Seasonality

“וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים”

מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ אֵין תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז בְּלֹא תְאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים

At the beginning of Parshas Shelach, Moshe Rabbeinu gives the Meraglim instructions for their fateful mission. They were to scout the land of Canaan, trying to determine the strength of its inhabitants. As Chazal explain, each of the three instructions at the beginning of the Passuk had a specific purpose—the answer to each question would tell them something else about the land. The Passuk ends, however, on a seemingly unrelated note: “וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים”. The days in which the Meraglim travelled, the Passuk tells us, were the season of the grape ripening.

The Medrash draws a conclusion based on these words: “מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ אֵין תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז בְּלֹא תְאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים”, we learn from these words that the grapes always ripen during Tekufas Tamuz.

What is this meant to teach us? Why do we need to know that the grape season is tied to Tekufas Tamuz to the extent that the Passuk includes these words? How is the fact that “אֵין תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז בְּלֹא תְאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים” related to the story of the Meraglim ?

The truth is that there are also several questions on the Passuk that the Medrash does not address. First, why is it important for us to know when the Meraglim left for Eretz Yisroel, during which part of the year their mission took place? And if it is important for us to know this, why does the Torah identify the time of year in this way, telling us which fruits were ripening at the time, rather than stating outright what date it was? Surely there are other ways to inform us when the Meraglim left, why did the Torah choose the words “וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים”?

Finally, presuming we understand why it is essential to know when they left, and why the Torah described the season in this way, another question must be answered: why is this information appended to the Paassuk in which Moshe explains how the Meraglim were to perform their exploration? The first part of the Passuk quotes the words of Moshe Rabbeinu , but the last words, “וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים”, are narrative, so to speak. Why are they combined?

One can only assume that the words “וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים” are truly significant, and their placement here is not coincidental. The conclusion of the Medrash, “אֵין תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז בְּלֹא תְאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים”, must be similarly significant. How? What are we meant to learn from these words?

Perhaps adding to the imperative to understand this Medrash is that fact that this is not the only time that Tekufas Tamuz is mentioned in relation to Te’enim V’Anavim .

The Passuk in Eicha says: “נִשְׂקַד עֹל פְּשָׁעַי בְּיָדוֹֹ”. Rashi explains that the word “נִשְׂקַד” appears in no other place in Tanach, but can perhaps be understood based on a similar word in Aramaic that means a yolk used for cattle.

The Medrash Eicha , however, notes that this uncommon word seems related to the word “שָׁקַד”, which means to guard or keep watch over something. Based on this the Medrash makes a Drasha : “שָׁקַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵיךְ לְהָבִיא עָלַי אֶת הָרָעָה”. HKBH, teaches the Medrash, is diligent, so to speak, in the way He punishes us. Although it is difficult to understand exactly what this means, the Medrash brings several examples of this truism. Among them:

אָמַר אִם אֲנִי מַגְלֶה אוֹתָם בִּתְקוּפַת טֵבֵת, אֵין עֲנָבִים בַּגֶּפֶן וְאֵין תְּאֵנִים בַּתְּאֵנָה, אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי מַגְלֶה אוֹתָם בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז, שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֲנָבִים בַּגֶּפֶן וְיֵשׁ תְּאֵנִים בַּתְּאֵנָה

Explains the Medrash: it was clear that we would have to go into Galus, and that if it occurred during Tekufas Teves, which is the winter, there would be nothing to eat as we were driven from Eretz Yisroel. Therefore, HKBH ensured that the Galus was brought during Tekufas Teves, the summer months, when Te’enim V’Anavim are readily available along the road.

This is an example of the Middah of “שָׁקַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵיךְ לְהָבִיא עָלַי אֶת הָרָעָה”: even when we must be punished, HKBH makes sure to bring it about in a less painful manner.

This Medrash also associates Tekufas Tamuz with the Te’enim V’Anavim , further highlighting their seemingly innate connection. There is, however, a pressing question that must be asked here.

The Passuk, later in our Parsha says: “וַתִּשָּׂא כׇּל הָעֵדָה וַיִּתְּנוּ אֶת קוֹלָם וַיִּבְכּוּ הָעָם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא”.

