Parshat Shlach Tinted Blue Vision
Zichron Avinoam | June 12, 2026
Print This Article
View Original PDF

Parshat Shlach Tinted Blue Vision

Zichron Avinoam | June 12, 2026

Parshat Shlach

Tinted Blue Vision

Simon Wolf

This week's Parsha indicts the Meraglim¹ for slandering the Land of Israel (מוֹצִאֵי דְבַּת הָאָרֶץ רָעָה). From the narrative itself, it is difficult to understand what the Torah found objectionable in the report of the Meraglim that would warrant such an accusation. Parshat Shlach opens with God's command (שְׁלַח לְךָ) to Moshe to send the Meraglim. After identifying those chosen for the mission, the Torah records Moshe's instructions to the Meraglim. “When Moshe sent them to scout the land of Canaan, he said to them, 'Go up there into the Negev and on into the hill country, and see what kind of country it is. 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? And take pains to bring back some of the fruit of the land..."³

Upon returning from their mission, the Meraglim respond point-by-point to Moshe's requests. "They went straight to Moshe and Aharon and all of Bnei Yisrael...and they made their report to them and to the whole congregation, and they showed them the fruit of the land. This is what they told him: 'We came to the land you sent us to; it does indeed flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. However, the people who inhabit the country are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large; moreover, we saw the offspring of the giants there. Amalek dwells in the Negev region; the Chiti, Yevusi, and Emori inhabit the hill country; and the Cana'ani dwell by the Sea and along the Jordan."⁴ The chart below aligns Moshe's questions with the Meraglim's responses and demonstrates how systematically they addressed each of his inquiries.

At first glance, one might suggest that the Meraglim exaggerated what they witnessed during their mission and overstated the extent of the cities' fortifications (וְהֶעָרִים בְּצֵרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאד), the strength of the inhabitants (כִּי עַז הָעָם הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ) and the stature of the land's occupants (יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק רָאִינוּ שָׁם). They may have done this in order to sow the seeds of what was to come, instilling sufficient fear in the people to the point where they would be reluctant to enter the land.⁵ The difficulty with this suggestion is that Moshe himself later describes the land and its inhabitants in even more daunting terms. “Hear, Yisrael. You are about to cross the Jordan to enter the land and dispossess nations greater and mightier than you (גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֵמִים מִמֶּךְ); great cities with walls sky-high (עֶרִים גְּדֹלֹת וּבְצֵרֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם); a great and lofty people, descendants of giants (עַם גָּדוֹל וְרָם בְּנֵי עֲנָקִים), those of whom you have knowledge; for you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand up to the children of the giants?"⁶ Moshe's description appears infinitely more terrifying than that of the Meraglim and seems to confirm the accuracy of their report.

Perhaps the failing of the Meraglim lies instead in their response to Calev's words of encouragement that none of these obstacles were insurmountable.” “But the men who had gone with him said, 'We cannot attack those people, for they are too strong for us.' Thus, they spread calumnies among Bnei Yisrael about the land they had scouted, saying, 'The land that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its inhabitants. All the people that we saw in it are men of great size...and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them."⁸ Yet even this explanation is difficult to entertain. Although their conclusions are undeniably pessimistic, Moshe himself later expects the generation entering the land of Cana'an to recognize the formidable nature of the nations, cities and challenges they will encounter in Cana'an. In addition, the Meraglim were ostensibly doing precisely what they had been sent to accomplish, reporting their observations and offering their assessment of the situation.⁹

Rashi, based on the Gemara Sota, indicates that the spies' statement of “for they are too strong for us" was actually a euphemism implying that the inhabitants of the land were too strong even for God to overcome. The difficulty with this interpretation is that the simple reading of the text appears to be that Bnei Yisrael were not capable of confronting these nations and conquering the land; the verse makes no explicit reference to God.¹⁰ The Ramban therefore asks what exactly was the failure of the Meraglim if they faithfully reported what they saw and accurately responded to Moshe's queries.¹¹ He concludes that the key lies in the word “Efes (אֶפֶס)” with which the Meraglim introduce their assessment of what they had witnessed on their mission. The word "Efes (אֶפֶס)” is often understood to mean “but” or “however,” though the word can also convey a sense of “nothing” or “zero.” The Meraglim were not merely reporting facts; they were expressing the conviction that there was “no possibility" of successfully conquering the land. In the Ramban's view, this reflected not only a lack of confidence in Bnei Yisrael's military capabilities but also a lack of faith in God's promise to deliver the land. This failing was only exacerbated by their subsequent lobbying efforts to disseminate misinformation¹² about the land in order to dissuade the people, at any cost, from desiring to enter the land because they were so certain it would fail.¹³ It is these fabrications that the Torah later identifies as the cause for their demise in a plague before God.¹⁴

