Parshas Shelach
1. At the end of our parsha, Rashi cites1 from R. Moshe HaDarshan: "למה נסמכה פרשת מקושש לפרשת ע"ז לומר שהמחלל את השבת כעובד ע"ז שאף היא שקולה ככל המצות כו'" ("Why was the portion of the wood-gatherer juxtaposed to the portion of idolatry? To say that one who desecrates Shabbos is like one who worships idols, for it too is equivalent to all the mitzvos, etc.")2.
In Tosafos3 it states: "מעשה המקושש הי' בתחילת ארבעים מיד אחר מעשה מרגלים דאמר במדרש דלשם שמים נתכוין שהיו אומרים ישראל כיון שנגזר עליהן שלא ליכנס לארץ ממעשה מרגלים שוב אין מחויבין במצות עמד וחילל שבת כדי שיהרג ויראו אחרים" ("The episode of the wood-gatherer took place at the beginning of the forty years, immediately after the episode of the spies, for the Midrash says that he intended it for the sake of Heaven: for the Jews were saying, 'Since it has been decreed upon them not to enter the Land because of the episode of the spies, they are no longer obligated in mitzvos.' He arose and desecrated Shabbos so that he would be executed and others would see"). Accordingly, the juxtaposition of the portion of the wood-gatherer to our parsha as a whole is understood — our parsha speaks about the sin of the spies (which is the main narrative in our parsha, and after which the entire sidrah is named — Parshas Shelach) — since the episode of the wood-gatherer came about as a result of the episode of the spies.
Since the Torah places the portion of idolatry between the episode of the spies and the portion of the wood-gatherer, it is understood that according to Tosafos as well, the portion of the wood-gatherer is connected to the portion of idolatry, similar to what Rashi cites from R. Moshe HaDarshan, and as Tosafos4 explain the Gemara5: "יודע הי' משה רבינו שהמקושש במיתה שנאמר מחללי' מות יומת אבל לא הי' יודע באיזו מיתה" ("Moshe Rabbeinu knew that the wood-gatherer was liable to death, as it says, 'Those who desecrate it shall surely be put to death'6; but he did not know by which death")7 — that "אע"ג*7 דמיתה סתם חנק היא, מתוך הסברא הי' מדמה לעובד עבודת כוכבים דבסקילה דמחלל שבת בפרהסיא ככופר בעיקר דכופר במעשה בראשית" ("Even though an unspecified death penalty is strangulation, by reasoning he compared him to one who worships idols, who is executed by stoning, for one who desecrates Shabbos publicly is like one who denies the fundamental principle, since he denies the work of Creation")8.
One may add: this connection (of the portion of the wood-gatherer to the portion of idolatry) lies (only) in the essential sin of Shabbos and of idolatry. But from the fact that the juxtaposition is not simply to an ordinary sin of Shabbos desecration, but to the sin of the wood-gatherer specifically, it is reasonable to say that the portion of idolatry is connected to the manner of Shabbos desecration as it was in the case of the wood-gatherer — that "he intended it for the sake of Heaven."
One may further say: since all this is part of Parshas Shelach, whose main subject is the portion of the spies, one must say that this matter too is connected with the content of the episode of the spies9.
2. This will be understood by first explaining the words of the Midrash that Tosafos cites: that "he intended it for the sake of Heaven: for the Jews were saying, 'Since it has been decreed upon them not to enter the Land because of the episode of the spies, they are no longer obligated in mitzvos'; he arose and desecrated Shabbos so that he would be executed and others would see."
Seemingly: in order to demonstrate that one is still obligated in mitzvos — why did he need specifically to desecrate Shabbos? Especially since through this yet another very grave sin is added, "את דמכם לנפשותיכם" ("your blood of your lives") — shedding one's own blood10 — for he brings about that "he would be executed." He could have demonstrated it by transgressing some other mitzvah, even a very light sin, which incurs lashes, a monetary penalty, and the like.
