Biblical Parallels Index – Devarim 1

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the various stories. Compare Devarim with Shemot here, and Devarim with Bemidbar here.
• For an interactive table allowing for easy comparison and contrast of all three stories, see here.

• See Appointing Moshe's Assistants for discussion and analysis of commentator's approaches to the above questions.  Some assume that the stories of Shemot and Bemidbar are totally distinct, while others equate them (or suggest that they at least occurred simultaneously).
• See פרשת יתרו, by R. Yaakov Medan, for analysis of the relationship of the three narratives. In Shemot, Yitro, coming with his experiences as a leader in Midyan, thought that the nation simply needed judges, people who would arbitrate cases in court, and for that task, delegating "officers of hundreds" would suffice. Moshe, however, saw his job differently; he understood that "the nation comes to inquire of God", a task which only Moshe could fulfill. For a year he thus led on his own. But in the second year, as the nation complained about lack of food and water, Moshe broke. Hashem suggested that he appoint 70 elders to help carry the burden and then Moshe recalled Yitro's suggestion and implemented it as well. 

• 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.

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.  According to R. Medan, each plan had its own distinct goals and purposes (spying versus land appraisal), and the fiasco was a result of Moshe erring 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 the sin of the spies, elaborating on how they rejected the good proffered to them, repudiating their 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, noting that Devarim emphasizes that the responsibility for the sin lies with the people, rather than the spies themselves. 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.

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

• 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 Prof. Yonatan 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.

• R. David Dov Levanon, in his article, חטא העגל וחטא המרגלים, compares the severity of each sin and what each of them represents in the context of the deterioration of the nation's relationship with Hashem. He suggests that the sin of the calf was a sin of action; the people worshiped Hashem in the wrong way, but still believed in God.  The sin of the spies, on the other hand, was a sin of will; the nation lacked the desire to see the good and enter the land. A sin of action is much easier to correct than one of will, and thus was punished less severely.
• See Ki Tisa: From the Egel to the Second Luchot, by R. Yair Kahn, which discusses how the sin of the spies had harsher consequences than that of the calf. Though the tablets were broken after the sin of the calf, repentance and Moshe's prayers allowed for a renewal of the covenant. No parallel repeal of punishment can be found after the sin of the spies. This factor might relate to the differing natures of the fast days of the 17th of Tammuz (associated with the breaking of the tablets) and Tisha Be’Av (associated with the sin of the spies). Tisha Be'av is a day of mourning rather than supplication because it commemorates intractable decrees of calamity, while the 17th of Tammuz is a day of beseeching because it recalls times of distress which can be averted by sincere repentance.