Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 061

Thursday, June 14 2001

• bearing bad news
• Ain Simcha Elah B'Basar... A Vegetarian's Dilema.
• curious chabad minhag
• Curious Chabad Minhag
• Re: Yiud
• Re: Yiud
• RE: Ain Simcha Elah B'Basar... A Vegetarian's Dilema.
• Re: Ain Simcha Elah B'Basar... A Vegetarian's Dilema.
• Preference not to deliver bad news
• Curious Chabad Minhag
• Re: Ain Simcha Elah B'Basar... A Vegetarian's Dilema.
• Re: preference not to be the deliverer of bad news
• preference not to be the deliverer of bad news
• Homework to Prepare for Mei Merivah
• yibum vs rape
• Re: Curious Chabad Minhag
• Curious Chabad Minhag
• Re: Curious Chabad Minhag
• Fw: Chasam Sofer quoting the Tanya
• Re: Reward, punishment, hashgachah and teva
• Re: Torah's Eternity
• Re: Dor Revi'i on the m'kosheish eitzim
• Re: Dor Revi'i on the m'kosheish eitzim
• Re: Dor Revi'i on the m'kosheish eitzim
• Re: Dor Revi'i on the m'raglim

> I recall learning that it is preferable not to be the deliverer of bad
> news assuming there is no toelet to you delivering it now versus someone
> else later, but I can't remember the source. Does this sound familiar
> to anyone?

At least one source is the story that when Rav asked R. Chiya (his
double uncle) about his parents, R. Chiya always avoided the question
since they were no longer living and he didn't want to deliver bad news.

I know of communities where women are not informed of the death of
relatives (not living nearby) since they don't say kaddish. Instead they
wait until after the sheloshim so they don't sit shiva.

I have never understood this minhag. First of all sitting shiva is
very important from a psychological viewpoint besides the halacha.
Taking away the opportunity to sitting shiva can be very harmful.
My mother was not told of the death of a brother in another country.
Whenever she called they said he was not available. She was very hurt when
she found out the truth. Furthermore, it increased her anxiety. Everytime
she called and someone was not available she began to imagine that some
tragedy had happened and they were hiding the news from her.

I once spoke with a rav from Cholon who specializes in identifying
bodies and other dinei avelut. He told me that he usually insists in
telling the entire family all the relevant news unless there is some
special circumstance.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
 

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> If it is a shitas yachid, the benefit of being machmir for the Rambam
> might be outweighed by health concerns associated with the consumption
> of substantial quantities of meat (especially in Chu"l, when 5 out of
> 8 days can be Y"T or Shabbos).

Truthfully, one can be choshesh for the Rambam and still maintain a healthy
lifestyle. I'm assuming even according to the Rambam , all one has to eat is
a k'zayis of basar. Such a small amount of meat should not adversely affect
one's health.

Chabad also say v'ein habris as well -- as for putting the kos down
after boneh v'rachamuv Yerushalayim amen versus al yachsereinu -- this is
because Chabad holds that this is where the mitzvah birchas hamazon ends.

The source for Harachaman hu yuvoraich es AdMor comes from an explicit
hora from the Rebbe RaYaTZ-- for many of the same reasons why Chabad
has the minhag to say the kapital Tehillim for the Rebbeim.

From another relative:
>The mokor apparently is a letter of the previous rebbe (Teves 5682) where 
>he explains the order of all the Horachamon's and their
>correspondence to the order of the Sefiros, therefore it is always said.
>[The letter is brought in short in Sefer Haminhagim and see Igros of the 
>previous Rebbe].
>This was also the Darcai Chaim V'Sholom (ois #308) that this was the 
>minhag of the Munkatcher from his forefathers (Darcai Teshuva etc.).

Interesting that other Chassidim have the same hanhogo.

If it is, indeed, a sefiros issue, then I am not sure how one can then
intuit into the seder a Horachamon for the Rebbe.

I should note that upon discussing this matter with yet another sagacious
individual, I was critiqued on my personal hanhogo, which is to always
include Avi Mori and Imi Morosi, even when I am, as is most often the
case, not in their homes.

This individual noted (and if you look closely at the matter, is probably
correct) that it is clear that this last Horachamon is meant to bless
the Ba'al and Ba'alas ha'Bayis, and that A"M and I"M is only and sheerly
coincidental when one is at one's parent's home.