In Targum Yonasan11 too, the general content appears, that the wood-gatherer did not mean to desecrate Shabbos deliberately but intended it for the sake of Heaven; but the explanation there accounts for why he desecrated specifically Shabbos: since at that time they knew only "גזירת שבתא" ("the decree of Shabbos"), but the punishment for desecrating Shabbos — "קנסא דשבתא לא אשתמודע להון" ("the penalty of Shabbos was not known to them") — this was the intention of the wood-gatherer: that through his actions "אשתמודע קנסא לכל בית ישראל" ("the penalty [of Shabbos] would become known to the entire house of Israel").
But according to the Midrash (cited in Tosafos), that he did this to demonstrate that one is obligated in mitzvos, it is not understood why he chose Shabbos desecration, as mentioned above.
The explanation of this is based on the words of the Maharsha12 on the question: how could he desecrate Shabbos in order to make known by which death one who desecrates Shabbos is executed? He explains13: since he needed the labor only "לידע באיזו מיתה כו', ה"ל מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה כמו חופר גומא וא"צ אלא לעפרה שהוא פטור לר"ש" ("in order to know by which death, etc., it was a melachah she'einah tzrichah legufah — a labor not needed for its own sake — like one who digs a pit and needs only its earth, who is exempt according to R. Shimon"). And he concludes: "וכן י"ל לפי המדרש שכתבו התוס' כו' דה"ל נמי מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה" ("And so one can say according to the Midrash that Tosafos wrote, etc., that it was likewise a labor not needed for its own sake").
Accordingly, it is understood, according to the Midrash cited in Tosafos, why he demonstrated this through a Shabbos labor specifically: because he did not want to commit a sin, while at the same time the above clarification would be achieved; and this is so specifically with Shabbos, where a labor not needed for its own sake is exempt (according to R. Shimon)14 — to the extent that, as stated in Kedushas Levi14*, "א"כ לא חילל שבת כלל" ("if so, he did not desecrate Shabbos at all").
3. Nevertheless, G‑d said, "מות יומת האיש רגום אותו גו'" ("The man shall surely be put to death; stone him...")15 — that he was liable to death — even though before Heaven it was revealed that it was a labor not needed for its own sake, and that he intended it for the sake of Heaven, to the extent that "he did not desecrate Shabbos at all" [even more: this was an act for the sake of Shabbos observance — his intention was that the observance of Shabbos (and in general — Torah and mitzvos)16 be strengthened among Jews]17.
The Maharsha12 explains that this is because "לא ידעו העדים שהתרו בו שהוא עשה על דעת זו ואינן אלא דברים שבלב ודנין היו אותו למיתה ע"פ העדות" ("the witnesses who warned him did not know that he did it with this intention, and these are only matters of the heart, and they would judge him to death according to the testimony"). The meaning of this is not that he was stoned in error (because of the witnesses' lack of knowledge)
— for the Torah is a Torah of truth18, and if, according to the truth, from the standpoint of his intention, "he did not desecrate Shabbos at all," G‑d would not have commanded, "The man shall surely be put to death..."19 —
rather, the liability to stoning "בדיני אדם" ("in human courts")20 is, according to the Torah of truth, upon the deed and the action. And since his deed was a deed of Shabbos desecration, according to the law of the earthly court21 it is an act for which one is liable to stoning, and his intention is entirely irrelevant22.
4. Based on this, the connection of the portion of the wood-gatherer to the portion of idolatry is understood:
Regarding idolatry we find a special matter that we do not find with the other mitzvos of the Torah: every Jew, even the lowliest of the low, when faced with a test of idolatry, gives up his life "אפי' שלא לעשות רק איזה מעשה לבד נגד אמונת ה' אחד כגון להשתחות לעבודה זרה אף שאינו מאמין בה כלל בלבו" ("even so as not to perform merely some act alone against the belief in the One G‑d, such as bowing down to an idol, even though he does not believe in it at all in his heart")23.
