Difference between revisions of "Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Shelach/0/en"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<category>The Spies' Route | <category>The Spies' Route | ||
| − | <p>Did the spies really travel from the Wilderness of Zin | + | <p>Did the spies really travel from the Wilderness of Zin to Israel's northern border, evaluating the country's main cities, fortifications, and water sources along the way, and return to Moshe all in less than forty days?  Is this possible?  </p> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>While Rashi asserts that the spies had Divine assistance which quickened their pace and allowed them to explore the entire land, the Netziv claims that the spies scouted in pairs, dividing up the country among them.  Modern scholars, in contrast, suggest that actually the spies scouted only the southern region of the land, as that would have been their first stop during the Conquest.</li> | <li>While Rashi asserts that the spies had Divine assistance which quickened their pace and allowed them to explore the entire land, the Netziv claims that the spies scouted in pairs, dividing up the country among them.  Modern scholars, in contrast, suggest that actually the spies scouted only the southern region of the land, as that would have been their first stop during the Conquest.</li> | ||
Version as of 21:44, 14 June 2017
Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Shelach
The Spies' Route
Did the spies really travel from the Wilderness of Zin to Israel's northern border, evaluating the country's main cities, fortifications, and water sources along the way, and return to Moshe all in less than forty days? Is this possible?
- While Rashi asserts that the spies had Divine assistance which quickened their pace and allowed them to explore the entire land, the Netziv claims that the spies scouted in pairs, dividing up the country among them. Modern scholars, in contrast, suggest that actually the spies scouted only the southern region of the land, as that would have been their first stop during the Conquest.
- What verses support each position? Which are difficult?
- How do the different positions shed light on the nature of the sin as a whole? How might your evaluation of the spies differ if Chevron was only one stop of many, or the sole city visited? if only one or two spies spent time with giants, or all did? See The Spies – Where Did They Tour?
Sins of the Fathers
When praying for the nation after the sin of the spies, Moshe mentions the attributes of Hashem, including that He is "פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים". The verse appears to suggest that, at least in certain circumstances, Hashem allows innocent children to be punished while their sinful parents go free.
- How does such punishment manifest Divine justice? Moreover, why would Moshe mention such an attribute as part of a plea for forgiveness? Is there any way to read the verse as an attestation of Hashem's mercy?
- When, if ever, is collective punishment justified? Can the same reasoning apply to vicarious punishment? Does the fact that the verse speaks of inter-familial punishment make a difference?
- For extensive discussion of the issue, see Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?
Contradictory Accounts
There are several episodes in Tanakh which are told both in one of the first four Chumashim and then recounted by Moshe in Devarim. Often these accounts differ on key points, and in some case even appear to contradict each other. What is the reader to make of the variations?
- Compare the stories of the spies as narrated in both Parashat Shelach and Parashat Devarim. What differences do you note? Which are the most troubling? How might you explain them?
- Some commentators suggest that Moshe, at times, purposefully recasts past events when telling them to the nation in the fortieth year in order to best get across his departing messages. What do you think is Moshe's main agenda in retelling the story of the spies to the new generation? How might that account for the changes?
- Others suggest that the two books simply tell the same story from different perspectives. Thus, in our case, R. Medan suggests that the spies had a dual mission, both a military reconnaissance mission as well as a surveying mission to determine tribal inheritances. While Devarim focuses on the former, Bemidbar highlights the latter. How might this approach explain the discrepancies between the accounts?
- Which of the above approaches do you prefer? How might they be applied to other stories? For details see The Story of the Spies in Bemidbar and Devarim. For other examples of varying accounts, see Appointing Moshe's Assistants and Decalogue Differences.
