![]() They had the courage to leap into the unknown and envision a new reality. They seemingly lack the courage to leap into the unknown and confront “no-man’s-land,” Where the ten see potential failure and defeat, Joshua and Caleb see potential success and possibility. This then is the sin of the scouts: their failure to contribute to their community because of their negative attitude and narrow perspective. In contrast, the optimist observes the same situation and sees the bad aspects, but particularizes them and interprets them as a temporary obstacle that can be overcome. The Rabbis describe this as the way slanderers speak: “They begin with flattering and end with evil.” (BT Sotah 35a) Or, in more modern terms: the pessimist observes a situation, generalizes about the bad aspects, and interprets them as a permanent and constant feature. The 10 emissaries start their report with a positive statement about the land overflowing with milk and honey they then switch to the negatively colored description of the fortified cities and powerful people (Numbers 13:27-29). ![]() Also you will have betrayed our community in failing to make your contribution to the whole.” ![]() This is what existentialists call the anxiety of nothingness…To live into the future means to leap into the unknown, and this requires a degree of courage for which there is no immediate precedent and which few people realize.” He asserts that “if you do not express your own original ideas, if you do not listen to your own being, you will have betrayed yourself. In his book The Courage to Create (1975), Rollo May writes, “We are called upon to do something new, to confront a no-man’s-land, to push into a forest where there are no well-worn paths and from which no one has returned to guide us. What is it that enables Joshua and Caleb to see the Promised Land through different eyes? Or is it simply a matter of perspective? After all, the 12 emissaries all observe and experience the same things, and yet two of them return with an account that is entirely different from that of the other ten. At least these sorts of instructions might have given them more room to develop their own stories in a less dualistic fashion the scouts might have been inspired to bring back a different description of what they saw. How did you experience this new place? What was the land like? How were the people?” Perhaps these kinds of open ended questions would have led the scouts to bring back a different report. Instead of asking such specific questions, what if he had said to them, “When you return, tell us what you see. Moses’ instructions divide the world into either/or categories that ignore the nuances within a complex reality. I question not only the nature of their sin, but also Moses’ approach to their mission. ![]() Furthermore, they sin because they “caused the whole community to mutter against him by spreading calumnies about the land” (14:36). What is their sin? According to our tradition, they sin by not trusting God’s vision and not having faith: “How long will this people spurn Me, and how long will they have no faith in Me despite all the signs that I have performed in their midst?” (14:11). All but two of the scouts are punished later victims of a plague, they die in the wilderness. Twelve emissaries go out and return after forty days, reporting on what they saw in this exotic new land. Are the people who dwell in it strong or weak, few or many? Is the country in which they dwell good or bad? Are the towns they live in open or fortified? Is the soil rich or poor? Is it wooded or not?” (13:17-20). He charges them: “Go up there into the Negev and on into the hill country, and see what kind of country it is. When Moses sends the scouts to survey the land of Canaan, he gives them a list of very specific things to investigate. Commentary on Parashat Sh'lach, Numbers 13:1 - 15:41
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |