Parashat Shlach Lecha: Joshua & Caleb, Caleb & Joshua

Hebrew

Even before the spies depart on their mission, one of them is singled out from the others: “Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua.” (Num. 13:16). The midrash asks “Why did Moses need to add a ‘yod’ to his name.” Remember that question.

Skipping ahead to verse 22, “And they went up into the South, and he came unto Hebron” the grammar of the verse leads us to ask, “did only one spy go to Hebron? If so, which one and why?”  

The Talmud, Raba answers both questions: Raba said: It teaches that Caleb held aloof from the plan of the spies and went and prostrated himself upon the graves of the patriarchs, saying to them, 'My fathers, pray on my behalf that I may be delivered from the plan of the spies' as for Joshua, Moses had already prayed on his behalf; as it is said: And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua,  [meaning], May Yah save thee [yoshi'aka] from the plan of the spies.

If Joshua and Caleb both needed divine protection from the other spies because they disagreed with their conclusions, why did Moses pray for Joshua but leave Caleb to pray for himself?

An additional question that arises from an examination of the two good spies behaviors is why, immediately after the majority report, does Caleb alone make the minority report and attempt to calm the people, “And Caleb stilled the people toward Moses, and said: 'We should go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.'” (13:30).

The Hafetz Haim, Rabbi Israel Meir HaCohen Kagan (1838-1933), proposed a solution to these questions and others related to the story of the spies in his book Guard Your Tongue:

Indeed, there truly are two ways/paths in God’s service when misguided forces gain power in the world and one of God’s servants must spend several weeks among them. Should he immediately exposes his inner strength, declares his true beliefs and argue with their false belief or rather should he keep silent or even express agreement with them, until they appear publicly before the Jewish community and only then state his true opinion and denounce their falsehood before all.

He then explains that both methods have an advantage and a disadvantage. Ongoing debate will help the believer maintain his position but exposes him the possibility that the others will plot to harm him. The second possibility does not have that fear but remaining quiet or pretending to agree with the majority might lead to a weakening of faith. The later path also has a strategic advantage because the majority is unaware of the lone believer’s opposition to their position, they will not plan a defense and will be surprised, possibly shocked into silence, when he reveals his true opinion in the public debate.

Therefore, the Hafetz Haim claims that Moses, through a prophetic vision, understood the different personalities of Joshua and Caleb. He knew that Joshua would argue with the others the entire time (apparently he also knew that there would be something to argue about) and therefore he would need heavenly aid to protect him from harm. Caleb, on the other hand, kept quiet and so he did not need that type of protection. However, when they reached Hebron and saw the power of the kings there, he decided to strengthen his resolve by praying on his ancestors’ graves. This is also the reason that he alone contradicts the majority report, making of the advantage of surprise and neutralizing the spies claim (in the midrash) that Joshua’s opinion was not even worth considering because he was a minority of only one. He concludes the section by stating that although Joshua is usually named first, sometimes Caleb is, in order to indicate that both possible paths of action are acceptable to God, as long as the ultimate motivation is good.

The message is not that the end sanctifies the means but rather that the criteria for minding your mouth is broader than telling “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as longer as the speaker isn’t testifying under oath.

The Hafetz Haim is making another important point here: good people who believe in the same causes and have the same goals can legitimately adopt different tactics to reach that goal, depending on their personality and/or the particular circumstances.