To Turn and See: On Two Perceptions of Reality

With God’s help

Our parsha (Shelach Lech) deals with the spies that Moses sent to explore the land of Canaan before its conquest. They returned to report to the Israelites, and in addition to their admiration for the land and its fruits, most of them express severe doubts about the ability to conquer a land inhabited by giants, and whose cities are fortified to the heavens. As a result of these descriptions, the people weep, tear their clothes, and ask to return from Egypt. Only Joshua ben Nun and Caleb ben Jephunneh stand by and describe the land as "very, very good." God, blessed be He, is angry with the Israelites and swears that none of them will enter the land. Chazal expand on the implications of the spies' sin that occurred on 1st Av, and tell us that we "eat" its foul fruits throughout the generations (especially on 1st Av, which is a date marked by calamity throughout history: You wept for no reason, and I will weep for you for generations).

There are many difficulties in this affair. First, the spies allegedly only reported what they saw, since that is precisely what they were sent for, and why did they have to lie? The role of a spy is to report, not to maintain public morale. Intelligence that operates with the aim of maintaining public morale is failed intelligence that enslaves reality to the interests of propaganda. This is a recipe for disaster. The same phenomenon can also be seen on the positive side of the spies: Joshua and Caleb respond to the people and the spies: "The land is very, very good." This is a puzzling answer, since the spies do not deny this, they are only pessimistic about the chances of conquering it. Furthermore, if the spies' assessment was indeed that the land was not good ("a land that devours its inhabitants"), why are Joshua and Caleb, who merely assessed things differently, better?

Some have explained that the spies' sin was that they did not content themselves with reporting the facts but also added their own assessments. Assessments do not depend solely on the facts, and in determining them, additional factors must be taken into account (divine help, morale, etc.). The people also sinned by accepting their assessments, while they should have referred only to the facts, and determined the campaign plan accordingly. According to this interpretive approach, Joshua and Caleb differ from the spies not in their optimism but in their contentment with purely factual reporting. The land is good, this is a fact that is also agreed upon by their sinful colleagues. They leave the assessments to the leadership. I am not entirely sure that the spy himself should not try to offer his own assessments. After all, he was the one who was there and saw things firsthand. But it is precisely the approach that expands the role of intelligence and expects it to make assessments that brings me to the essential problem reflected in the functioning of the twelve spies.

It seems that the main layer of sin lies in the perception of reality itself. There are eyes through which the land appears to be "eating its inhabitants," and there are eyes that see that "the land is very, very good." It depends a bit on the point of view. And again, I do not mean to say that they should have embellished reality and arbitrarily chosen with an optimistic eye. My argument is that an unbiased but more profound view would have led them to a different factual assessment. The essence of the matter is that even what usually appears as reality is the result of the observer's way of viewing and basic assumptions. The sages say that the spies saw that the inhabitants of the land frequently buried their dead, and from this they concluded that the land was eating its inhabitants. The truth was that the land was indeed very good, but God performed a miracle for them so that many of the inhabitants of the land would die so that its inhabitants would not notice and would not discover the Jewish spies. If so, reality is also a matter of interpretation: with a good eye, reality is good, and with a bad eye, the opposite.

Throughout the entire parasha, there is a verb that appears again and again: to turn. It begins right with the initial command of God at the beginning of the parasha (verse 2): "Send to you men And they will be allowed The land of Canaan…” And in verse 16 there is a report: “These are the names of the men whom Moses sent To leave the land…” Immediately afterwards in verse 17: “And Moses sent them away To leave The land of Canaan..." Then in verse 21 comes the fulfillment: "And they went up And they were allowed "The land from the wilderness of Zin to the wide open plain of Hamath." In this verse they repeat: "And they shall return fromturn The land is a waste of forty days." And in verse 1, the spies conclude, as in the same verse the verb to turn appears twice: "And they went out to the land which Taru I will bring it to the children of Israel, saying, "The land through which we passed." To leave "It is a land that devours its inhabitants, both it and all the people whom we saw in it, men of many ages." And finally, in verses 6-7 of the next chapter, Joshua and Caleb stand on the other side, but they are also part of those who smote the land: "And Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh went out from thePickles They tore the land with their clothes: and they said to all the congregation of the children of Israel, Concerning the land through which we passed, To leave "The land is very, very good."

