The visit of the spies to the Land of Israel described in Parashat Shelah takes up just five verses, so we will learn of the spies’ impressions only from the descriptions that they share afterwards. In order to understand the source of their assessment and recommendations, we must return to the visit itself, as it is described in the Torah in Bemidbar 13:
21 They went up and scouted the land, from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, at Lebo-hamath.
22 They went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron, where lived Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the Anakites.—Now Hebron was founded seven years before Zoan of Egypt.—
23 They reached the wadi Eshcol, and there they cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes—it had to be borne on a carrying frame by two of them—and some pomegranates and figs.
24 That place was named the wadi Eshcol because of the cluster that the Israelites cut down there.
25 At the end of forty days they returned from scouting the land.
It appears that at the centerpiece of the trip stood the giants who they identified as the residents of the land, together with the amazing size of the fruit that they found. Based on the Torah’s description of how two people were needed to carry a cluster of grapes, we can only guess how large they really were. Aside from the grapes, there are other fruits that are mentioned – pomegranates and figs – that also appear to be of unusual size. The rabbinic sages applied themselves to the question of the size and weight of the grapes, basing themselves on the amount of effort that would be needed to carry them; they conclude that it would have had to have been a fantastic quantity of grapes that were carried by the two men – all in a single cluster.
At first glance, this description of amazing fruits might be understood as an example praise for the Land. It appears that the Land really is uniquely fertile, which, in an agrarian society, should serve as a solid foundation for sustenance and a booming economy. In fact, we find many similar stories told by the rabbinic sages about the fruits of the Land of Israel:
Rami bar Yeḥezkel happened to come to Benei Berak. He saw those goats that were grazing beneath a fig tree, and there was honey oozing from the figs and milk dripping from the goats, and the two liquids were mixing together. He said: This is the meaning of the verse “A land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8).
Rabbi Ya’akov ben Dostai said: There are three mil from Lud to Ono. Once I rose early in the morning and I walked in ankle-deep honey oozing from fig trees.
Ketubot 111b
Once Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi happened to come to Gavla, in the Golan, and he saw those clusters of vines that were standing as large as calves.
Ketubot 112a
The Gemara in Ketubot shares many similar stories, where the sages vie to out-do each other with fantastic stories about the grandness of the Land of Israel. One of those stories relates to an enormous cabbage stalk. The Midrash Pesikta on Parashat Shelah connects those stories with the stories of the fruit brought back by the spies, thereby reading the descriptions found in the Torah as exaggerations:
…and do not be surprised by this cluster of grapes…
It is taught in a baraita that Rav Yosef said: There was an incident which occurred in the village of Shiḥin, in Eretz Yisrael, involving one whose father had left him three branches of mustard, one of which broke. And they discovered on this one branch alone nine kav of mustard. And with the wood of its large branches they roofed a booth for artisans. Similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Taḥlifa said: Father left us a cabbage stalk and we would go up and down on it with a ladder, due to its great height.
Pesikta Zutarta Shelah 106a
According to the Pesikta, the exaggerated descriptions that we find in the Gemara – of the fig honey fertilizing the land, of giant grape clusters growing in the vineyards and of cabbages that required ladders to climb them – are of the same reality as the spies’ descriptions in the Torah. Both offer unrealistic, indeed, unnatural, descriptions, and the suggestion of the midrash is that the purpose of the exaggerations is the same, as well. Our job is to determine what that purpose was.
Perhaps we can get an idea of the purpose of those exaggerations from a Gemara in Massekhet Sotah, where we find a discussion of how the fruits were carried by the spies who brought them back from the Land of Israel:
Eight of the spies carried the cluster of grapes, one of them carried a pomegranate, and one carried a fig. Joshua and Caleb did not carry anything. Why did Joshua and Caleb not carry anything? If you wish, say that it is because they were more prominent than the others and it was beneath their dignity to carry such a load. And if you wish, say instead that they did not take part in the wicked counsel of the spies.
Sotah 34a
All agree that Yehoshua and Calev did not carry any fruits. Eight of the spies carried the grape cluster together, one carried the pomegranate and one carried the fig – all together ten of the spies participated in carrying the fruit.
Why weren’t Yehoshua and Calev involved? One approach attests to the stature and prominence of those two leaders, for whom the physical toil of carrying the fruits was deemed inappropriate. According to this approach, there was nothing wrong with bringing fruits back from Israel, as these fruits served as proof to the goodness and abundance of the Land. According to the second approach, however, it appears that Yehoshua and Calev refrained from carrying the fruits for ideological reasons – they were not involved in the counsel of the spies – and that the plan to return with the huge-sized fruit may have had problematic intent.
Perhaps the purpose of the stories told by the rabbinic sages was to emphasize how the Land of Israel is an extraordinary place. It is not a physical place like all other places in the world, rather it is a place of dreams and aspirations (see Rav Yehuda Brandes, Aggadah LeMa’aseh 2). Similarly, the spies made use of these fruits in order claim that it was beyond the ability of human beings to attain the Land of Israel. This appears to be the approach of the Zohar in Parashat Shelah, where the claim is made that there is a play on words: that carrying the cluster of grape of a “mot” – a pole – serves “le-motet” – to undermine – the idea of successfully entering the land:
This is the meaning of the verse that is written “They carried it on a pole (mot) between two men.”
What is a “mot”? As we find written “He will not let your foot give way (la-mot)” (Tehillim 121:3)…
They said: This land is a good land…but who can possibly attain it?
(Zohar Bemidbar)
According to this approach, the spies presented the land in a positive light, but as something that was unattainable. In order to encourage aliyah to Israel, it is necessary to dispel the imaginary aura developed about it in the imagination of the Diaspora. The more authentic it is, the more realistic it becomes. It is told that Rav Nahman of Breslov said to his students: When I was in the Land of Israel I heard from reliable witnesses that prior to their arrival in the Land they recognized that it is an actual place in this physical world. Its earth is like the earth of any other country and its appearance is no different than the appearance of other countries. And yet, it is different from all other places.
Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Levi, who preceded him, recognized that the desire to move to Israel had become like “the buzzing of a bird.” No one reciting those words in prayer really believed them and no one considered doing so in a serious manner. Once the Land of Israel became impossible to attain, its reality was forgotten and abandoned.
Yet differences remain between the description of the Land in the Torah and in the stories of the sages. The story related in the Torah appears to be an actual report and a factual description, whereas the stories in the Gemara are, quite clearly, legendary portrayals.
The connection made by the Pesikta between the descriptions of the spies and the aggadot of the Gemara offers an apparently simple solution to the difficulties that those descriptions raise – in both cases there is a deliberate literary and conceptual exaggeration. Still, the verses themselves appear to be presenting a literal description of what took place, inasmuch as they appear as the voice of the biblical narrator and not in the subjective voices of the spies.
If we assume that the amazing fruits are actual descriptions and not exaggerations, we are faced with the fact that the Land of Israel is complicated. There is something captivating about the Land of Israel, something that is powerful and compelling – yet, at the same time, it has real-world authenticity. This combination is the secret of its power. Even if it threatens those who come to conquer it, it offers a wonderful promise to those who are deserving of it.