While the Ramban identifies “Efes (אֶפֶס)” as the pivotal word for understanding the sin of the Meraglim, it is possible that another word that appears repeatedly throughout the narrative might shed some additional light on what went awry. Interestingly, the verb used to describe the mission of the Meraglim is V'yaturu (וְיָתָרוּ). The root Tur (תור) appears only twenty-three times in Tanach, thirteen of which are found in Parshat Shlach. Of those thirteen occurrences, twelve relate to the Meraglim and one appears in the Parsha of Tzitzit. Such a remarkable concentration suggests that this word likely plays a significant role in understanding the problem surrounding the Meraglim, particularly in light of its reappearance later in the Parsha.

One of the perplexing issues in Parshat Shlach is the relationship between the sin of the Meraglim and the Mitzvot that follow it (the meal-offerings and libations, the Mitzva of Chala, the sin-offering, the story of the wood gatherer and the Mitzva of Tzitzit). With regard to the Mitzva of Tzitzit, Rashi, quoting Rav Moshe HaDarshan, suggests that the Torah concludes the Parsha with a series of Mitzvot that are each considered equivalent to all the other Mitzvot of the Torah (שקולה ככל המצוות).¹⁵ For instance, the sin-offering mentioned in the Parsha is brought for an unintentional violation involving idol worship. Idol worship is such a foundational principle of the Torah and considered such a grievous misdeed that one who serves idols is viewed as having denied God, the entire Torah and all of its Mitzvot. Shabbat has a similar unique status. Chazal state that one who desecrates Shabbat is considered akin to an idol worshipper (שהמחלל את השבת כעובד ע"ז) and normatively he is actually deemed to have a similar standing. This principle is learnt from Sefer Nechemya where Shabbat is equated to all the other Mitzvot of the Torah.¹⁶ Tzitzit is also included in this group because it, too, is deemed equivalent to all the other Mitzvot of the Torah as it says “...and you will see it (the Tzitzit) and remember all the Mitzvot of God and perform them..."¹⁷ One can readily understand why Avoda Zara and Shabbat are regarded as foundational pillars of the faith and therefore are considered be on par with all the other Mitzvot of the Torah. On the other hand, of all Mitzvot, why would the Mitzva of Tzitzit be accorded that same elevated status? Rashi, in an explanation that other commentaries find difficult, suggests that it is because the numerical value of Tzitzit (Gematria), together with its five knots and eight strings, equals 613 (ציצית=600+5 knots+8 strings=613) which is the total number of Mitzvot in the Torah.

The Gemara in Menachot, implicitly addressing this issue, quotes a Braita that states, “Rabbi Meir would query: Why is Techelet different from all other colors? Because Techelet is similar to the sea and the sea is similar to the firmament and the firmament is similar to the (God's) throne of glory..."¹⁸ Therefore, when one sees the Techelet string on their Tzitzit, they are reminded by association of God and their obligation to follow His commands. While seemingly far-fetched, this explanation speaks to the unique associative power of man to be able to see something and then imagine vistas far off and contemplate layers of ideas that derive or emanate from a simple sighting.

As noted above, the root Tur (תור) also appears in the Mitzva of Tzitzit, and this may explain both the placement of the Mitzva in Parshat Shlach and its connection to the Meraglim at the beginning of the Parsha. The Pasuk states that the purpose of the Mitzva of Tzitzit is that when one sees the Tzitzit they will remember all the Mitzvot of God and perform them, “and not follow (תָתֹוּרוּ) after your own heart and eyes which you stray after."¹⁷ The root Tur (תור) generally means to “search, seek out, survey or explore." Earlier in Sefer Bamidbar, it is used in precisely that sense when describing the first journey of the encampment from Har Sinai. "They traveled from the mountain of God a distance of three days. The Aron of God traveled in front of them, a distance of three days' journey, to seek out (לָתָור) a resting place for them."¹⁹ If so, the Torah's injunction with regards to Tzitzit, "not to follow (לֹא־תָתוּרוּ)" is puzzling. Why would the Torah employ a word that ordinarily means to “seek, survey or explore?” Is the Torah instructing a person not to search or investigate that which they feel or see?

