise and bring the object being viewed towards the eye. Thus, neither of them sees the object according to its actual size. The spies intended to deliver a slanderous report with each and every statement, thus they said “all the people that we saw there were men of great stature,” meaning that they are not used to small people like us. Then they said “we were like grasshoppers in our eyes” meaning that we were standing below and looking at the height of the giants, and we measured ourselves in comparison to them as the size of a grasshopper in comparison to a man. But in truth we were even smaller than this because we were looking upward and thus misrepresented their height. They concluded “and so we appeared in their eyes” meaning that according to the error that we made in looking up from a low position, to measure ourselves as being larger that than our true size, so too the giants erred in looking down from a height to measure us as being smaller than reality. Thus we were not considered like anything in their eyes, only as ants. Consequently they do not fear us at all, even though we are 600,000. Now there is a difficulty: Perhaps they knew how to measure correctly and did not err. If so what is meant by “and so [we appeared]?” Also perhaps Hashem made us appear large in their eyes. Therefore Rashi explains that we heard them saying “there are ants.” R. Yaakov Triosh

Who make the sun a necklace. Rashi in the Gemara explains “as if their necks extended through the ‘window’ through which the sun emerges.” He explains “who made the sun a necklace” as meaning that the opening through which the sun is viewed became like a necklace around their necks. One might ask why Rashi did not make this comment above on the verse “we also [saw] the offspring of the giant ($)” (v. 28). The answer is that their forefather may have been called ענק (giant) and thus they were called the sons of the giant ($) after him, similar to the term “the sons of Noach ($)” we apply to all mankind. But here it is written “there we saw the נפילים (lit. fallen ones).” Rashi has a difficulty as to why they were so called, and said that it must have been because they were they sons of Shamchazai and Azael. And if so, there is a difficulty as to why they were called “the sons of the ענק (giant),” rather it must be because they make [the sun] a necklace (ענק). (See Tosafos Succah 22).