Numbers 13:1-15:41

One Man Job

Commentators have long noticed a contradiction in the Torah’s account of the tribal leaders who were sent to spy out the land of Canaan. In this week’s reading, the idea of sending them clearly came from God:

 

And the Lord said to Moses, “Send out for yourself men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the people of Israel; send one from each tribe” (Num 13:1-2).

 

But later, in the book of Deuteronomy, it would appear that the idea actually came from the people themselves:

 

[Moses said:] Then all of you (Israelites) approached me and said, “Let us send men ahead of us so that they may explore the land for us and report back to us about the way for us to take, and the cities that we are to enter.” This seemed good to me, so I chose from among you twelve men, one from each tribe. (Deut 1:22-23)

 

Whose idea was it, God’s or the Israelites’ (and, in the latter case, an idea subsequently approved by Moses)? The Talmud (Sotah 34b) notes that God had said, “Send out for yourself…” This phrase might indeed be implying that God’s words came in response to an earlier, unreported request submitted by Moses on the people’s behalf. Building on this, Rashi’s commentary asserts that “for yourself” means that God had actually told the Israelites, “I myself am not commanding you. If you wish to, then send out the spies, since the Israelites had said, ‘Let us send out the men…’”

 

Sometimes left out of this discussion is the word anashim. This is of course the common term for “men,” the plural of ish, “man.” But to think only of this meaning is incomplete. Often, ish in the Torah was in itself a term of respect. When Moses tried to mediate between two fighting men, one of them objected: “Who appointed you to be an ish, a proper leader to rule over us?” (Exod 2:14). Later, when Moses had stayed a long time on Mount Sinai, the people say, “This ish Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt—we have no idea what may have happened to him” (Exod 32:1). They apparently meant that without Moses, they lacked a proper leader for the days ahead.

 

Why is this meaning of ish significant today? From ancient times to the present, leadership has often been the subject of fierce debate. On the one hand, we need leaders; anarchia—the Greek word for leaderless-ness—is a recipe for chaos. But on the other hand, giving a leader or leaders too much freedom is also potentially dangerous. Those people have a way of wanting to stay in power, so they use words like reform, which usually means “change for the better,” to mean “give all the power to me.” Then even a strong set of laws or ironclad institutions may not be enough to prevent a single leader or leaders from staying on top. No need to elaborate nowadays.

 

Shabbat shalom!