At least in modern Hebrew, the verb for tour comes from the root tour, meaning to observe as a tourist who passes by and sees what is on the surface. This is a superficial observation that sees a country that eats its inhabitants who die en masse, without bothering to look more deeply into the fact that this is happening precisely in the places where they themselves pass through. If we compare Joshua's spies here, they hardly pass through the country but interview one woman (Rachav) in depth and learn from her about the morale of the people, and this is also the main part of their report. This is the difference between what is called today "Qualitative research", and systematic statistical research. In qualitative research, in-depth interviews are conducted with several people, a small (and hopefully representative) sample, and these insights are used to draw more general conclusions. Systematic research works with large numbers and sticks to the data itself, as much as possible without interpretations. Ostensibly, this is a purer and cleaner science, but it is superficial. It sticks to what is seen, to the objective data, and does not allow itself to ask what lies beyond them. Such questions are perceived by classical scientists as subjective speculation. They demand that one stick to the objective data.

As someone who is inclined towards systematic science and sees many flaws in qualitative research, I still want to draw attention to the shortcomings of classical science. Sometimes sticking to appearances and external data can be misleading. It is true that it seems like playing it safe, sticking to the facts, but sometimes the great confidence one receives concerns superficial and misleading data. There is no shortage of cases in which quantitative data is used in biased and distorted ways, and then the use of the data only makes the situation worse.

It seems to me that the end of the parsha offers the appropriate correction for the sin of the spies, and again using the inflection of the verb to turn (end of chapter 15, 37–40):

And Jacob spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, That they make them fringes upon the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and put a fringe of a fringe upon the fringe of the corners.: And it shall be unto you for a sign, and ye shall see it, and ye shall remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and ye shall not go after your hearts, and after your eyes, after which ye go a whoring.: That ye may remember and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God: I will wait for your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I will wait for your God:

The verse teaches us what to do so that we do not follow initial feelings, from the eyes or the heart (Tari Sarsori Da'vira): Put  A tzitzit and looking at it. How does this work? Our Sages say about this (Menachot 34b and parallels):  

Rabbi Meir used to say, "How is azure different from all other colors? Because azure resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the firmament, and the firmament resembles the throne of glory, as it is said, "And under his feet is like the work of a sapphire stone, and like the very substance of the heavens, to be purified." And it is written, "Like the appearance of a sapphire stone, is the likeness of a throne."

The contemplation of the sky is supposed to hint at what lies behind it. We should not focus and cling only to what is directly visible to the eyes and let it pull and lead us. The Torah requires us to think about what lies at the base and root of the phenomena we see and decide for ourselves their meaning. Instead of searching things, we should try to uncover the depth that lies beneath them. Perhaps this is the difference between "and you saw them and remembered..." (seeing to understand the depth above and at the base) in the Tzitzit and "searching the land" of the spies.

The Gemara in Berakhot 10a cites the following midrash:

Rabbi Yochanan said on behalf of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochi, why is it written that her mouth opened with wisdom and the law of kindness was on her tongue? Against whom did Solomon say this verse? They did not say it except against David his father, who was born in the womb of his mother, and he said a song, which is written, "My soul blesses the Lord, and all my bowels praise his holy name." He went out into the air of the world, and we looked at the stars and constellations. And he said a song, which is written, "Bless the Lord, his angels, mighty in power, who do his word, obeying the voice of his word. Bless the Lord, all his hosts, etc." He sucked from his mother's breasts, and he looked at her breasts. And he said a song, which is written, "My soul blesses the Lord, and do not forget all his rewards." From all his rewards, Rabbi Abbahu said, "He made her breasts instead of understanding." From whom did (Rabbi) say, "+Tradition of the Shas [Rav]"+ Judah, so that he would not look at the place of shame, Rabbi Matna said, so that he would not be sucked from the place of filthiness. He saw the fall of the wicked. And he said a song, which is written, "The sinners will be cut off from the earth, and the wicked will not yet be." Hallelujah. Let us look at the day of death and say a song as it is said, "My soul blesses the Lord, the Lord my God, you have greatly increased, you have clothed yourself with majesty and splendor. What does it mean to be afraid on the day of death?" It is said, "Rabba, son of Rabb, may you not be afraid of our words, as it is written, 'You will hide your face, they will be terrified, you will increase their spirit, they will be dismayed,' etc.

King David went through everything that every person goes through, but he knew how to observe the meaning of things and ask why they are the way they are. He did not go through all the stages that a person goes through, but rather saw and remembered. Therefore, his view of reality is like reciting poetry. When you see the harmony that organizes the facts into one complete tractate, you are reciting poetry. It is worth seeing in this regard the words of Rabbi Kook inEin Aya On a website (mainly in the letter K, to K).[1]

---