Parashat Shlach relates the tragic outcome of the sending of the spies to spy out the Land, resulting in the awesome decree (14:13) that this generation not ‘see the Land that’ Hashem swore to their fathers.. (14:29)but in this desert’ their ‘corpses shall fall… because you complained against Me.’
The Torah precedes this decree with Hashem’s elucidation to Moshe of the cause of His wrath:(14:23):’עד אנא : How long will this people provoke Me? עד אנא ; How much longer will they not believe in Me after all the signs I have placed in their midst?’.
Rashi comments: ’'How long’: until when? Provoke’: anger Me; ‘After all the signs’: After all the miracles I performed for them, they should have believed that I am capable of fulfilling My promises.
Abarbanel precedes his commentary, by expounding:’There is no doubt that אנא: is a question as to the place, and מתי- the second אנא - is a question as to the limit of the time, although we find that they are interchanged, on occasions - here, the words:’How long will this people provoke Me?’ - till when will they anger Me, and ‘How much longer will they not believe in Me’, relates to the conduct of the people from the Exodus from Egypt.
‘There, their evil ways could be excused by their place of subjugation, and Hashem therefore took them out of there, and brought them under His wings.
‘So, too, their lack of faith at the Sea, could be said to be a result of not yet having received the Torah, so Hashem said:’I will bring them to the holy Mount Sinai, whose sanctity will purify them’.
‘And so too, when they transgressed in the desert, I said that the barren nature of the place, was the cause, and I said that by bringing them to this fertile place, they would believe in Me.
‘But now, that I have brought them to this place, and they still do not believe in Me: where else can I bring them so that they repair their ways?
‘This is the meaning of: To what place and other land shall I bring them - that will cause’ them to believe in Me?’.
‘The use of the two expressions - ‘provoke’ and ‘not believe in Me’ - was because there were two classes amongst the people: one believed in Hashem’s word, but rebelled against His commandments, whereas the other did not believe in the Torah of Moshe, and - in regard to them - the casting off of the yoke of Torah was not applicable.
‘With respect to the first class, Hashem said:’Till when will they seek to provoke Me?’, whilst regarding the second class, Hashem lamented:’ How much longer will they not believe in Me after all the signs I have placed in their midst?’, Hashem having taken the trouble to bring many signs, to strengthen their belief in Him.’
The Kli Yakar expounds on the care that Hashem took - if we are permitted to say so - to strengthen their belief in him, particularly in relation to the Promised Land.
He expounds:’To instill the attribute of Emunah in the people, He gave them the ‘beyond- nature’ mitzvah of shmittah, from which they would derive that the Land was unlike all other lands, and under the Divine Providence of Hashem.’
The Darchei Noam adds:’The prrophet teaches (Nechemia 9:8), that a precondition to inheriting the Land is - as we say in our daily morning prayers -‘And you found’ Avraham’s ‘heart faithful before You, and you entered into a covenant with him, to give the Land of Canaan’.
‘The words:’faithful before You’ mean complete Emunah in Hashem, and this is a condition for inheriting the Land.
‘True, Bnei Israel had already passed a test of Emunah in Hashem, when they left Egypt, following Hashem into the Wilderness, with complete belief in Him, and this - as the prophet Yirmiahu extols - without asking:’How can we go into the desert without vegetation or means of sustenance?
‘But now, as they were about to enter the Land, they were confronted with a more difficult test of Emunah, as what they saw was - they deemed - the very opposite of what Hashem had promised them.
‘Instead of it being ‘a good land’, they saw ‘a land that devours its inhabitants’.
‘Alas, they did not pass this test, lacking the necessary Emunah in Hashem, and therefore did not merit to enter the Land.’
The Alshich Hakadosh comments on the two phrases, :’We might have expected that ‘not believe in Me’, should have preceded - and not come after ‘provoked Me’ - as the absence of belief came first, as it led to the sending of the spies- and only as a result of this, the deed was done.
‘To address this, Hashem said:’in Me’, as at first they did not reveal their lack of belief, saying that ‘they just wanted to spy out the lie of the Land’, and the way by which they should proceed - though Hashem, of course, understood what was on their minds.
‘However, now after all the talebearing, and their belief in the report of the spies - rather than Hashem’s promise, that He would bring them to the Land - their lack of belief came to the fore - leading Hashem to say: ’Till when will they provoke Me’, in all matters, and ‘Till when will they not believe in Me’.’
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin comments:’Rashi expounds ינאצוני ‘provokes Me’, as ‘angers Me’, whilst the Midrash and its commentators, expounds:’One does not say: ‘provoke Me’, until they do so once, and then another time’.
‘This was the case here: the spies turned the favor - that Hashem did for them, that the locals were engaged in the burial of dead, when they entered the Land - so that they not notice their entry - yet they turned this to a bad thing, and a source of lashon ha’ra - that ‘it was a Land that ‘consumed’ its inhabitants.
‘So too - on an earlier occasion, in Parashat Beshalach - they angered Hashem, that the favor that He did for them - that the manna was swallowed within them, so that they did not need to trouble themselves to relieve their bodies of it - made this great favor a mockery, saying that, at some time, their bodies would expand and their innards burst, from this.
‘This ‘sign’ is alluded to, by Hashem saying:’in their midst’ - yet, they derided this favor, calling the manna:לחם הקלקול: ‘the spoiled bread’.’
