Parashat Shelach-Lekha (5761)

With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, Parashat Shelach-Lekha, 5761

Between the Presumptuous Climbers and the Bombers of Empty Buildings

Our portion describes the sin of the spies, whose essence was fear of war against the inhabitants of the land and a desire

to return to Egypt, to the ‘fleshpots’ (Exodus 16:3). The Holy One, blessed be He, punishes that generation for the sin of the spies, sentencing it to wander

forty years in the wilderness and not to enter the land. The next morning, the Israelites apparently regain their composure,

rise early in the morning,

and want to go up to battle toward the Land of Israel. When they ask Moses

our teacher, he tells them that they will not succeed in battle and will be struck down before their enemies. The Israelites

decide to fight anyway, and then the Amalekites and the Canaanites come down from the mountain and strike and crush them

‘as far as Hormah’ (Numbers 14:45).

The immediate impression one gets from the verses about the incident of the ascent to the mountain is that this was an act

born of a momentary burst of enthusiasm. As a response to yesterday’s sin, the presumptuous climbers rise early

in the morning and go up to war, without Moses our teacher’s pessimism managing to stop them. Ostensibly there is

here a correction of yesterday’s sin of doubt and hesitation, but in fact there is here a continuation of that same

path. The problem with cowardly behavior is not cowardice in itself; the main problem is that behavior

of this sort is not rational. When a person is afraid, he is guided not by his reason but by emotions

and instincts. In such a state he begins doing foolish things. When the people of Israel encounter the

giants, they are afraid of them and therefore suddenly begin longing for the fleshpots in Egypt,

an astonishing nostalgia for that very country that enslaved them with crushing labor. This phenomenon occurs even while the command

of reason says that the Holy One, blessed be He, whom everyone saw with their own eyes performing miracles for them in Egypt and in the wilderness, can

do those same things to the inhabitants of the land as well. When a person sees frightening giants,

a feeling of fear begins to develop within him that takes control of him, and there is no room at all

for rational considerations.

The next morning, the same behavior returns, only in precisely the opposite direction. The Israelites understood

that yesterday they had sinned through fear, and therefore decided, again emotionally, as the result of a burst

of momentary enthusiasm, to go up to battle without any preparation and without the help of the Holy One, blessed be He. The bravery here is not the opposite

of cowardice, but represents that very same problem: once again there is here behavior that is controlled by

emotions and does not allow rational considerations to guide it. The lesson from the sin of the presumptuous climbers is

that cowardice is not what is reprehensible, nor is courage what is praiseworthy; one must always act

rationally. When one must fight, one should fight, and when one must restrain oneself, one should do so.

Emotion-driven behavior is not only the possession of a ‘primitive’ past, but continues to accompany human

societies to this very day, and in fact it seems that in the modern age the emotional component

in behavior is becoming more and more dominant. This issue has several aspects, which appear on several

levels. On the philosophical level there is today a basic despair of reason. There is a feeling that there is no way

to reach clear conclusions in any significant field (policy, security, religious faith, art,

etc.), and therefore everything operates emotionally. Things are judged mainly by the measure of how much

they are ‘exciting’ (ranging from works of art, through cars, and ending with savings

plans at the bank). The decision whether to observe commandments, and which commandments to observe, is often made in an entirely

emotional manner. There is of course also ideological cover for this, since after all this is ‘faith’

and not something rational. The decision whether to vote for this politician or that one (more

accurately: there are lots of ‘so-and-sos,’ but sadly very few ‘what’s-his-names’), is also made

on the basis of tribal loyalty, or other emotions. Anyone who defines himself as ‘nationalist’ will always

favor an iron-fist policy, war, or an immediate military response, and anyone who defines

himself as ‘a leftist’ will always oppose it (whoever has ever seen a military operation, however

just and wise it may have been, that ‘Peace Now’ supported, let him stand up. Or alternatively, whoever has ever seen a military

operation, however infantile and bungling it may have been—and thank God, we have had many of those—that Likud

opposed, let him raise his hand high. Higher, we can’t see!).

Even the ‘rational’ judgment of statesmen and security officials (‘restraint’ and ‘forbearance,’ exactly

like the demand for immediate revenge for the latest terror attack), is not really any more rational than

the emotions of the citizens. These sin with the sin of the spies, and those with the sin of the presumptuous climbers. There is here

nothing more than baseless hysterical fear and stupid rigidity on the part of politicians and military men

alike. In fact, on the part of all of us. The loss of composure that led to the childish decision to vent

our rage from the air on trees and stones in Gaza looks like an exact repetition of the ascent in our portion, except that today we make the ascent with F-16s.