This requires explanation: the main sin of idolatry is the belief in the heart — he regards as a true entity one of the created beings besides G‑d, an angel, a sphere, or a star24; he accepts it (the object of worship) as a deity25. When "he does not believe in it at all in his heart," this is not the sin of idolatry; he has not torn himself away from G‑d. On the other hand, even if he does not give up his life, he incurs no punishment, since it is an act done under duress26.
Rather, since this is an act of idolatry — even though it is not the content of the sin of idolatry — for Jews here below it is called the prohibition of idolatry, and he gives up his life for it.
And this is the connection of the portion of the one who gathered wood on the Shabbos day to the portion of idolatry:
The entire content of a Shabbos labor is bound up with one's thought and intention — "מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה" ("The Torah forbade meleches machsheves, purposeful labor") — which is why27 one is not liable for a labor not needed for its own sake [and especially in our case, where he did it "for the sake of Heaven," it is not an act of Shabbos desecration at all]28. Nevertheless, since the act in itself, as it appears in the world, is an act of Shabbos desecration (for the fact that it was a labor not needed for its own sake was not visible at all in the act), according to the Torah of truth he incurs stoning for the deed.
5. Based on all the above, we will also understand the connection in content between the episode of the wood-gatherer and "the episode of the spies":
It is explained in many places29 that the reason the spies wanted to remain in the desert and not enter the Land of Israel is that the main occupation of the Jews in the desert (where they did not need to occupy themselves with earning a livelihood, etc.) was Torah study (as our Sages say30: "לא ניתנה תורה לדרוש אלא לאוכלי המן" ("The Torah was given to be expounded only to those who ate the manna")), and Torah study is essentially understanding and comprehension31 in intellect and thought32 (and also bringing it down into speech33); whereas in the Land of Israel — where "שש שנים תזרע שדך גו' תזמור כרמך" ("Six years you shall sow your field... prune your vineyard")34 — and in the inner sense, the main service there is action: practical mitzvos (especially the fulfillment of the mitzvos dependent on the Land34*), and good deeds in general (ovdin tavin).
With this we will understand the aforementioned words of the Midrash (cited in Tosafos): "for the Jews were saying, 'Since it has been decreed upon them not to enter the Land because of the episode of the spies, they are no longer obligated in mitzvos.'" From the plain wording of the Midrash it is implied that they did not mean to rebel against G‑d, heaven forfend, by not fulfilling mitzvos, but rather35 that "they are not obligated in mitzvos." Seemingly this is puzzling: what is the reason for their supposition?
Had they said, "כיון שנגזר עליהם מיתה" ("Since death has been decreed upon them")36 or the like, one could still explain their supposition (with great difficulty, at any rate): that since their sentence of death had been decided, they are like a "dead man" (gavra ketila) and have no obligations. But what is the supposition that "since it has been decreed upon them not to enter the Land, etc., they are no longer obligated in mitzvos"?
But according to the above, one can say that this itself was their supposition: since the matter of entering the Land is (mainly) for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvos in action, they reckoned, "Since it has been decreed upon them not to enter the Land because of the episode of the spies, they are no longer obligated in mitzvos" — the service of fulfilling the mitzvos in action does not apply to them [even those mitzvos in which they had been obligated until then, especially since many commands were given as a preparation for entering the Land37 (that in the merit of these mitzvos they would enter the Land of Israel38)], and their entire service consists only of Torah study (in thought and speech) — "they are not obligated in mitzvos."
And to this comes the continuation, the episode of the wood-gatherer — "he arose and desecrated Shabbos so that he would be executed and others would see": this demonstrates that even in matters whose entire content is "purposeful labor," and where he did it "for the sake of Heaven," not to transgress the will of G‑d — nevertheless, here too the main thing is the actual deed. That is why the Torah of truth says that the halachic ruling below is that this is Shabbos desecration, and it incurs stoning.