In the context of the Mitzva of Tzitzit, the two halves of the verse appear to present contrasting directives. A person should see the Tzitzit and remember all the Mitzvot, yet they should not follow or stray (לֹא־תָתוּרוּ) after their heart and eyes. What does following or straying after one's heart and eyes have to do with searching or exploring? The truth is that what one sees is objective. On the other hand, the interpretation of that which one sees objectively is highly subjective. The Torah is indicating that one may physically see the Techelet string on the Tzitzit, but what that sighting means can vary dramatically from person to person. One individual sees nothing more than a dyed string, while another sees God's throne of glory. The difference lies not in the object observed, but on the person's interpretation of what they are seeing and experiencing. Similarly, in life more generally, one's eyes can perceive an objective reality, but their heart generates emotions, associations and conclusions based on what was just observed. This uniquely human aptitude can be used to unleash tremendous powers of creativity, building and sanctifying, but that same capacity can also lead to machinations of destruction, selfishness and defilement. The Parsha of Tzitzit therefore serves as a guide for the individual to manage that interpretive capability. When a person encounters the world, they are meant to view it through the prism of God's presence and His Mitzvot, symbolized by the Techelet string, rather than through a perspective that leads them astray. Latur (לתור) is not merely the collection of raw inputs; it is the processing of those experiences through the individual's interpretive filters that leads to a result far from what they have seen. That exercise can lead one to remember and fulfill God's commandments (וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹת יְקֹוָק), or it can lead them to stray after their heart and eyes (וְלֹא־תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם). Which outcome emerges is determined by the framework established and the foundation laid to facilitate one's interpretive abilities.

Now, looking back at the episode of Meraglim through this lens, the root Tur (תור) perfectly captures and explains the failure of the Meraglim. As noted above, the Meraglim's observations and report were accurate and are corroborated by Moshe's later description of the land, the inhabitants and the cities of Cana'an in Sefer Devarim. The critical question was not what they saw, but how they processed and interpreted (לתור) what they observed. Moshe presents the formidable nature of the land as leading to the inescapable conclusion that only God, and adherence to His laws and ways, could secure victory, since there was no logical path by which Bnei Yisrael could succeed militarily.²⁰ On the other hand, the Meraglim looked at the very same inputs and arrived at the opposite conclusion; the obstacles were so overwhelming that the conquest was impossible despite God's promise. Their deduction was clearly flawed for two reasons. First, they failed to “see” God's throne of glory when confronted with the challenges before them. Just as one person may look at a string of Techelet and see only a blue thread while another sees a reminder of God's presence, the Meraglim saw mighty nations, fortified cities and giants, yet failed to perceive the God who had taken them out of Egypt and promised them the land. If He was leading them there, He could certainly facilitate its conquest. As the concluding verse of the Parsha of Tzitzit declares, "I am God, your Lord, who took you out of the land of Egypt..."²¹ nothing is beyond His power. Second, having reached their conclusion, they began to reinterpret, and ultimately distort, the facts in order to support their position. Their description of the land as impregnable and as one that "devours its inhabitants” were no longer objective observations, but rather the product of a mindset that had already been tainted by its own fears and assumptions.²² In that sense, they violated the principle of “not straying after your heart and eyes.” That is why the Torah describes their mission as V’Yaturu (וְיָתָרוּ). Their task was not merely to observe the land, but to interpret that information through the proper lens. This idea may also be reflected in the Gemara's inquiry as to why in the second, third and fourth chapters of Eicha, the verses beginning with the letter Pei (פ) precede those beginning with the letter Ayin (ע), reversing the normal alphabetic order. Rava explains that this is because the Meraglim conveyed with their mouths (פה) that which they did not see with their eyes (עין).²³ They conveyed conclusions that were not inevitable from what they had witnessed; their failure was not one of sight, but of interpretation.

In the end, the Tzitzit are the antidote to the sin of the Meraglim. They remind us that we encounter countless experiences throughout our lives, but their meaning is all in the perspective through which we view them. The proper frame of mind and attitude is one shaped by the Torah and the Mitzvot of God. We must learn to see thrones of glory, not merely blue strings. We need to avoid straying after our hearts and eyes and instead follow the path that successfully reaches those places of Menucha that the Aron sought out for Bnei Yisrael.