The Medrash there tells us:

שֶׁבָּכוּ בְּלֵיל תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב, וְאָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתֶּם בְּכִיתֶם בְּכִיָּה שֶׁל חִנָּם לְפָנַי, אֲנִי אֶקְבַּע לָכֶם בְּכִיָּה לְדוֹרוֹת, וּמִן אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נִגְזְרָה עַל בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ שֶׁתִּתְחָרֵב, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּגְלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבֵין הָאֻמּוֹת

The night that the Meraglim returned and gave their disastrous report, causing Bnei Yisroel to cry, was Tisha B’Av , and Hashem told them: “אַתֶּם בְּכִיתֶם בְּכִיָּה שֶׁל חִנָּם וַאֲנִי קוֹבֵעַ לָכֶם בְּכִיָּה לְדוֹרוֹת”. The Medrash adds: at that time it was Nigzar that the Bais HaMikdash would be destroyed on the same day, Tisha B’Av , bringing about “בְּכִיָּה לְדוֹרוֹת” each year on Tisha B’Av .

This Medrash, which is similar to a statement made by the Gemara, makes it clear that the Chet of the Meraglim , and more specifically the בְּכִיָּה שֶׁל חִנָּם of Bnei Yisroel, determined that the Churban would occur on the same night so many millennia later. If so, why does the Medrash Eicha imply that the time chosen for the Galus that followed the Churban was related to the Middah of “שָׁקַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵיךְ לְהָבִיא עָלַי אֶת הָרָעָה”? While it is true that the presence of the Te’enim V’Anavim during Tekufas Tamuz was beneficial, the date of the Churban seemed to have been determined by our actions and not the suitability of the season. How, then, can we understand the Medrash Eicha ?

It certainly seems, from both the Medrash Rabba here and the Medrash Eicha , that there was more than an incidental connection between the Chet of the Meraglim and the season during which this story occurred, which was the “יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים”. Perhaps a better understanding of their actions will allow us insight into these Mamarei Chazal.

When we think about the Meraglim , one of the most pressing questions that arises concerns their character and motives. On one hand, the Torah tells us “כֻּלָּם אֲנָשִׁים רָאשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵמָּה”, which Rashi explains is a Lashon of Chashivus . Later, however, Rashi explains that the words “וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ” tell us that the Meraglim had the same intentions at the beginning of their trip as they did at the end—they planned to deliver this message all along. How do these two facts meld with one another? If they were indeed “אֲנָשִׁים רָאשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל”, why were their intentions so misguided from the very outset?

R’ Yitzchok Isaac Sher, in Leket Sichos Mussar on Shabbos Nachamu , speaks about the Meraglim in a way that addresses this very question.

The principal Middah of the Meraglim , explains R’ Sher, was their sense of Yiras HaChet , a Middah that the Mesilas Yesharim ascribes to “ Malachim Gedolim V’Ramim ”. True Yiras HaChet comes from an acute understanding of the Romimus Hashem leading to a sense of trepidation, lest one take any action that is not entirely in concert with the Ratzon HaBorei .

The Meraglim , who were “אֲנָשִׁים רָאשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל”, had reached this level, and understood that any even the slightest misstep could have serious ramifications, and this led to their concern. They knew that Bnei Yisroel would only have a hope of dispatching the inhabitants of Eretz Yisroel if they were Zoche to large measures of Siyata D’Shamaya , and they knew that Aveiros can inhibit Siyata D’Shmaya . The Meraglim were concerned that if Bnei Yisroel were to enter the land and then commit Aveiros , they would not be Zoche to the Nissim that victory required, and they would perish. It was precisely because they had true Yiras HaChet and understood that even the smallest Aveirah is too large that the Meraglim feared for the success of their nation.

Instead, explains R’ Sher, they had another idea: “נִתְּנָה רֹאשׁ וְנָשׁוּבָה מִצְרָיְמָה”. The stronger Mitzriyim had perished at Yetzias Mitzrayim or in Krias Yam Suf , and the country was weakened. Therefore, it would be easier for Bnei Yisroel to conquer Mitzrayim and establish their homes there. This would diminish their reliance on Siyata D’Shmaya , as opposed to that which would have been necessary for a more extensive set of battles, rendering less significant the threat of their Chataim .