Which, of course, is punkt fakehrt from the aforementioned Chassidic
hanhogo.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> Chiyuvim and issurim, however, define our morality.

Euthythphro's dilemma?

On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Yitzchok Willroth wrote:
:> Chiyuvim and issurim, however, define our morality.

: Euthythphro's dilemma?

As we're discussing a less-than-well-known idea I can't tell if you
understood it and are ribbing, or are seriously asking for clarification.
I'll assume the latter.

The frum version of the dilemma was about why G-d would choose a given
practice to be a mitzvah. Whether an act is a mitzvah only because HKBH
said so -- in which case the choice is arbitrary. Or whether we would say
that HKBH was subject to some outside morality -- limiting His Absoluteness.

However that's resolved, that doesn't change the fact that we, when
deciding what is moral, can use mitzvos as a minimal guideline.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: Markowitz, Chaim [mailto:CMarkowitz@scor.com]
> Truthfully, one can be choshesh for the Rambam and still maintain a healthy
> lifestyle. I'm assuming even according to the Rambam , all one has to eat is
> a k'zayis of basar....

Is that so clear?  A kzayis would be sufficient if all you need is a maaseh
achilah.  Here, you need to be sameach through basar v'yayin.  I would think
that you would have to eat enough meat so that you feel somewhat satiated
from it and thereby derive simcha.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

At 08:51 AM 6/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:43:34 +0300
>From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
>Subject: RE:
>
>On 11 Jun 2001, at 11:48, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> > I have a feeling that most people assume that there's a real chiyuv to
> > eat meat on Y"T, and not, as Harry says, that this is a shitas yachid.
> > If it is a shitas yachid, the benefit of being machmir for the Rambam
> > might be outweighed by health concerns...

R' Carl:

>At the back of his sefer on Chol HaMoed, Rabbi Zucker from the
>Chicago Kollel has an entire section on the chiyuv of eating meat
>on Yom Tov. AIUI, unless you find meat totally disgusting such that
>eating it would spoil your oneg Yom Tov, you are required to eat it
>on Yom Tov.

                                                 Bs"d
Hu, boy. Torah Forumers surely recall the extensive thread on vegetarianism 
a while back, of which I was quite the active participant (the topic came 
up on Mail Jewish a few years ago as well, before my time - both can be 
accessed in their respective archives) and have no cheishik to start up 
again! However, I will note that an acquaintance of mine told me b'sheim 
Moshe Tendler, m'pi sh'muah from  Reb Moshe that one is obligated to eat an 
ounce of meat on Yom Tov *even if he doesn't like it!* However, if one 
becomes physically ill - not that it is distasteful spiritually or mentally 
- then there is no such obligation.

Eli

I don't recall where it is (no sefarim here), but the Gemara says this
in reference to someone saying that someone died, rather than hinting
at it by tearing keriah. BTW, I have heard that this is the reason for
the distinction of "shemu'os ra'os", that one hears, vs. besuros tovos,
which someone tells you.

Gershon

From my anonymous uncle:
>Brief response for lack of time:
>a) The horachamons are not integral part of 4th berochoh but were added much
>later thus not matbe'a shetovu chachomim
>b) The horachamons with mimorom correspond to the 10 sefiros in reverse order
>(malchus-kesser), thus ovi-immi corresponds to chochmah-binah
>c) further to b - I question the recent (?) and as far as i know not
>officially sanctioned (i.e. Rabeyim) custom of adding a horachamon for
>adoneinu etc. Though this berochoh for Rebbe is an ancient chabad-custom, it
>would seem to me that this is to be included in last horachamon (before
>ovi-immi) rather than separate (as I have been doing all along).
>c) There is no she'elah of hefsek as pointed out by Abudraham based on
>Berochos 46a that guests add berocho for host (the she'elo of hefsek arises
>in context of benshing and berocho for kos shel berochoh right after it, not
>in context of adding pesonal requests - which is allowed even in shemonah
>essrei).

Bottom line: If it is not matbei'ah, I do not know why it should not be 
changed al pi peshutto to fit the situation.

Is the Rebbe Rayatz the source of this hanhogo?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

See S"A Horav O"C 529:7, also see Darkei Tshuva Y"D 89 S"K 19.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/12/01 7:21:19am EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> I recall learning that it is preferable not to be the deliverer of bad
> news assuming there is no toelet to you delivering it now versus someone
> else later, but I can't remember the source. Does this sound familiar
> to anyone?

It is brought in S"A Y"D 402:12 the Mokor brought in Beir Hagolah is Moeid
Koton 20, (the story RET mentioned). However being that the Michabeir
there brings the Loshon Hakosuv "uMotzee Diba Hu Ksil" LAN"D the Mokor is
the Gemara in Psachim 3b (which continues with the above mentioned story
as well), (perhaps this may answer the Gilyon Maharsha Al Asar VK"M).
Note also Loshon Chazal (Megila 15a etc.) "Ein Meishivin Al Hakalkalah".

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> I recall learning that it is preferable not to be the deliverer of bad
> news assuming there is no toelet to you delivering it now...

TB Pesochim end of 3b and 4a

KT
Avrohom Weidberg

I teach Chumash with Ramban in the afternoons and we are doing Mei
Merivah. Here's some makom l'hisgader for your creativity:

Note the interplay between the term "kohol" and the term "edah" in the
episode. Remember what we discussed Pesach time, and see if you can
come up with a ra'ayah for the Rambam's pshat in the aveirah based on
the changing terminology.

In shiur yesterday we tentatively proposed chillukim between:
    Goy
    Am
    Edah
    Kohol.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Mrs Luntz writes
> but whether it is possible for somebody to be purely and totally acting
> l'shem shamayim when the act being done is so counter to everything the
> Torah stands for. It seems, at least to me, that the concepts are so
> inherently contradictory that if you posit that a particular mitzvah
> must, to be a valid mitzvah, be done purely l'shem shamayim, then it
> cannot be done in a way that involves the individual performing the
> mitzvah physically forcing another in the manner contemplated.

This is very similar to the original question of RHM which was, can the
Torah allow major life decisions to be made without the consent of the
involved parties.  I think the answer is YES.  RGS referred to this as the
intellectual standpoint of the Torah in contrast to that of Western values.
RHM replied that although he accepts Torah, he finds this idea unacceptable.
RHM then continues to ask what is really going on here.

The Gemara Bava Basra 48 is very relevant.  There we find the Torah accepts
forced transactions.  1.One can be forced to sell your field. 2. One can be
forced to bring a korban to Mikdash. 3. A man can be forced to divorce his
wife. 4. An adult woman can be forced to accept kiddushin from someone she
does not wish to marry.  In addition one can be forced to perform positive
mitzvos.

Though there are technical distinctions between this list and the previous
list of kiddushei ketana, yibum and yiud(according to Tos); yet I think all
would agree that this new list qualifies as being against a Western value
system.

So to the surprise of some, "everything the Torah stands for" does not
include personal discretion to act in a way one chooses without external
force.

So too, one may perform yibum by force while satisfying Abba Shaul's
requirement of intention for the mitzvah.  To argue otherwise is to assert
that Abba Shaul does not allow yibum by force, an opinion, I believe, that
is not found in the Talmud.

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 6/12/01 12:59:11pm sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> From my anonymous uncle:
> >c) further to b - I question the recent (?) and as far as i know not
> >officially sanctioned (i.e. Rabeyim) custom of adding a horachamon for
> >adoneinu etc. Though this berochoh for Rebbe is an ancient chabad-custom, it
> >would seem to me that this is to be included in last horachamon (before

1) The way as it is said has been seen by the L. Rebbe w/o comment.
2) IMHO there is room to say that since Sfiras Hadaas is missing (under
the rule KishaKesser Nimne Ein Hadaas Nimne), Horachamon for ADMU"R is
in the Geder of Sfiras Hadaas/Hiskashrus.

> Bottom line: If it is not matbei'ah, I do not know why it should not be 
> changed al pi peshutto to fit the situation.

As I once wrote on Avoda WRT this, that by Chabad nothing is changed from
the Loshon Hassidur (The L. Rebbe once said this Mfurash), Vyiseiroh
Mizu Atoh Chonein...Atoh Chonantanu on Motzoei Shabbos (however this
Ein Kaan Mkoimoi)

> Is the Rebbe Rayatz the source of this hanhogo?

For Chabad yes. although as others mentioned it is not the only or even
first Mokor.


Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: "Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> In the final Horachamon in Bentching, the one about Avi Mori etc.,
> Lubavitchers, it seems, never vary the nusach: i.e., even if their
> parents have been dead for many years,

Not only Lubavitch. I have recently seen (but can't remember where)
that one should continue to say this Horachamon - even for deceased
parents. (But I doubt if it means including "baal/baalas habayis hazeh".)

> One could learn that al pi Kabbbalah Aviv zeh HKB"H and Imo zu Knesses
> yisroel, but that certainly does not fit into the words!

I imagine that the pshat it poshut - physical father and mother.
(Maybe something akin to Yizkor and Kel Moleh Rachamim.)

SBA

On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:00:07PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: My next yishuv was that perhaps, it is known, Lubavitchers hold that ...
:         until "B'Vrocho Sheleima v'Nomar Amen" - so to deviate from a
: standard text would be meshaneh me'matbei'ah she'tov'u Chachomim.

: But, in "contemporary" Lubavitch Bentchers they add the Horachamon for
: Adoneinu, Moreinu v'Rabbeinu between the Horachamon for Shelichas Eliyahu
: and the one for parents, so me'ma nafshoch...

On a similar note, I know of RZ's who add a harachaman for "medinat
Yisrael, [shetehei] reishit tzemichat ge'ulaseinu".

According to the Gra's shitah on the role of harachaman's, this kind of
personalization shtims.

The Gra considers the harachaman's to be tachanunim. They follow benching
in the same way E-lokai Netzor follows Shemoneh Esrei. And, he defines
tachanunim as being personal, and therfore requiring -- mei'ikkar hadin --
that one embellish the original matbei'ah.

The idea of not being meshaneh is bedavkah for tefillah, where the idea
is to impose on oneself the proper priorities. Thus, as RSRH and RYBS
note, lehispallel is in hitpa'el -- it's reflexive.

My rav does not say any of the harachaman's on Shabbos, also lishitas
haGra. They're bakashos, no?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
> The Chasam Sofer al Hatorah (RYN Stern 5-v edition), last week
> (B'haalos'cho) quotes the Tanya (Likutei Amorim) page 44, dh 'Vehoasafsuf
> asher bekirbo'.
> I am told that although the CS rarely quotes later mechabrim (except
> for his rebbes), the Tanya gets 2 mentions.

After some further enquiries, I have been informed that the Tanya only
gets that one single mention.

However the CS quotes from the Kedushas Levi and the Toldos Yaakov Yosef
3 times - without using their names, but rather 'kosvu hamekubolim'.

I have also been told that in one place where he writes 'kosvu chachmei
hamussar' - he repeats a vort from the Baal Shem Tov z'l.

The Gr'o z'l gets several mentions in his Tshuvos - under the name of
"Reb Eliyohu Vilner" - which I understand was how he was referred to
in Oberland. (A RY who had learned - as a bochur - after the war in
Switzerland with Rav Yonoson Steif z'l told me - that he also referred
to the Gr'o thus.)

SHLOMO B ABELES

I still maintain that REED believed that nature is a farce. True, Hashem
generally causes events to follow a typical pattern. But that is just to
trick us, so that we have bechirah (in having the possibility of denying
Hashem's hashgacha). People on a higher level don't have to be tricked,
so Hashem doesn't bother with the pretense of following the natural
pattern. And REED encourages people to gradually ignore the rules of
nature! (see v1 pp 197 ff). Not only that, but when "no one is looking,"
Hashem doesn't bother following natural patterns--see p 178 dealing with
ain habracha mitzuya ela b'davar hasamui min ha'ayin.

Where do you see that REED had a positive view towards nature?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

[Actually, I only disagreed with a misimpression of what Moshe meant, and
do agree with everything written here. -mi]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 10:39:56AM -0400, Stuart Goldstein wrote:
: Tha applicability of Halachot to a time and place was a factor even before
: the Beit HaMikdash was built and, yea, even before Matan Torah, as we see
: e.g. Yaakov marrying sisters, outside Eretz Yisroel, before Matan Torah
: etc.. as various Meforshim deal with it.

The avos did NOT technically did not do mitzvos before matan Torah. There
was no tzivui. Their following halachah (with the exception of milah, gid
hanasheh, etc...) was entirely lifnim mishuras hadin and not comparable.