Shabbat Shalom

Parshat Shlach

Tinted Blue Vision

Simon Wolf

This week's Parsha indicts the Meraglim¹ for slandering the Land of Israel (מוֹצִאֵי דְבַּת הָאָרֶץ רָעָה). From the narrative itself, it is difficult to understand what the Torah found objectionable in the report of the Meraglim that would warrant such an accusation. Parshat Shlach opens with God's command (שְׁלַח לְךָ) to Moshe to send the Meraglim. After identifying those chosen for the mission, the Torah records Moshe's instructions to the Meraglim. “When Moshe sent them to scout the land of Canaan, he said to them, 'Go up there into the Negev and on into the hill country, and see what kind of country it is. 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? And take pains to bring back some of the fruit of the land..."³

Upon returning from their mission, the Meraglim respond point-by-point to Moshe's requests. "They went straight to Moshe and Aharon and all of Bnei Yisrael...and they made their report to them and to the whole congregation, and they showed them the fruit of the land. This is what they told him: 'We came to the land you sent us to; it does indeed flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. However, the people who inhabit the country are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large; moreover, we saw the offspring of the giants there. Amalek dwells in the Negev region; the Chiti, Yevusi, and Emori inhabit the hill country; and the Cana'ani dwell by the Sea and along the Jordan."⁴ The chart below aligns Moshe's questions with the Meraglim's responses and demonstrates how systematically they addressed each of his inquiries.

At first glance, one might suggest that the Meraglim exaggerated what they witnessed during their mission and overstated the extent of the cities' fortifications (וְהֶעָרִים בְּצֵרוֹת גְּדֹלֹת מְאד), the strength of the inhabitants (כִּי עַז הָעָם הַיֹּשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ) and the stature of the land's occupants (יְלִדֵי הָעֲנָק רָאִינוּ שָׁם). They may have done this in order to sow the seeds of what was to come, instilling sufficient fear in the people to the point where they would be reluctant to enter the land.⁵ The difficulty with this suggestion is that Moshe himself later describes the land and its inhabitants in even more daunting terms. “Hear, Yisrael. You are about to cross the Jordan to enter the land and dispossess nations greater and mightier than you (גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֵמִים מִמֶּךְ); great cities with walls sky-high (עֶרִים גְּדֹלֹת וּבְצֵרֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם); a great and lofty people, descendants of giants (עַם גָּדוֹל וְרָם בְּנֵי עֲנָקִים), those of whom you have knowledge; for you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand up to the children of the giants?"⁶ Moshe's description appears infinitely more terrifying than that of the Meraglim and seems to confirm the accuracy of their report.

Perhaps the failing of the Meraglim lies instead in their response to Calev's words of encouragement that none of these obstacles were insurmountable.” “But the men who had gone with him said, 'We cannot attack those people, for they are too strong for us.' Thus, they spread calumnies among Bnei Yisrael about the land they had scouted, saying, 'The land that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its inhabitants. All the people that we saw in it are men of great size...and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them."⁸ Yet even this explanation is difficult to entertain. Although their conclusions are undeniably pessimistic, Moshe himself later expects the generation entering the land of Cana'an to recognize the formidable nature of the nations, cities and challenges they will encounter in Cana'an. In addition, the Meraglim were ostensibly doing precisely what they had been sent to accomplish, reporting their observations and offering their assessment of the situation.⁹

Rashi, based on the Gemara Sota, indicates that the spies' statement of “for they are too strong for us" was actually a euphemism implying that the inhabitants of the land were too strong even for God to overcome. The difficulty with this interpretation is that the simple reading of the text appears to be that Bnei Yisrael were not capable of confronting these nations and conquering the land; the verse makes no explicit reference to God.¹⁰ The Ramban therefore asks what exactly was the failure of the Meraglim if they faithfully reported what they saw and accurately responded to Moshe's queries.¹¹ He concludes that the key lies in the word “Efes (אֶפֶס)” with which the Meraglim introduce their assessment of what they had witnessed on their mission. The word "Efes (אֶפֶס)” is often understood to mean “but” or “however,” though the word can also convey a sense of “nothing” or “zero.” The Meraglim were not merely reporting facts; they were expressing the conviction that there was “no possibility" of successfully conquering the land. In the Ramban's view, this reflected not only a lack of confidence in Bnei Yisrael's military capabilities but also a lack of faith in God's promise to deliver the land. This failing was only exacerbated by their subsequent lobbying efforts to disseminate misinformation¹² about the land in order to dissuade the people, at any cost, from desiring to enter the land because they were so certain it would fail.¹³ It is these fabrications that the Torah later identifies as the cause for their demise in a plague before God.¹⁴

