The difference between Rashi’s explanation and the Talmud’s.
While the Talmud said very tersely “that they did not have a share in the plan,” Rashi was more lengthy with his words and stated, “for the intention of the others was to present a slanderous report, [namely,] just as its fruit is extraordinary, so its people are extraordinary.”
The simple difference between the two versions is as follows:
According to the Talmud, one can explain that the reason that they did not partake in carrying the fruit was in order not to be involved with an action that could have been interpreted as participating in the others’ scheme, even though the actual act of carrying the fruit was not inherently negative.
According to Rashi though, the actual carrying of the fruit was a part of their evil plan. Therefore, it is understood that the reason that they did not wish to participate was because the intent of this very action was to libel the land.
This however, does not seem to absolve them of their directive from Moshe.
Another aspect that must be understood is how did Rashi came to the conclusion that according to the simple understanding of the Torah, the spies were ill intentioned with the bringing of the fruit? On the contrary, it seems that the opposite was their intent.
When the spies returned from the Land of Israel and came back to Moshe, they told him, “We came to the land to which you sent us, and it is flowing with milk and honey, and this is its fruit.” On this verse Rashi comments as follows:
Any lie in which a little truth is not stated in the beginning cannot be maintained in the end.
Rashi, Bamidbar 13:27
This means to say, that this statement of the spies regarding the truly positive qualities of the land was indeed genuine, and it was therefore stated in order to make their other negative statements of the land believable to the rest of the Israelites as well.
If so, how can Rashi be so sure that their actual taking of the fruit was with malicious intent? It seems that this act was specifically one of the only positive reports that they brought back!
The Explanation
Amongst the mitzvos of the Torah, there are those whose main intent are the action itself and there are those mitzvos whose intent is the result of an action.
Similarly with Moshe’s command, “You shall be courageous and take from the fruit of the land,” there are two ways to understand the directive:
- The primary intent was that the Israelites see the fruit, but the actual act of bringing it back with them was unimportant.
- Since Moshe said “be courageous and take,” it is understood that there was an importance given to the act of taking the fruit as well.
It can be explained, that according to the Talmud’s understanding, the main aspect of taking the fruit was the result—that the Israelites see the fruit—and therefore the actual act was not important. There wasn’t an actual command to carry the fruit, but rather that the fruit be brought to Moshe and to the Israelites.
Accordingly can be understood the two reasons that the Talmud offers for the fact that Yehoshua and Calev did not carry the fruit.
Being that the mission of bringing back the fruit was accomplished without them actually participating, Yehoshua and Calev did not go out of their way to carry the fruit, either because of their important stature, or in order not to be part of the scheme. There was no reason that they specifically needed to bring back the fruit.
Rashi
Rashi’s opinion though, is that when Moshe said to “be courageous and take from the fruit of the land,” this was a commandment that each of the spies should personally carry back fruit.
It is for this reason that Rashi is unable to explain that the reason that Yehoshua and Calev did not bring back fruit was because “they were distinguished,” as their individual importance could not dissolve them of their personal obligation to bring back the fruit of the land.
For this reason as well, Rashi does not employ the same language that the Talmud does when explaining why Yehoshua and Calev did not bring back the produce of the land.
Rashi does not say “that they did not have a share in the plan,” as this use of words can be explained to mean (as seen above) that the reason they did not bring back the fruit was so that others would not have mistaken them to have been part of the scheme.
Being though, that Rashi is of the opinion that they had a personal responsibility to bring back the fruit, the way that they would have been perceived is not a valid cause to absolve them of their obligation.
One can say that it did not actually override the directive of Moshe, but that Moshe’s thought to begin with was to bring the fruit with a positive intent. If there was no positive intent, then there was as well no directive to bring back the fruit.
It is for this reason that Rashi wrote that Yehoshua and Calev did not carry any fruit because “the intention of the others was to present a slanderous report, [namely,] just as its fruit is extraordinary, so its people are extraordinary.”
Rashi’s intent in these words was not to say that the other spies declared this plan outright, for as previously mentioned, this was the “little truth” that solidified their lie. Rather, Rashi is saying that although the other spies outwardly announced that the fruits and the land were good, their “intention” was that through this they would have the ability to slander the land.
With this understanding, Yehoshua and Calev’s nonparticipation in bringing back the fruit can be appreciated as well:
Were there to have been no malicious intent in the other spies’ act of bringing back the produce of the land, it is obvious that Yehoshua and Calev would have joined in with them in fulfilling Moshe’s request.
However, since this good act was accompanied with an evil intent, they were unable to take part in this effort. For, if would they have brought back the fruit, they would be assisting in a sinful act, and refraining from helping the spies accomplish something sinful overrides even the direct command of Moshe.