The Netziv adds:’The connotation of נאצה, is derision, as we read in Shmuel 2:’They despised the offering to Hashem’ - be it the one who says that something is ‘beyond the ability of Hashem, to one who casts from himself, Divine Providence - both deriding Him, as it were.
‘The difference between the two expressions עד אנא, in our Parasha, is that one is talking in terms of time:’till when’ - whilst the other is talking in terms of substance:’till what’.
‘The class who ‘contented themselves’ with casting doubt on the ability of Hashem, this too is ‘provocation’ - but truly not so severe, as, in the way of nature, this was beyond the natural way, but casting doubt on the ability of Hashem to increase their strength, was not so far beyond the natural order, and, to do so, was a great provocation.
‘So too, the class who rebelled against Divine Providence, leading them to send the spies, was also seemingly guilty of a ‘lesser’ level of provocation, to the extent of being seen as not really being provocation in itself - but casting off the kingdom of Heaven, is a great transgression.’
The master of language - Haktav veHakabalah - disagrees with Rashi’s understanding of ‘provoking’, as ‘anger’, commenting:’Hashem is removed to the extreme, from any such ‘feeling’ - but in truth, there is no reason to so understand the word, as its principal meaning is בזיון. Contempt, as we find in several places in the Torah, without - heaven forfend - any suggestion of effect on Hashem.
‘Here, too, the word does not come to allude to anger, but, rather, to contempt, as we read in Proverbs (11):’Till when will they continue to נעצו:: have contempt for My rebuke’ - we bring this, to reject any suggestion of it relating to ‘anger’, but rather to ‘contempt’.
‘Further, in several places we find the word אנא, used in relation to ‘where’ - here, meaning to what limit of contempt will they think I will bear, and:’אנא will they not believe in Me: what limit of My miracles need I perform, before they believe in Me?’
The Panim Yafot comments :’According to its plain meaning, they were already in disfavor from the time of making the golden calf - and it is for this reason that it states:’a different wind was in Caleb’ , and does not mention Joshua, because he was absent at the time of the making ot the golden calf, so that no blame could be ascribed to him, on its account.’
The Ohr Hachaim haKadosh wonders:’if they were already guilty of provoking, what reason was there to accuse them of ‘not believing’?
‘Perhaps, regarding the spies, the Torah said:’provoked’, and, in regard to the people who believed them, it said;’Did not believe’, as Hashem promised to give them - and, for this reason, it does not say:לאמר:’to say’
‘Further, the Gemara (Sotah 35.) relates - on the passuk:’to stone them with stones, and the glory of Hashem appeared’ - that there were those who threw stones also against the One above, that, with regard to them, the Torah used the word ‘provoked’ - whilst there was also another class who were fearful of the nations, in regard to which, the Torah said:’Did not believe in Me’.’
The Malbim - on the word ‘provoke’ - comments:’This comes to say: If they believed in Me and My might, their transgression is not due to their lack of Emunah, but only because they wish to provoke Me -‘till when are they going to provoke Me?’.
‘But if their transgression is their lack of belief in Me - and in my might - ‘till when will they not believe in Me, after all the signs I performed in their midst’ - surely these should have led them to believe in Me, by now.’
The Be’er Mayim Chaim similarly comments on this incongruity:’The Torah used the two expressions -‘provoke’ and ‘not believe’ - because their wickedness was in two - even had they not seen the miracles I performed, there was no reason to provoke Me by their words - more so, after all I had done to cause them to believe in Me - yet, they, in their ingratitude, sought to cast stones at Me.’
Rav Azaria Figo expounds:’The two expressions of אנא are used, as נאצה : provocation, is truly rebellion, wishing to do against the will of the Creator- this despite knowing that the Eye Above sees all, nevertheless does the evil act because of the badness of his soul - but clearly is not the case if he does not believe in Hashem, as clearly he cannot intend to anger one he does not believe in.
‘However here Hashem was wrath against Israel, as they were doing two contradictory things - and how can one do so?
‘On the assumption that they know Me and that I feel and am angered by their provocation - yet they acted as if oblivious to My divine providence, despite all the miracles I wrought in their midst.
‘Since they are so confused in their contradictory conduct, I will punish them with a great severity, and make you - Moshe - a great nation in their stead; but Moshe was not prepared to even such a great reward, at the expense of his people.’
A parting gem from the Netivot Shalom:’The failure of the spies was said to be that they נמאסו בארץ חמדה:’they despised the desirable Land’- yet, did they not say that it was not ‘a good land’, in their report - and their harsh words related to the inhabitants - and not the land itself!
‘The answer - in the Torah saying that ‘they despised the desirable land’ - was that they despised that which was called ‘the desirable land’, not believing in the beyond-natural nature and manner of the conduct of the Land of Israel - as evidenced by their fear of the inhabitants.
‘This explains the unique punishment meted out to them - not to enter it - as this requires complete Emunah in the sanctity of the Land, in it being under the Divine Providence and Eye of Hashem alone ‘from the beginning of the year till its end’.
‘Therefore, the spies in whose mind it was a land like all others - governed by the physical laws of nature - could not comprehend and continue its true sanctity - and could therefore not enter the promised land - only their descendants whom the spies said would ‘be lost there’, would know the land - and in the merit of this knowing and Emunah in its sanctity, and its beyond-nature nature, enter the land and inherit it.’
לרפואת נועם עליזה בת זהבה רבקה ונחום אלימלך רפאל בן זהבה רבקה, בתוך שאר חולי עמנו.