While the Ramban identifies “Efes (אֶפֶס)” as the pivotal word for understanding the sin of the Meraglim, it is possible that another word that appears repeatedly throughout the narrative might shed some additional light on what went awry. Interestingly, the verb used to describe the mission of the Meraglim is V'yaturu (וְיָתָרוּ). The root Tur (תור) appears only twenty-three times in Tanach, thirteen of which are found in Parshat Shlach. Of those thirteen occurrences, twelve relate to the Meraglim and one appears in the Parsha of Tzitzit. Such a remarkable concentration suggests that this word likely plays a significant role in understanding the problem surrounding the Meraglim, particularly in light of its reappearance later in the Parsha.

One of the perplexing issues in Parshat Shlach is the relationship between the sin of the Meraglim and the Mitzvot that follow it (the meal-offerings and libations, the Mitzva of Chala, the sin-offering, the story of the wood gatherer and the Mitzva of Tzitzit). With regard to the Mitzva of Tzitzit, Rashi, quoting Rav Moshe HaDarshan, suggests that the Torah concludes the Parsha with a series of Mitzvot that are each considered equivalent to all the other Mitzvot of the Torah (שקולה ככל המצוות).¹⁵ For instance, the sin-offering mentioned in the Parsha is brought for an unintentional violation involving idol worship. Idol worship is such a foundational principle of the Torah and considered such a grievous misdeed that one who serves idols is viewed as having denied God, the entire Torah and all of its Mitzvot. Shabbat has a similar unique status. Chazal state that one who desecrates Shabbat is considered akin to an idol worshipper (שהמחלל את השבת כעובד ע"ז) and normatively he is actually deemed to have a similar standing. This principle is learnt from Sefer Nechemya where Shabbat is equated to all the other Mitzvot of the Torah.¹⁶ Tzitzit is also included in this group because it, too, is deemed equivalent to all the other Mitzvot of the Torah as it says “...and you will see it (the Tzitzit) and remember all the Mitzvot of God and perform them..."¹⁷ One can readily understand why Avoda Zara and Shabbat are regarded as foundational pillars of the faith and therefore are considered be on par with all the other Mitzvot of the Torah. On the other hand, of all Mitzvot, why would the Mitzva of Tzitzit be accorded that same elevated status? Rashi, in an explanation that other commentaries find difficult, suggests that it is because the numerical value of Tzitzit (Gematria), together with its five knots and eight strings, equals 613 (ציצית=600+5 knots+8 strings=613) which is the total number of Mitzvot in the Torah.

The Gemara in Menachot, implicitly addressing this issue, quotes a Braita that states, “Rabbi Meir would query: Why is Techelet different from all other colors? Because Techelet is similar to the sea and the sea is similar to the firmament and the firmament is similar to the (God's) throne of glory..."¹⁸ Therefore, when one sees the Techelet string on their Tzitzit, they are reminded by association of God and their obligation to follow His commands. While seemingly far-fetched, this explanation speaks to the unique associative power of man to be able to see something and then imagine vistas far off and contemplate layers of ideas that derive or emanate from a simple sighting.

As noted above, the root Tur (תור) also appears in the Mitzva of Tzitzit, and this may explain both the placement of the Mitzva in Parshat Shlach and its connection to the Meraglim at the beginning of the Parsha. The Pasuk states that the purpose of the Mitzva of Tzitzit is that when one sees the Tzitzit they will remember all the Mitzvot of God and perform them, “and not follow (תָתֹוּרוּ) after your own heart and eyes which you stray after."¹⁷ The root Tur (תור) generally means to “search, seek out, survey or explore." Earlier in Sefer Bamidbar, it is used in precisely that sense when describing the first journey of the encampment from Har Sinai. "They traveled from the mountain of God a distance of three days. The Aron of God traveled in front of them, a distance of three days' journey, to seek out (לָתָור) a resting place for them."¹⁹ If so, the Torah's injunction with regards to Tzitzit, "not to follow (לֹא־תָתוּרוּ)" is puzzling. Why would the Torah employ a word that ordinarily means to “seek, survey or explore?” Is the Torah instructing a person not to search or investigate that which they feel or see?

