Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 13-14/0

Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 13

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event or law, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depth.

Story of the Spies in Bemidbar and Devarim

The story of the spies is retold by Moshe in Devarim 1.  Moshe's account of the event differs significantly from the original, with omissions, additions, recasting of details, and changes in emphasis.

Tools

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the linguistic parallels between the original account and Moshe's retelling here.
• For an interactive table which allows for easy comparison, see here.

Articles

The following articles analyze the similarities and differences between the two narratives.

• See The Story of the Spies in Bemidbar and Devarim for comparison and contrast of the two narratives and an overview of exegetical approaches to interpreting the reasons for and meaning of the differences. According to some, Moshe purposefully recasts the story in a way that emphasizes the guilt of the nation rather than the sin of the individual spies. Others suggest that each story is told from a different perspective, with one focusing on the need for reconnaissance and the other on the need to survey the land for purposes of inheritance. A third approach suggests that the differences are not fundamental but rather the result of literary variation.
• See בכייה לשעה ובכייה לדורות, by R. Yaakov Medan, for an analysis that interprets the narrative in Bemidbar as a mission initiated by Hashem and the narrative in Devarim as a mission initiated by the people.  Each plan had its own distinct goals and purposes (spying versus land appraisal), and Moshe erred in combining the two into one mission.  
• See סיפור התרים את הארץ בפרשת שלח והחזרה עליו בנאומו של משה בפרשתנו, by R. Elchanan Samet, who, like R. Medan, suggests that the two narratives speak of two independent initiatives that were fused into one mission, spying (לחפר) and scouting (לתור).  Each book focuses on a different aspect because they have different narrative purposes.  In Bemidbar, the Torah emphasizes how the spies rejected the good proffered to them, repudiating the mission of displaying the good of the land. In Devarim, Moshe emphasizes the sin of the nation rather than that of the spies, noting how their initial zeal to conquer (as expressed in their taking the initiative to send spies) dissipated within just forty days.
• Compare also חטא המרגלים, חטא העם ועונשו של משה, by R. Amnon Bazak, which elaborates on one point of contrast between the two narratives: the emphasis in Devarim is on the responsibility of the people, rather than the spies themselves, for the sin. This is consistent with Moshe’s goals in Sefer Devarim. It also explains why Moshe includes himself in the blame in his retelling of the sin, as he considers himself responsible for the people’s actions.

The Spies of Moshe and Yehoshua

The haftarah for Parashat Shelach is about the spies sent by Yehoshua in Yehoshua Chapter 2.  Both narratives focus on a spying mission.  In one the mission is successful from a practical perspectives but fails on the spiritual plane; the other appears to be in the middle  which does the opposite.

Tools

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two stories. Despite the shared themes, there is not significant linguistic overlap between the two narratives.

Articles

• See ריגול צבאי וריגול מדיני, by Prof. Yonatan Grossman, for a contrast of the two narratives of spies that demonstrates that the goal of Moshe’s spies was political (to report to the people on the land broadly speaking) whereas the goal of Yehoshua’s spies was military and tactical.
• See בין סיפור התרים את הארץ לסיפור המרגלים ביריחו, by R. Elchanan Samet, for a comparison and contrast of the two narratives.  He, like R. Grossman, notes that there are many differences that suggest that Moshe’s spies were sent to evaluate the land whereas Yehoshua’s were sent on a military mission but he adds that there is one similarity: both sets of spies deviate from their mission.  Moshe’s spies give their military opinion where it was not requested, and Yehoshua’s spies give their positive assessment of the land.  In this sense, the story in Yehoshua serves as amends for the story in Bemidbar.   
• See מעשי בנים -- תיקון לחטאי אבותם, by R. Gilad Strauss, for analysis of several narratives in which later generations repair the misdeeds of their forebears, including the stories of the family lines of Shimon and Levi and of Yehudah and Tamar, and the two stories relating to spies. He notes that though Yehoshua's spies, having almost been caught, had good reason to return full of fear, while Moshe's spies had no parallel experiences and should have returned full of trust in God, it is specifically Yehoshua's spies whose report is positive and demonstrates deep belief in Hashem and the conquest.

Sin of the Spies versus Sin of the Calf

Articles