Questions — Parshah Shelakh
Why does God tell Moses to send the men to “scout out the land?” Usually God expects divine commands promises to be taken on faith, but here the Israelites are given a kind of sales pitch for the quality of God’s promises.
Why do we refer to the scouts as spies? The root Taf’Vav’Resh can mean spy, but it also has the meaning of explore or reconnoiter. How are we supposed to understand what the actual task is? We do know that it is a task that has been assigned to figures who are communal leaders.
Why are we told here (13:16) that Joshua was known as Hosea before the scouts depart? Moses is the one who changes the name by adding a yud at the beginning. This is the way that God often changes names, but here it is clearly Moses. Is this a reward before the one who is rewarded has earned the reward? Is there some other reason why Moses is doing this at this moment? Is this passage simply out of chronological order (meaning that while on the mission Joshua was still Hosea?).
Etz Hayim translates verse 13:19, “Is the country in which they dwell good or bad?” The original Hebrew does not have the simple parallelism of Good or Bad. It is a more unusual formulation. How else might it be translated? What additional meaning could this verse support beyond the simple meaning of “agriculturally productive?
The itinerary of the scouts is given broadly and with place names that are not previously significant. When the experience ot the spies is fleshed out starting in the next verse we are give two place names with significance in the patriarchal narrative, Hebron and Wdi Eshcol (which is near the territory of Mamre also near Hebron). Why is there no reference to the patriarchs with these place names, but instead a reference to the Egyptian locale Zoan in the Delta, later known as Tanis, and the site of one of Moses miracles?
Does the name Eshcol appear as an etiology or as a reference to the patriarchal narrative as previously mentioned?
Are the grapes in the cluster really gigantic (due to an association with the presence of the Anakites)? Do we have a bias towards that reading due to the moral judgment of the scouts who are afraid of the Canaanites and not reality (Perhaps is is a very large single cluster, rather than a cluster of very large grapes? Why then do we never really think about the size of the pomegranates and figs that they brought back? It it just that grapes are more important than pomegranates and figs? The scouts are not told to bring anything back. Is this an effort on their part to provide evidence of their story when they returned. Does the produce that they bring support their story or undermine it?
Who chose the length of the scouts time in Canaan?
When the return they go straight ot Moses and the whole Israelite community? Why would they have been gathered already?
Who are the Anakites? Were they really giants?
Why are Moses (and Aaron’s) role during the report of the scouts elided? Where the scouts meant to provide a public report on what they saw? Whose idea was it for them to do so? Where the people expecting it? How did they know where the scouts had gone?
Caleb ben Jephunah has he same role hear at he had at the crossing of the Reed Sea. Why do the other scouts not immediately say that the inhabitants of the land are too intimidating to confront only after Calen urges the people to go up to the land and not at the end of their report?
Why do the scouts say that Canaan is a land that “devours its settlers,” after just saying that the inhabitants are doing well? What does this mean then> Are they just being deceptive. What is the source of their anxiety?
What happens in the end to the Anakits and the Nephilim who are people out of Canaan’s mythological age.
Chapter 15
What is the time frame of verses 14:1-4 in relation to 14:5? Are 14:1-4 out of chronological order or are they a narrative from the side of the people only with the narrative of Moses and Aaron separate, starting in 14:5?
Why do Moses and Aaron fall on their faces before the assembled congregation rather than before God, or are we meant to understand that they are falling on their faces before God in front of the assembled congregation? What is their intention? Or are they acting spontaneously?
Why does the appeal of Joshua and Caleb fail to win the people over? The report of the other scouts seems to imply that the people are impressionable. Did the majority of the scouts overwhelm the people with a message that connected with their greatest fears?
Is there some fault in the way that Joshua and Caleb spoke that led to the failure of their message to connect?
Are the Israelites correct in their doubts about God fulfilling the promise to the Avot?
Joshua and Caleb refer to the people of the land as “our prey.” Is this their sense alone or is it also God’s or also Moses and Aaron’s? Is this really what they believe? How would they know that God had up to that point protected the people of the land?
As God speaks to Moses in this moment, does anyone other than Moses hear what God is saying to him? (The same in terms of Moses’ reply, etc.)
How does Moses think the rest of the world will learn of what God does if God wipes out the Israelites? Does Moses think that God will strike down the men only?
In 14:18-19 Moses seems to be quoting from an existing text. Is this text a retrojection of an existing text from a later time into the Ba-Midbar text?
God uses the phrase “as the Lord’s presence fills the whole world.” Is this an introduction (or just a making explicit of something already hinted at) of a new theology>
Why does God single out Caleb for reward and not mention Joshua? (14:24)
Why does the nature of God’s address shift in verse 14:26 to an address to Moses and Aaron, rather than just to Moses. Are they then the only ones who hear this Consider the Ishbitzer Rebbe’s comments on levels of prophetic competency?
Is God’s question, “How Long…” a rhetorical question or a real question?
If the people had not muttered about dying in the desert would God have punished them with death in the desert? Why does God use the word “carcasses”? (Peger)
Do the scouts who dies of plague die immediately or are we just being told that this is how they will die when they do die?
When we are told that the people “set out toward the crest of the hill country” do they remain in the formation that they were organized into by God, or do they break formation? How much order is there in the actions? We know that they moved without the Ark so perhaps the Levites separated themselves from the rest of the tribes/
Chapter 15
This chapter begins without any transition from a concise mention of the defeat of the Israelites and no comment on what happened after the defeat leading up to the teachings in thai chapter. Is this chapter in a chronological order with the previous events or with events that follow or does it have a kind of free floating quality?
Is the teaching about what you sacrifice you bring in relation to a vow a comment on the actions of the Israelites? Is the transition from from the concerns about what the Israelites would get from God to a teaching about what God would get from the Israelites a a comment on the actions of the Israelites?
Why are the sacrifices of the strangers among the Israelite people mentioned? Was it acceptable for anyone to bring a free will sacrifice regardless of their national status? (This was the case in Greece and Rome). Are the Israelites told to be more accepting of other or are they being told just to be as accepting of others. Is there a different quality to what God is talking about here and the way that sacrifices would be made at the temples of pagan gods?
In 15:20 we are told to give a gift of the loaf out of the “first yield of your baking.” Is this the first loaf or any loaf from the first group of loaves cooked in an oven of that harvest? How do we know it is a loaf. Etz Hayyim’s comment on this implies that we know from Ezekiel 44:30 that this offering goes to the priest. We are told that this is an offering for all time. We could still give this offering to the priest, but we don’t. Why not?
Why does the bread offering precede a teaching on unwitting failure to observe a commandment. This seems like a major change in subject, but there is no indication that this is part of a separate unit of teaching.
We are taught that if the inadvertence was communal a communal offering is made that atones for all including the stranger. If the inadvertent act is by an individual then they make the offering and the rule is the same for an Israelite or a stranger. If the offering is not made the person will be :cut off from their people.” For the stranger would this be their people or the Israelite people?
When the man who is picking up sticks on Shabbat is caught there is no known punishment for his action. Why then is he punished so harshly? We would not be this harsh in punishing a crime where the law had not been adjudicated.
Did they stone the man on Shabbat?
How do we get the rules about how the knots are tied of Tefillin? There is no indication in the text. Where do we get the element of blue, or any design choices regarding the design of Tefillin? How are the Tefillin supposed to make us remember the commandments, or are they only reminded by the Tefillin in a global way to observe God’s commandments?