In the context of the Mitzva of Tzitzit, the two halves of the verse appear to present contrasting directives. A person should see the Tzitzit and remember all the Mitzvot, yet they should not follow or stray (לֹא־תָתוּרוּ) after their heart and eyes. What does following or straying after one's heart and eyes have to do with searching or exploring? The truth is that what one sees is objective. On the other hand, the interpretation of that which one sees objectively is highly subjective. The Torah is indicating that one may physically see the Techelet string on the Tzitzit, but what that sighting means can vary dramatically from person to person. One individual sees nothing more than a dyed string, while another sees God's throne of glory. The difference lies not in the object observed, but on the person's interpretation of what they are seeing and experiencing. Similarly, in life more generally, one's eyes can perceive an objective reality, but their heart generates emotions, associations and conclusions based on what was just observed. This uniquely human aptitude can be used to unleash tremendous powers of creativity, building and sanctifying, but that same capacity can also lead to machinations of destruction, selfishness and defilement. The Parsha of Tzitzit therefore serves as a guide for the individual to manage that interpretive capability. When a person encounters the world, they are meant to view it through the prism of God's presence and His Mitzvot, symbolized by the Techelet string, rather than through a perspective that leads them astray. Latur (לתור) is not merely the collection of raw inputs; it is the processing of those experiences through the individual's interpretive filters that leads to a result far from what they have seen. That exercise can lead one to remember and fulfill God's commandments (וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹת יְקֹוָק), or it can lead them to stray after their heart and eyes (וְלֹא־תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם). Which outcome emerges is determined by the framework established and the foundation laid to facilitate one's interpretive abilities.

Now, looking back at the episode of Meraglim through this lens, the root Tur (תור) perfectly captures and explains the failure of the Meraglim. As noted above, the Meraglim's observations and report were accurate and are corroborated by Moshe's later description of the land, the inhabitants and the cities of Cana'an in Sefer Devarim. The critical question was not what they saw, but how they processed and interpreted (לתור) what they observed. Moshe presents the formidable nature of the land as leading to the inescapable conclusion that only God, and adherence to His laws and ways, could secure victory, since there was no logical path by which Bnei Yisrael could succeed militarily.²⁰ On the other hand, the Meraglim looked at the very same inputs and arrived at the opposite conclusion; the obstacles were so overwhelming that the conquest was impossible despite God's promise. Their deduction was clearly flawed for two reasons. First, they failed to “see” God's throne of glory when confronted with the challenges before them. Just as one person may look at a string of Techelet and see only a blue thread while another sees a reminder of God's presence, the Meraglim saw mighty nations, fortified cities and giants, yet failed to perceive the God who had taken them out of Egypt and promised them the land. If He was leading them there, He could certainly facilitate its conquest. As the concluding verse of the Parsha of Tzitzit declares, "I am God, your Lord, who took you out of the land of Egypt..."²¹ nothing is beyond His power. Second, having reached their conclusion, they began to reinterpret, and ultimately distort, the facts in order to support their position. Their description of the land as impregnable and as one that "devours its inhabitants” were no longer objective observations, but rather the product of a mindset that had already been tainted by its own fears and assumptions.²² In that sense, they violated the principle of “not straying after your heart and eyes.” That is why the Torah describes their mission as V’Yaturu (וְיָתָרוּ). Their task was not merely to observe the land, but to interpret that information through the proper lens. This idea may also be reflected in the Gemara's inquiry as to why in the second, third and fourth chapters of Eicha, the verses beginning with the letter Pei (פ) precede those beginning with the letter Ayin (ע), reversing the normal alphabetic order. Rava explains that this is because the Meraglim conveyed with their mouths (פה) that which they did not see with their eyes (עין).²³ They conveyed conclusions that were not inevitable from what they had witnessed; their failure was not one of sight, but of interpretation.

In the end, the Tzitzit are the antidote to the sin of the Meraglim. They remind us that we encounter countless experiences throughout our lives, but their meaning is all in the perspective through which we view them. The proper frame of mind and attitude is one shaped by the Torah and the Mitzvot of God. We must learn to see thrones of glory, not merely blue strings. We need to avoid straying after our hearts and eyes and instead follow the path that successfully reaches those places of Menucha that the Aron sought out for Bnei Yisrael.

Shabbat Shalom

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Zichron Avinoam | June 12, 2026