And this taught the Jews who remained in the desert at that time that even though "it has been decreed upon them not to enter the Land," this means only that they do not reach the main fulfillment of mitzvos in action as it is in the Land of Israel; but for them too, remaining in the desert, what matters in their service is mainly how it comes down into actual deed (to the extent that this applies in the desert39),
because the essence of a mitzvah — tzavsa (bonding) and connection with G‑d — is achieved through the deed of the mitzvah.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Shelach 5719, and Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5739)
Notes
1) He did not cite it in its place earlier, at the beginning of the portion of the wood-gatherer (15:32), because (as has been discussed many times) the juxtaposition of portions is not a difficulty or a matter requiring explanation in the plain meaning of Scripture — see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 18, p. 141ff. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 23, p. 62ff.
2) See Chullin 5a, end, and Rashi there (and there it is relevant to halachah). And see Rambam, end of Laws of Shabbos (cited below, note 8), and the commentators on Rashi here.
3) Bava Basra 119b, s.v. Afilu.
4) Bava Basra ibid. 119a, s.v. She'ne'emar. Sanhedrin 78b, s.v. Lo hayah yodea. And see also Chiddushei HaRashba, Bava Basra ibid.
5) Bava Basra and Sanhedrin ibid. Similarly in Sifri on our parsha, 15:34.
6) Ki Sisa 31:14.
7) Cited also in Rashi on our parsha, ibid., 34. But Rashi changes it and writes, "They did not know . . . but they knew, etc." (and similarly in Rashi on Emor 24:12), which follows Toras Kohanim on Emor ibid., and not the Gemara and Sifri, according to which Moshe did not know. This is not the place to elaborate.
*7) The wording of Tosafos, Sanhedrin ibid.
8) And in Rashi on Chullin ibid.: "One who worships idols denies the Holy One, blessed be He, and one who desecrates Shabbos denies His works and testifies falsely that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not rest during the work of Creation." Note the precise wording of the Rambam there: "Shabbos and the worship of stars and constellations* — each of the two is equivalent to all the other mitzvos of the Torah" (and he continues), "and Shabbos is the sign between the Holy One, blessed be He, and us forever. Therefore [OCR unclear] but one who desecrates Shabbos publicly is like one who worships stars and constellations**, and both of them are like worshippers of stars and constellations** in all their matters." See Likkutei Sichos vol. 30, p. 130, note 37. This is not the place to elaborate.
*) This is a change made by the censor, as in many places in the Rambam, and it should read "avodah zarah" (idolatry). And so it is in the Rambam (Rome printing, [OCR unclear]).
**) A change made by the censor; it should read "like gentiles," as in the aforementioned Rome printing.
9) And the portion of the libations (15:2ff.) and the portion of challah (ibid., 17ff.) — their connection to the portion of the spies is understood according to Rashi there, 2: "He gave them the good tidings that they would enter the Land." And [OCR unclear], 6: "Why was the portion of challah juxtaposed to the portion of idolatry, etc."
10) Noach 9:5 (and Rashi there).
11) On our parsha, on the verse 15:32.
12) Chiddushei Aggados, Bava Basra ibid.
13) And see also Rosh David, beginning of Parshas Pinchas; Penei David by the Chida, on our parsha here — see there; Kedushas Levi on our parsha, on the verse.
14) And see Responsa Or HaMeir, §2, that even according to R. Yehudah (who holds that one is liable for a labor not needed for its own sake), in our case he is exempt, based on what Tosafos write (Shabbos 73b), that in the case of detaching, even according to R. Yehudah one is exempt when one does not need the wood (and so is the view of the Rambam, Laws of Shabbos 8:4); and the wood-gatherer "detached and uprooted sticks" (Targum Yonasan here).
14*) On our parsha, on the verse.
15) 15:35.
16) Note the Responsa of the Radbaz (cited in Gilyonei HaShas on Tosafos, Bava Basra ibid.), vol. 5, §1468, that one who transgresses a negative commandment, if he intends it for a mitzvah, even if he was warned, does not receive lashes. And in the Responsa of the Radbaz, vol. 1 (§76): "And when he erases the Name in order to correct the scroll, etc., he destroys, yet nevertheless I concede that he does not receive lashes, since he thinks he is doing good and correcting, etc." And see there in Gilyonei HaShas.