R' Sher continues, discussing the ultimate root of this thought process.

The Meraglim , he explains, believed more in themselves than in HKBH. They thought that it was their own Tzidkus that enabled them to attain Eretz Yisroel, and therefore worried that they would be unsuccessful if this Tzidkus were tarnished by Chet. Instead, they should have understood that they would be Yoresh the land if HKBH willed it to be so, whether they were deserving or not. Their fault, he concludes, was in their lack of Bitachon in Hashem, and an inflated sense of the importance of their own Tzidkus .

R' Sher reads this into a Passuk in Parshas Devarim: “בַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֵינְכֶם מַאֲמִינִם בַּד׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם”. This Passuk describes the Meraglim as lacking Emunah, but cannot possibly be speaking of basic Emunas Hashem. Rather, it must be that they lacked Emunah that Hashem would help them in their efforts despite their actions.

Although R’ Sher does not say this, we can perhaps add that the Emunah that the Meraglim lacked was in the presence of Hashem, the Shem of Rachamim, in confluence with Elokim , the Shem of Din. They thought that if they were lacking, if they were Choteh , they would be subject to Din and only Din, losing the Siyata D’Shmaya that they required for victory. They did not have complete Emunah that there could be a reality of "ד׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם”, where the two existed in tandem.

If we think about it, the strongest expression of this reality, a presence of Rachamim even in times of Din, is the concept of “שָׁקַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵיךְ לְהָבִיא עָלַי אֶת הָרָעָה”. Even when the ultimate Din is required, leading to Churban and Galus, it is done at a time that will provide relative comfort and ease.

With this in mind, we can perhaps understand the Passuk and the Medrash.

When the Meraglim set out upon their mission, they were given a set of instructions: “עֲלוּ זֶה בַּנֶּגֶב וַעֲלִיתֶם אֶת הָהָרוּרְאִיתֶם אֶת הָאָרֶץ מַה הִוא וְאֶת הָעָם הַיֹּשֵׁב עָלֶיהָ". They were meant to scout the land, in the interests of Hishtadlus , but they were also meant to keep in mind that the Yerushas HaAretz was dependent on the Ratzon Hashem and not their Tzidkus . They stumbled in this regard, leading to tragedy, and we have suffered the results ever since.

While we pay for their actions, we need not repeat them. Therefore, the Passuk adds one phrase at the end of their practical instructions: “וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים”. There is no “before and after” in the eyes of Hashem: the Meraglim were sent forth in Tekufas Tamuz so that their report would take place on Tisha B’av , and the ensuing “בְּכִיָּה לְדוֹרוֹת” would therefore take place during Tekufas Tamuz, the time of the “בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים”.

When the Medrash Eicha tells us “שָׁקַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵיךְ לְהָבִיא עָלַי אֶת הָרָעָה” it does not mean that this took place at the time of the Churban—the entire series of events that led to the fateful night of “וַיִּבְכּוּ הָעָם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא” was set in motion in a way that would guarantee a less arduous journey into Galus. The Passuk tells us “וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים” to highlight

the area of Emunah in which the Meraglim were in some way deficient: “בַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֵינְכֶם מַאֲמִינִם בַּד׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם”.

The statement of the Medrash can now be understood in a different light: “מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ אֵין תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז בְּלֹא תְאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים ”

There are times in our history as a nation, and each of our personal lives, that we hear the echoes of the Dvar Hashem: “ , אֲנִי אֶקְבַּע לָכֶם בְּכִיָּה לְדוֹרוֹת”. We know that the painful times are an outgrowth of the Galus that stems from that fateful night. At those times, we must recall that “אֵין תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז בְּלֹא תְאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים”. Whenever Hashem places us in a difficult situation it is done with the Middah of “שָׁקַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵיךְ לְהָבִיא עָלַי אֶת הָרָעָה”, with the combination of the Middas HaDin and Middas HaRachamim expressed by the words “ד׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם”. During these times, if we are sensitive to it, we will see the Te’enim V’Anavim that HKBH has planted along the way, ensuring that we traverse the difficult times in the easiest way possible.