For that matter, RMMS suggests that the avos were mekayamim the yesod
behind the din, and not necessarily the din as nitztaveh. As I don't
own any lekutei sichos, I leave it to someone else to provide the
mar'eh makom.

:                                      ... Certainly, if we cannot identify
: Amalek or the Chilazon, we have a practical problem with performing a
: mitzvah....

We were discussing whether one can derive the shoreshei hamitzvah (*)
from the context in which the mitzvah was given. In order for this to
be relevent, one would have to argue that HKBH hid the identity of
Amaleik because this is not a time in which mechiyas Amaleik is the
right thing to do. He Who gave the mitzvah is He Who allowed it to
become unimplementable.

(* I'm saying "shoreshei" rather than "ta'amei" for a reason. A ta'am can
be a lesson one derives from the mitzvah that it isn't an attempt to find
THE underlying purpose for which H' gave it; as per RYBS. The Chinuch uses
"mishoreshei hamitzvah" because he does hold he is presenting that telos.)

All this sounds fine when speaking of Amaleik. But would you suggest that
the meaning of techeiles was irrelevent for the past 1500 years or so,
or that the meaning of esrog was to those Ashkenazim that you refer to --
and that's why HKBH made it unavailable?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website:
    www.dorrevii.org
    www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

va-yomer ha-Sheim el Moshe mot yumat ha-ish ragom oto ba-avanim . . . 
va-yirg'mu oto ba-avanim va-yamot ka'asher tzivah ha-Sheim et moshe:  

One may ask:

First, why did the Scripture write "the man shall be put to death" (mot
yumat ha-ish) and then "all the congregation shall stone him with stones"
(ragom oto ba-avanim kol ha-eidah) which seems to be redundant. And there
is a redundancy even according to Rashi who explained that they knew he
was deserving of the death penalty, but did not know by which method to
execute him. See the derivation of the Sifri from this repetition.

Second, why is the infinitive form "ragom" (to stone) used, which Rashi
comares to "zakhor" (to remember) and "shamor" (to keep). It is difficult
to understand why the infinitive form was used instead of the imperative
form "r'gom."

Third, the Scripture writes, "And they stoned him and he died as the L-rd
commanded" (va-yirg'mu oto ba'avanim va-yamot ka'asher tzivah ha-Sheim),
but it would have been more appropriate to write "And they stoned him
as the L-rd commanded, and he died (va-yirg'mu oto ka'asher tzivah
ha-Sheim va-yamot).

And it appears to our master to explain this according to the Midrash
(which is mentioned in the Tosafot, Bava Batra 119b d.h. aphilu) which
says that the one who was gathering sticks did so for the sake of Heaven,
because our forefathers in the desert were misguided and said that since
the Eternal had decreed that they would die and be buried in the desert,
there was no point in their observing and performing the commandments
and laws of G-d. For what would they gain now by doing so? The gatherer
of sticks therefore arose and sacrificed his own life to show them that
the word of G-d must be maintained forever even by them. So, according to
this Midrash, we can say that the Eternal, Who searches the heart of every
person and knew that this exalted man resolved to sacrifice his life and
accepted death in order to sanctify the name of G-d in the eyes of the
children of Israel, must certainly have gathered in this pure spirit to
Himself. The gatherer of sticks therefore expired and died before his
body was shattered by stones so that such a righteous person would not
suffer the cruel pain, even more terrible than death, caused by stoning,
the most severe method of execution. The whole act of stoning was thus
performed not to cause the death of the man, but only to be observed by
the children of Israel, so that they should not continue to be sinful.

That is why the Eternal told Moshe "the man shall be put to death"
(mot yamut ha-ish). This man who is sufficiently exalted to be referred
to as "ish" will die first. Then the Scripture writes "ragom" which
is in the infinitive form meaning "to stone," by which the Scripture
means, he will die first in order that he may be stoned without having
to endure any suffering. And then the Scripture tells us that that is
what happened, "the whole congregation stoned him" (va-yirg'mu oto kol
ha-eidah). However, "he died as the L-rd commanded Moshe" (va-yamot
ka'asher tzivah ha-Sheim et moshe), because he entrusted his spirit
to the G-d of the spirits of all flesh (Elokei ha-ruhot l'khol basar)
before they stoned him.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On 13 Jun 2001, at 13:02, David Glasner wrote:
> And it appears to our master to explain this according to the Midrash...
> says that the one who was gathering sticks did so for the sake of Heaven,
> because our forefathers in the desert were misguided and said that since
> the Eternal had decreed that they would die and be buried in the desert,
> there was no point in their observing and performing the commandments
> and laws of G-d....