17) And in Rosh David and Penei David ibid.: this itself was Moshe's doubt — whether he is liable to death, since he acted for the sake of Heaven, and also since it was a labor not needed for its own sake.
18) Note the Ramban on the Torah (Shoftim 19:19): "That G‑d will not deliver the righteous judges who stand before Him to shed innocent blood, for judgment is G‑d's, etc." See there what he writes regarding the reason that false (zomemim) witnesses who caused an execution are not executed.
19) For although his intention was "so that he would be executed and others would see," the Omnipresent has many ways to fulfill his intention — that the Jews should know that they are obligated in mitzvos.
20) See also the Chida in Responsa Chaim She'al, vol. 2, §3. See [OCR unclear], Ma'areches Mem, §20.
21) And so one must apparently interpret what is written in Kedushas Levi ibid.: "They only stoned him on account of the public, who did not know of this, as in the plain meaning of the Midrash."
22) See similarly Likkutei Sichos vol. 9 (p. 111ff.) regarding the reason that "those liable to death by the court . . . if they repented, the earthly court does not pardon them" (Makkos 13b, beginning) — see Responsa Noda BiYehudah, Orach Chaim, first edition, §35; the Chida cited above; and what is cited in Gilyonei HaShas, Makkos ibid.
23) Tanya, end of ch. [OCR unclear] (25b).
24) See Rambam, beginning of ch. 2 of Laws of Idolatry. And see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 20, p. 17ff.
25) See Rambam ibid. 3:6. And see Tzafnas Pa'neach there.
26) Rambam, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 5:4. And see Tosafos, Sanhedrin 61b.
27) Chagigah 10b, beginning, and the sources cited there.
28) Note the responsum of Rabbi Akiva Eiger (vol. 1, §8) on the difference between the exemption of mis'asek (one who acts unawares) and meleches machsheves: "Specifically where there is no meleches machsheves, it is not included in the category of labor, and the transgression was not committed at all."
29) Likkutei Torah, beginning of our parsha (36a; 38b–c). Or HaTorah there. And see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 18, p. 153ff., and the sources cited there. And elsewhere.
30) Mechilta, Beshalach 16:4.
31) As it says (Vaeschanan 4:6), "היא חכמתכם ובינתכם" ("It is your wisdom and your understanding").
32) To the extent that "in the Oral Torah, if one does not understand the meaning, it is not considered learning at all" (the Alter Rebbe's Laws of Torah Study, end of ch. 2, from Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim, §50).
33) Eruvin 54a. The Alter Rebbe's Laws of Torah Study, ch. 2, §2.
34) Behar 25:2–3.
34*) See at length in the places cited in note 29.
35) In Divrei David on our parsha, on the verse, he explains the word "in the desert" in the verse according to the aforementioned Midrash: "That is, after the episode of the spies the Jews became ownerless (hefker) like a desert, etc.; they behaved as ownerless with regard to the mitzvos, and this one came, etc., to nullify the ownerlessness."
36) Similar is the wording in Kedushas Levi here.
37) And especially according to Sifri and Rashi on Eikev 11:17 (18): "Even after you are exiled, be distinguished in the mitzvos: put on tefillin, make mezuzos, so that they will not be new to you, etc." And see at length Ramban on Acharei 18:25: "For the essence of all the mitzvos is for those who dwell in the land of G‑d."
38) See Kiddushin (36b, end), regarding the mitzvos of tefillin and redeeming the firstborn donkey.
39) See at length Likkutei Sichos ibid.
Key Lesson
The wood-gatherer acted for the sake of Heaven, yet because his deed was outwardly an act of Shabbos desecration, the Torah of truth judged the deed itself. So too, even when a Jew's main avenue of service is Torah study in thought and speech, the essence of serving G‑d is the actual deed, for it is through the deed of a mitzvah that one is truly bound with G‑d.