We all understand that politics is entirely corrupt and foolish, and this does not prevent us from choosing among

those same buffoons and replacing them ‘democratically’ with one another all the time, with genuine

excitement. Morning and night we engage in learned discussions of the profound question whether Arafat’s ceasefire

is merely a tactical ploy, or whether he has become a dues-paying Zionist.

Alternatively, we set our ‘long-term’ strategy in light of the profound criterion

of the world’s sympathy for us, while everyone knows that its lifespan is shorter than that of pi mesons.

All these are symptoms of hysteria and an inability to behave rationally. We have returned to the period

of the presumptuous climbers, only this time without camels, and without ships as well. With airplanes. ‘Would that in the wilderness we had

a little rationality’?! Moses our teacher, who will brush the dust from your eyes?!

Peaceful Sabbath

It may be placed in genizah in any synagogue or yeshiva. Comments and responses will be received gladly.

Biton92-response.doc

With God’s help, to Ido H., greetings.

In your response to my remarks you raised two points: the first, on the principled plane, that a leader is not supposed

to do the will of the public but to act according to what is good for the public. The second, on the

topical plane, was that my position that the present government is not acting in accordance with God’s will and the will of the public is

my personal position, whereas the polls show that the public is satisfied with the way the government is acting, and that I should not

‘dress’ my personal views in an objective cloak. I would like to address here, briefly,

the two points above.

First, despite the frequency of this first claim, I do not entirely agree with it. It is true

that in extreme cases a politician may change his positions in light of the reality as he discovers it

(‘Things one sees from there are not seen from here’), but democratic fairness (there is such a thing!)

obligates him to bring the matter back before the public. If he does not do so, he exploits

the trust he received on the basis of the positions he presented during the election campaign, in order to advance positions

different from them. Only in extreme cases, in which it is impossible to present the relevant changes to

the public, may he decide to change his positions from what he presented in the election campaign.

According to your approach there is no need at all to present positions in election campaigns, and the public is supposed to decide who

will lead it solely on the basis of one or another personal impression. We shall choose whoever is wisest

and most responsible, and trust him to make the right decision in light of the reality before him. It is accepted

that in a democratic system the public is also supposed to formulate a policy direction, and to choose who will lead

it in that direction, and not merely to decide on the basis of the candidate’s pleasant, responsible, and learned

countenance.

Now to the second point you raised. First, I did not state in the article any position regarding the current government

at all, nor regarding any other government. I merely raised a point for thought: what is the degree of

the religious legitimacy of a government that does not do the will of the people and the will of God. The sign (!?)

that appeared after the ‘hypothetical’ question means that I leave the degree of hypotheticality of

the question to the decision of each reader. Everyone is invited to decide for himself whether the government

does the will of God and the will of the public. In light of the decision he reaches, the reader should judge every government

before him. That was my true intention, and there is no after-the-fact apology here.

Beyond that, since the topical point has already been raised, I will tell you that indeed my personal position is that no

government that has ever existed in Israel to this very day has done the will of God, including the current one.

The simple indication of this is that none of the prime ministers, nor any of their leading ministers,

believes in that entity (God), certainly not in its traditional sense. None of them is

interested in doing His will, and therefore there is no reason to assume that he does so despite himself.

The facts that point to this are visible to all, and there is no point in lengthening the discussion here and detailing them (I will only note

that I do not mean only the diplomatic-security sphere, as one might think). I do not see

how one can think that someone who does not acknowledge the existence of God is doing His will. Perhaps by accident?

Such a thought is naive, and perhaps disingenuous.

As for the question whether the government does the will of the people, I will leave that to the decision of each reader, as

I did in the original article. I will only remark that the polls say nothing. Unfortunately, and here I

agree, in some measure, with your first comment, the people are led ‘like sheep to the slaughter’ (not always as a metaphor)

almost in whatever direction a government leads them. For example, a week after figures on the Right were accused

because they dared to say that Barak would divide Jerusalem, no public ‘eyebrow’ was raised upon hearing the news

that Barak had already divided it (and by the way, I am in favor of dividing Jerusalem). The Israeli public has long since

had no positions at all, and therefore the polls say nothing. Our public opinions

are like a leaf driven by the wind, going wherever it carries it.

In any event, I was glad to receive your response. I must say that a response to my remarks, even though I often

am sure they are controversial, is for some reason a rare phenomenon.

Miki Abraham

Biton92.doc