Shelach: Learning From The Spies and Miriam: Which Sin Was Worse?

Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman

The story of the Spies, and their negative portrayal of the Land of Israel in this week’s Torah reading immediately follows the story that closes last week’s reading, Miriam speaking lashon hara against her brother Moses and her subsequent punishment is immediately followed by the episode of the spies who spoke negatively of the land of Israel. The Rabbis (Yalkut Shimoni, Isaiah, remez 459, quoted by Rashi in his commentary to the Torah) comment on the juxtaposition by noting that in their behavior, the spies failed to learn the lesson of Miriam.

The comment is difficult, because it seems to imply there was a message a fortiori; what Miriam did was bad, what the spies did was worse. However, instinct would point in the other direction; Miriam spoke about a human being, with feelings and emotions, while the spies sinned against land.  In fact, the Talmud itself adopts this perspective, stating that the story of the spies instructs on the severity of lashon hara, as their punishment was for disparaging the land, and surely to speak badly of humans must therefore be far worse. (Arakhin 15a. See also R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, Heamek Davar, Deut. 24:9 ; Shemirat HaLashon, Parashat Shlach;   R. Moshe Galanti, Zevach Shelamim, Parashat Beha’alotekha, #94; R. Raphael Tzaban, Nefesh Chayah, II, Shlach, 1; R. Avigdor  Neventzhal, Sichot LeSefer Bamidbar, #8 and #9; and R. Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi, in BeYad HaLashon, pp. 315-316.)It would seem, rather, that the Rabbis are making a different point. Miriam's transgression was indeed, in terms of the victim, worse than that of the spies. The lesson the spies should have learned was not that their disparagement of the land constituted an even more severe violation. The lesson actually had to do with the extreme complexity and challenges involved in addressing negativity through speech and thought. If Miriam, with her personal greatness and noble intentions, could still run afoul of this value, clearly a program of mental reorientation and proactive attitude adjustment is necessary.An instructive comparison may come from the laws of kiddushon Friday night. When this ritual is performed over wine, the practice is to cover the challah breads. The Talmud and commentators offer a number of possible explanations (Talmud Yerushalmi, cited in Tur, O.C. 271, and see Ohr Zarua, Hil. Shabbat II,22), one of which seems particularly striking.  According to the general rule, the blessing is recited on bread first; in this case, the kiddush is being recited on the wine, which is thus the subject of the first blessing. Accordingly, the challah breads are covered so they not "witness" their losing this honor to the wine and thus be "embarrassed".This attribution of human feelings to pastry is difficult to understand.  Are we truly concerned that inanimate objects will experience humiliation? Especially considering what the challah will go through a few minutes later is far worse.It seems, rather, that the concern is to the complexity of human emotion. Determining what will or will not have hurtful consequences to another is a highly involved enterprise, one that does not come easily to the untrained intuition. To assume that undeveloped instinct will rise to the challenge of the moment is dangerous; offense can occur even unintentionally, when the speaker is unpracticed in the nuances of human sensitivity. Thus, even interactions with inanimate objects are viewed as opportunities to hone the awareness necessary to deal with actual people. Being cognizant of a "slight" to challah will, it is hoped, ensure awareness of the risk involved when a human is in such a situation.The value of this exercise could thus explain the extensive analyses and hypothetical discussions devoted to the practice of challah covering (see, for example, Resp Iggerot Moshe; R. David Rosenberg, Responsa Minchat David, I,2; R. Yisrael David Harfenes, Nishmat Shabbat, II, p. 41).The obligation to remember Miriam, according to Nachmanides possibly a Torah commandment, is to train oneself in sensitivity in advance, so that when a situation presents itself, there is a hope that the challenge will be negotiated successfully. This, then, is the lesson that the spies failed to learn.  Immediately after Miriam's punishment, to go and indulge a biased negativity in evaluating the land of Israel was a complete rejection of the moral message. 

Get Outlook for iOS