Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 13-14

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the linguistic parallels between the original account and Moshe's retelling here.
• For an interactive table which allows for easy comparison, see here.

The following articles analyze the similarities and differences between the two narratives.

• See The Story of the Spies in Bemidbar and Devarim for comparison and contrast of the two narratives and an overview of exegetical approaches to interpreting the reasons for and meaning of the differences. According to some, Moshe purposefully recasts the story in a way that emphasizes the guilt of the nation rather than the sin of the individual spies. Others suggest that each story is told from a different perspective, with one focusing on the need for reconnaissance and the other on the need to survey the land for purposes of inheritance. A third approach suggests that the differences are not fundamental but rather the result of literary variation.
• See בכייה לשעה ובכייה לדורות, by R. Yaakov Medan, for an analysis that interprets the narrative in Bemidbar as a mission initiated by Hashem and the narrative in Devarim as a mission initiated by the people.  According to R. Medan, each plan had its own distinct goals and purposes (spying versus land appraisal), and the fiasco was a result of Moshe erring in combining the two into one mission.  
• See סיפור התרים את הארץ בפרשת שלח והחזרה עליו בנאומו של משה בפרשתנו, by R. Elchanan Samet, who, like R. Medan, suggests that the two narratives speak of two independent initiatives that were fused into one mission, spying (לחפר) and scouting (לתור).  Each book focuses on a different aspect because they have different narrative purposes.  In Bemidbar, the Torah emphasizes the sin of the spies, elaborating on how they rejected the good proffered to them, repudiating their mission of displaying the good of the land. In Devarim, Moshe emphasizes the sin of the nation rather than that of the spies, noting how their initial zeal to conquer (as expressed in their taking the initiative to send spies) dissipated within just forty days.
• Compare also חטא המרגלים, חטא העם ועונשו של משה, by R. Amnon Bazak, which elaborates on one point of contrast between the two narratives, noting that Devarim emphasizes that the responsibility for the sin lies with the people, rather than the spies themselves. This is consistent with Moshe’s goals in Sefer Devarim. It also explains why Moshe includes himself in the blame in his retelling of the sin, as he considers himself responsible for the people’s actions.

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two stories. Despite the shared themes, there is not significant linguistic overlap between the two narratives.

• See ריגול צבאי וריגול מדיני, by Prof. Yonatan Grossman, for a contrast of the two narratives of spies that demonstrates that the goal of Moshe’s spies was political (to report to the people on the land broadly speaking) whereas the goal of Yehoshua’s spies was military and tactical.
• See בין סיפור התרים את הארץ לסיפור המרגלים ביריחו, by R. Elchanan Samet, for a comparison and contrast of the two narratives.  He, like R. Grossman, notes that there are many differences that suggest that Moshe’s spies were sent to evaluate the land whereas Yehoshua’s were sent on a military mission, but he adds that there is one similarity: both sets of spies deviate from their mission.  Moshe’s spies give their military opinion where it was not requested, and Yehoshua’s spies give their positive assessment of the land.  In this sense, the story in Yehoshua serves as amends for the story in Bemidbar.   
• See מעשי בנים -- תיקון לחטאי אבותם, by R. Gilad Strauss, for analysis of several narratives in which later generations repair the misdeeds of their forebears, including the stories of the family lines of Shimon and Levi and of Yehudah and Tamar, and the two stories relating to spies. He notes that though Yehoshua's spies, having almost been caught, had good reason to return full of fear, while Moshe's spies had no parallel experiences and should have returned full of trust in God, it is specifically Yehoshua's spies whose report is positive and demonstrates deep belief in Hashem and the conquest.

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare Hashem's initial declaration after each sin that He wants to destroy the nation and Moshe's prayer to avert the decree.
• In both stories the "13 attributes of God" are invoked (in Shemot by God, in Bemidbar by Moshe).  Compare which attributes are mentioned in each story here.

