Difference between revisions of "The Story of the Spies in Bemidbar and Devarim/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<point><b>The scouted area</b> – The survey required that the spies scout out the entire land as described in Bemidbar, while the military mission required them to spy only on the hilly region of Chevron, the original intended site of entry for the conquest.</point> | <point><b>The scouted area</b> – The survey required that the spies scout out the entire land as described in Bemidbar, while the military mission required them to spy only on the hilly region of Chevron, the original intended site of entry for the conquest.</point> | ||
<point><b>Who is to blame?</b> R. Medan suggests that Moshe blames himself in Devarim because he realized that the mishap of the spies was largely due to his combining two missions which should have remained separate.  Had there been two separate delegations, with appropriate men chosen for each task and each traveling to the locations relevant to them, the spies would likely have returned with a very different report.</point> | <point><b>Who is to blame?</b> R. Medan suggests that Moshe blames himself in Devarim because he realized that the mishap of the spies was largely due to his combining two missions which should have remained separate.  Had there been two separate delegations, with appropriate men chosen for each task and each traveling to the locations relevant to them, the spies would likely have returned with a very different report.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Keywords</b></point> | + | <point><b>Keywords</b> – A search for the keywords<fn>To easily find the keywords in each set of chapters, access the Tanakh Lab on both <a href="https://mg.alhatorah.org/TanakhLab/Bemidbar/13/1/14/39">Bemidbar 13-14</a> and <a href="https://mg.alhatorah.org/TanakhLab/Devarim/1/1/1/40">Devarim 1</a>, and click the on the "דירוג" column which will order keywords taking into account both the number of appearances of the entry in the unit and their relative frequency in Tanakh as a whole.</fn> in each chapter highlights their differing emphases.</point> |
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Literary Variation | <category>Literary Variation |
Version as of 22:51, 11 June 2020
The Story of the Spies in Bemidbar and Devarim
Exegetical Approaches
Purposeful Recasting
The differences are intentional changes made by Moshe so as to best get across his message to the new generation. Moshe purposefully presents the story in a way that emphasizes the guilt of the nation rather than the sin of the individual spies.
Two Perspectives
The variations between the two books can be explained by positing that each is telling the story from a different perspective, with Sefer Bemidbar focusing on one aspect of the mission and Sefer Devarim on another.
Literary Variation
The differences between the two accounts are not fundamental, but simply the result of literary variation. When recounting events, Torah is often brief in one place and lengthy in another, relying on the reader to fill in the gaps from knowledge of the combined accounts.
- Our story is one of many in which a character repeats an incident to another and some of the details are found only in the original story or only in the retelling. See, for example, Ramban on Bereshit 42:21, Radak on Bereshit 41:17, R"Y Bekhor Shor on Bereshit 31:3, and R"Y Kara on Shofetim13:12 ho all suggest that these are all cases of the same literary trend.
- Ramban notes also the similar phenomenon in which Torah might mentions a command but not its fulfillment or the opposite.8
Local Harmonization
Many other commentators relate to each difference individually, without trying to account for all of the changes together. Some examples follow: