| א. השוואה למרגלים ביהושע |
| A. Comparison to the Spies in Joshua |
רלב"ג:
והנה הביא את ישראל אל כל זה הרע מיעוט האמנתם בה', עד שביקשו לשלוח שם מרגלים לחקור אם יתכן להם לכבוש הארץ. אולי יספק מספק (=יטיל ספק מי שהוא נוטה לפקפק) ויאמר שלא חטאו ישראל בזאת השאלה, לפי שאנחנו מצאנו ביהושע בן נון ששלח מרגלים ליריחו ולעי. אלא שהיתר זה הספק לא יקשה עם מה שאבאר מזה: כי זה ריגול יריחו לא היה כי אם לחקור אם נמוגו יושבי הארץ מפניהם. וריגול העי היה לחקור מאיזה מקום יתכן להם לכבשם בקלות ואיך, לא שתהיה כוונתם שאם יהיו חזקים ישמרו מלהלחם בהם.
Ralbag:
And behold what brought Israel to all this evil is their lack of faith in God, to the point that they sought to send scouts to ascertain if it was possible for them to conquer the land. Perhaps a questioner would ask [about this] and say that Israel did not sin in this request, since we find with Joshua the son of Nun, that he sent spies to Jericho and Ai. But the answer to this question is not difficult, on account of what I will explain about that. For that spying of Jericho was only to ascertain if the inhabitants of the land would collapse in front of them. And the spying of Ai was to ascertain from which place it was possible to conquer them more easily, and how [to do so]. Their intention was not that if [these inhabitants] were strong, they would refrain from fighting against them.
1.
1.
א. למה לא הביא הרלב"ג בקושיתו של ה"מספק" שמצאנו גם במשה ששלח לרגל את יעזר (במדבר כ"א ל"א) והביא רק את שני המקרים בהם שלח יהושע מרגלים?
A. Why did Ralbag - in his difficulty of the "questioner" - not cite that we also found with Moses that he sent out to spy on Jaezer (Numbers 21:31), but rather only cited the cases in which Joshua sent scouts?
ב. מניין לרלב"ג שבריגול יריחו היתה התכלית זו שכתב ("לחקור אם נמוגו יושבי הארץ..."), הלא גם שם נאמר (יהושע ב' א') "לכו ראו את הארץ"?
B. From where did Ralbag know that the spying against Jericho had this goal that he wrote ("to ascertain if the inhabitants of the land would collapse..."); is it not stated there also (Joshua 2:1), "Go see the land?"
C. Do you know an answer to the "questioner's" question different than Ralbag's?
2. The scouts speak three times in our chapter: The first time is in verses 27-29; the second time is in verse 31; and the third time is in verses 32-33. Explain the difference between these three speeches of theirs.
| ב. שאלות ודיוקים ברש"י |
| B. Questions and Inferences in Rashi |
כלם אנשים ALL OF THEM WERE MEN — Wherever the term אנשים, “men”, is used in Scripture it is a term denoting worthiness. These men, [though they later sinned] but at that time [when they were appointed] they were worthy men.
ומקשה בעל דבק טוב, על רש"י:
והלא גם לגבי סדום נאמר (בראשית י"ט) "ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום..."? ועוד: למה לא פירש רש"י דבריו אלה לגבי "אנשים" שבפרק ב' "שלח לך אנשים"?
And the author of Devek Tov raises the following difficulty in Rashi:
But is it not also written about Sodom (Genesis 19:4), "and the men of the city, the men of Sodom...?" And also why did Rashi not comment like this regarding the "men" in verse 2, "Send out men for yourself?"
ענה לשתי קושיותיו!
Answer his two difficulties!
מניין לו שמה ששאל (פסוק י"ט) "ומה הערים, הבמחנים אם במבצרים" לא על הערים שאלם, אם הם במחנים אם במבצרים, אלא לסימן על יושביהם שאל?
The author of Imrei Shefer raises the following difficulty:
From where did he know that when he asked (verse 19), "and what are their cities, are they in fortified ones or open ones," he was not asking about the cities - if they are open or fortified - but rather asked [this] as a sign about their inhabitants?
ענה לקושיתו!
Answer his difficulty!