From here I would derive that the Mkosheish was a choteh l'Shem 
Shamayim with a pure intent. 

In Rav Nebenzahl's sicha (in the book - not on the net) on Parshas Naso,
he discusses how Shlomo and Shimshon were both punished because although
they were both instructed to be choteh l'Shem Shamayim by marrying
non-Jewish women, they did not do so purely l'Shma. I'm trying to think
of other examples in Tanach were someone did a cheit l'Shem Shamayim
and whether their intent was pure or not. Any takers?

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il   mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

> I'm trying to think of other examples in Tanach were someone did a cheit
> l'Shem Shamayim and whether their intent was pure or not. Any takers?
     
Yael.

Gil Student

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website
    www.dorrevii.org
    www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

U-r'item et ha-aretz ma hi:  

Rashi comments
    There are countries which rear strong people and there are countries
    which rear weak people

According to Rashi's comment, the end of the verse clarifies the beginning
of the verse. Whether the people that are dwelling upon the land are
strong or weak is an indicator from which they could infer the quality
of the land and whether it produces mighty inhabitants or weak ones.
And the Scripture contains another indicator from which they could infer
whether the inhabitants are mighty or weak: whether the inhabitants
dwell in camps or in strongholds.

And Rashi explained this well because each verse begins with words "and
what the land is" (u-mah ha-aretz). From here it is apparent that Moshe
sent the spies only to see that they were going to inherit a beautiful
estate so that their hearts should be set on its productivity and the
goodness within it, for hearing about the land is obviously not the same
as seeing it. But he did not send them to determine if they would be able
drive out the inhabitants and to take possession of their land, because
that would have indicated a lack of faith in the Eternal Who promised
to bring then into the land. And in this way we can well understand the
guilt of the spies and how great was their sin in that they changed their
mission and went to inspect the land to determine whether the Children
of Israel would be able to seize it from the hand of the Emorites. In
so doing, they transformed the advantage of the land, having found that
the people who dwell in it are strong and healthy and mighty, into a
disadvantage. So they said that we will not be able to stand up to the
people, because they are stronger than we are and because the Eternal
is not strong enough to bring us there.

And in this light, how fitting are the words of the Sages who said
that Moshe called Hoshei'a bin Nun Yehoshua as if to say may G-d save
you from the counsel of the spies. Many have wondered why Moshe did
not also pray on behalf of Kaleiv. And many pens have been broken upon
this point. However, according to the words of our master it is properly
explained, for Yehoshua also sent spies to gather intelligence about how
to conquer the land (and see the Malbim who proves from the Scripture the
difference between the spies (tarim) that Moshe sent the spies (m'raglim)
that Yehoshua sent. For the tarim go to see whether the land is good or
bad and the m'raglim go to find the secrets of the land, where the most
vulnerable point of attack is). And there is no mystery why Yehoshua
deemed it proper to risk the same mishap that occurred with the spies of
Moshe, because Yehoshua was motivated by a different idea, for, in sending
spies, he was simply following the normal practice of the world. Although
one should believe in and place his trust in the Eternal, one should,
nevertheless, act in all things in accordance with the ordinary way of
the world and conduct himself according to the laws of nature without
relying on miracles, because it is preferable to minimize miracles (ki
l'ma'eit b'nisa adif). Therefore when Yehoshua approached the Promised
Land, he sent spies only to determine how to wage war against it, but
not to determine if it would be possible to conquer the land.

However, when Moshe sent men to assess the land, the time had not
yet come to conquer it. He only wanted to know how good the land was.
But instead those spies went out and searched it to asses whether they
would be able to conquer it. In so doing, they showed the weakness of
their faith in the Eternal and there was contempt and wrath in plenty.

This is why Moshe prayed on behalf of Yehoshua, "May G-d save you from
the counsel of the spies." Moshe meant that when Yehoshua would send
his own spies he should not do so with the same idea as Moshe did and
thereby create doubt in the promise of the Eternal. Rather they should
just search out the best path by which they would be able to reach their
ultimate goal in the natural way.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]