• R. David Dov Levanon, in his article, חטא העגל וחטא המרגלים, compares the severity of each sin and what each of them represents in the context of the deterioration of the nation's relationship with Hashem. He suggests that the sin of the calf was a sin of action; the people worshiped Hashem in the wrong way, but still believed in God.  The sin of the spies, on the other hand, was a sin of will; the nation lacked the desire to see the good and enter the land. A sin of action is much easier to correct than one of will, and thus was punished less severely.
• See Ki Tisa: From the Egel to the Second Luchot, by R. Yair Kahn, which discusses how the sin of the spies had harsher consequences than that of the calf. Though the tablets were broken after the sin of the calf, repentance and Moshe's prayers allowed for a renewal of the covenant. No parallel repeal of punishment can be found after the sin of the spies. This factor might relate to the differing natures of the fast days of the 17th of Tammuz (associated with the breaking of the tablets) and Tisha Be’Av (associated with the sin of the spies). Tisha Be'av is a day of mourning rather than supplication because it commemorates intractable decrees of calamity, while the 17th of Tammuz is a day of beseeching because it recalls times of distress which can be averted by sincere repentance.
• See The Two Journeys, by R. Jonathan Sacks, for a comparison and contrast of the narratives of Shemot and Bemidbar as a whole.¹ The rebellions of Bemidbar seem more grave, Moshe seems more shaken, and the tone of the book as a whole is less optimistic. In the view of R. Sacks, this is due to the fundamental difference between the psychological experience of a "journey from" and a "journey to". Fleeing from danger is much easier than heading towards the unknown.
• See The Two Prayers of Moses, by R. Alex Israel, for comparison and contrast of Moshe's prayers after each sin. R. Israel analyzes why in Bemidbar Moshe omits some of the arguments made after the sin of the calf and why he does not mention all "thirteen attributes of mercy".  He also notes that Moshe’s prayer after the sin of the spies is more moderate than after the sin of the calf; he stops at ensuring that the people will not be completely destroyed rather than seeking true forgiveness.

• See Makbilot BaMikra for links to the many place where lists of divine attributes appear in Tanakh, including Shemot 20, 34, Bemidbar 14, Devarim 7, Yirmeyahu 32, Yonah 4, Nachum 1 and more.
• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare any of the above to each other. For example, compare the attributes mentioned after the sin of the calf and after the sin of the spies here.

• See RambanBemidbar 14:17-20About R. Moshe b. Nachman who seeks to understand why Moshe includes only some of the attributes in his prayer after the sin of the spies.

• See Can There Be Compassion Without Justice? by R. Jonathan Sacks, for discussion of the relationship between mercy and judgment in the 13 attributes. He points to studies that demonstrate that societies need justice alongside mercy, for without belief in a punitive God (or in secular societies, belief in a system of justice) there is both more crime and less human forgiveness.
• In The 13 Midot of Rachamim,² R. Menachem Leibtag notes how the characteristics of Hashem’s judgment, described in Shemot 20:4-6, are transformed into qualities of mercy in Shemot 34:6-7, in the wake of the sin of the calf.  The wilderness period is marked by God's instantaneous punishment of the sinful, stemming from His direct presence in the nation's midst. After the sin, Hashem recognized that this was potentially disastrous and therefore decided to remove His presence. Moshe, uncomfortable with the solution, suggested a compromise, that Hashem mix justice with mercy and allow for non-immediate retribution, and, hence, repentance and pardon. The thirteen attributes attest to this new type of providence, one in which Hashem is no longer a "vengeful God" but a "God of mercy",  no longer "filled with anger" but "long to anger", and no longer "עשה חסד" but "נוצר חסד" etc.³
• Amongst the attributes is the idea that "Hashem visits the sins of the fathers on the sons".  See Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?, which analyzes the many Biblical passages that take different approaches to the issue of collective and vicarious punishment and gives an overview of commentators’ interpretations and resolutions of the seeming contradictions. 

• Listen to The Rebellion of Korach, by R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, for contrast of these two sins. Whereas the sin of the spies represents a popular revolt of the mob, the rebellion of Korach represents a movement of the elite.
• See מה משותף ומה מבדיל בין פרשת מרגלים לפרשת קרח, by R. Menachem Bronfman, for comparison and contrast of the many differences in circumstances and motivation between the two sins,⁴ as well as the underlying similarity of an extreme lack of faith in Hashem.
• See Korach: The Incense Challenge, by R. Chanoch Waxman, for a comparison and contrast of the two sins. Whereas the spies were plagued by underestimating their own worthiness, Korach’s rebellion was motivated by a grandiose sense of self.

• Use Makbilot Bamikra to find links to the many verses which speak of the nation's various complaints, including Shemot 14:10-14, Shemot 15:22-25, Shemot 16:2-4, Shemot 17:1-7, Bemidbar 11:1-4, Bemidbar 14:2-3, Bemidbar 20:1-6, and Bemidbar 21:4-7.

• Listen to Sefer Bemidbar: From Doubt to Debate, by Atara Snowbell, for a close reading and analysis of the evolution of the Israelites’ complaints from Shemot 15 through Bemidbar 21, reflecting their increasing faith and independence.
• See מסע בעקבות תלונות עם ישראל במדבר, by Dr. Brachi Elitzur, for a nuanced comparison and contrast of the complaints in the desert along six different parameters: the situation that prompted the complaint, the way that the Torah describes the people and their complaint, the content of their request, the way that the nation relates to Egypt, and the consequences of the complaint.