A. Why did Rashi see fit to explain as he did here and not as he explained below:
כל העדה [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL], EVEN THE WHOLE CONGREGATION — The congregation in its entirety, for those who were to die in the wilderness in consequence of their sin had already died, but these had been expressly mentioned for life (cf. Rashi on v. 22).
ויבואו בני ישראל כל העדה הר ההר: כולם שלמים ועומדים להכנס לארץ שלא היה בהן אחד מאותם שנגזרה גזירה עליהם שכבר כלו מתי מדבר ואלו מאותן שכתוב בהן (דברים ד) חיים כולכם היום?
B. Why did Rashi explain Leviticus 4:13 (s.v. the congregation of Israel) the same way he explained here?
| ג. התייחסות מטה מנשה ליוסף |
| C. Relating the Tribe of Manasseh to Joseph |
"Of the tribe of Joseph, namely, of the tribe of Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi."
יש לשאול מדוע הזכיר במנשה "למטה יוסף" ולא אמר כן ביהושע בן נון, שלא אמר אלא (י"ג, ח') "למטה אפרים הושע בן נון"?
The author of Toledot Yitzchak raises the following difficulty:
One may ask, why did it mention, "Of the tribe of Joseph," with Manasseh; whereas it did not mention this with Joshua the son of Nun (who was also a scout descended from Joseph), but rather only stated (Numbers 13:8), "Of the tribe of Ephraim, Joshua the son of Nun?"
Try to find a reason for this matter.
| ד. "ויעלו" - "ויבא", יחיד או רבים? |
| D. "And they went up" - "and he came," Singular or Plural? |
"And they went up into the South, and he came unto Hebron"
ר' יוסף אבן כספי:אבן כספי, מצרף לכסף:
ד"ה ויעלו בנגב: כבר הודעתיך כי על עם או כת ובכלל אחוזת אנשים יתכן לרמוז עליהם בלשון רבים כפי ההבטה אל הפרטים, ויתכן בלשון יחיד מצד ההבטה אל האחד.
R. Yosef Ibn Kaspi, Matsref LeKessef:
S.v. And they went up into the South: You have already been informed that about a people, or a party or any grouping of people, it is possible to refer to them in the plural, by looking at individuals; and it is [also] possible to refer to them in singular, by looking at the unit.
ד"ה ויעלו בנגב: סיפור פרטי מה שהיה עם האנשים שהלכו בנגב, דבאמת לא הלכו כולם ביחד אלא חלקו את הארץ לשנים שנים; על כן נשלם הליכתם בארבעים יום. ומעתה מדבר הכתוב בשנים שעלו בנגב והמה כלב ועוד אחד.
(in light of the words of Rava, Sota 34)
S.v. And they went up into the South: It is a recounting of a detail about that which happened with the people that went into the South. As they actually did not all go together, but rather divided the land, two by two - hence they [were able to] finish their touring in forty days. And so the verse is speaking about the two that went up into the South; and they were Caleb and one other [scout].
ד"ה ויבא עד חברון: אחד מהם, והוא כלב, בא בתוך העיר והמבצר, והשני ירא להיכנס לעיר מפני אימת בני הענק. וגם במצור קשה לנוס, אם תהא השעה צריכה, אבל האחד בא בלי פחד וגם ראה את ילידי הענק ולא חת מפני כל.
S.v. And he came to Chevron: One of them - and that was Caleb - came into the city and the fortress, whereas the other one was afraid to enter the city, out of fear from the Anakites - and also [because] it is hard to escape from the fortress, should it be required. But the one (Caleb) came without fear, saw the Anakites and did not tremble from any [of this].
1. Explain the main difference between the two commentators' approaches to the verse.
2. What is the weakness in Ibn Kaspi's explanation here?
3. What is the proof of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, for their supposition that the one that came to Chevron was Calev?
| ה. היקש "וילכו-ויבואו" |
| E. The Comparison of "they went" and "they came." |
"And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and showed them the fruit of the land."
A. What is the difficulty in the verse upon which they build their words?
B. What is the concept expressed by their words above?
ג. ר' חסדאי אלמושנינו, מקשה:
האין דברי רש"י כאן סותרים דבריו לעיל פסוק ג' ד"ה כלם אנשים: "כל האנשים שבמקרא לשון חשיבות ואותה שעה כשרים היו"?
C. R. Chadai Almoshnino raises the following difficulty:
Do the words of Rashi here not contradict his words above -s.v. all of them were men: Wherever the term, "men," is used in Scripture, it is a term denoting worthiness; and at that time (when they were appointed) they were worthy men?
ענה לשאלתו!
Answer his question!
2. רלב"ג:
ד"ה וילכו ויבואו וכו' וכו': והנה אמר זה, כי אילו היו מספרים זה תחילה למשה ולאהרן כמו שהיה ראוי, לא היה מתחדש מפני דיבתם מה שאירע מן הרע, כי כבר היה נקל למשה ולאהרן לישב לבם, שיסמכו בשם יתברך, עם שיהושע וכלב היו מחזיקים את ידיהם; אבל הם הניאו העם בדרך שלא יוכלו לתקן עוותם.
2. Ralbag:
S.v. And they went and they came, etc. etc.: Behold it said this, because had they said this to Moses and Aaron at first - as was appropriate - the evil that resulted out of their slander would not have occurred. For it had already become easy for Moses and Aaron to assuage their hearts, such that they would [then] rely upon God, may He be blessed - alongside Joshua and Caleb strengthening their side. But they moved the people in such a way that [Moses and Aaron] could 'no [longer] fix what they had twisted.'
מה הוא הקושי בפסוקנו שאותו רצה לישב?
What is the difficulty in our verse that he wants to resolve?
האם זה אותו קושי שעוסק בו רש"י (לעיל) או לא?
Is this the same difficulty that Rashi is occupied with (above) or not?
| ו. "ויספרו, ויאמרו" - לנרגן |
| F. "And they told ... and said" - to Grumble |
"And they told him, and said: ‘We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey"
תחילת דברים הללו לנרגן, כי לא כך היה להם לומר אליהם.
The beginning of their words were to grumble. For they should not have spoken to them like this.
Explain what in the beginning of their words is a sign that they wanted to grumble. How should they have opened if they did not want to grumble?
| ז. מקום מושבו של עמלק |
| G. The Location of Amalek's Habitation |
"Amalek dwells in the land of the South, the Hittite, and Amorite inhabit the hill country; and the Canaanite dwells by the Sea and along the Jordan."
"Now the Amalekite and the Canaanite dwell in the Vale"
"Then the Amalekite and the Canaanite, who dwelt in that hill-country, came down"
1. Are you able to resolve these verses that seem to contradict one another? Compare Genesis 15:20-21; Exodus 23:28; and Leviticus 18:3.
2. Why is the location of Amalekites' and the Canaanites\ dwelling (14:25) recounted within the words of God (14:20-25)?
| ח. "ארץ אוכלת יושביה" |
| H. "A land that eats its inhabitants" |
"The land, through which we have passed to spy it out, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof"
אבן כספי:
הנה הם אמרו "טובה הארץ מאוד" – אם כן איך יכחשו הם בעצמם לומר שהיא מכלה יושביה? אבל פירושו כמו (ישעיה א' ל') "כאלה נובלת עליה" שפירוש – שעליה נובלין, וכן זה, שיושביה אוכלין. והנה זה כטעם "אנשי מידות" כי כל איש הוא איש מידה מה, וכן כל איש אוכל. וכלל הדבר, כי הם הפכו שבחי הארץ שמצד עצמה טובה, אבל כי אנשיה אכלנים גדולים ובעלי אורך גדול – מורה על גבורתם!
Ibn Kaspi:
Behold they said "the land is very good." If so, how could they actually contradict themselves by saying that it destroys its inhabitants? Rather its understanding is like (Isaiah 1:30), "like an oak tree that withers its leaves" - the explanation of which is that its leaves wither (the leaves are the subject of the verb and not the oak tree). And likewise here - such that the inhabitants are eating (and not the land). And this is the explanation of "men of proportions," as every man has some proportion; and likewise every man eats [something]. And the principle of the matter is that they reversed the praises of the land which are good in themselves (and turned them into disadvantages) - [hence] that its men are big eaters and very tall, shows their might!