The narrative of the Sin of the Spies which form the heart of the Parshah and the pivot of the book of Numbers, contains several enigmas, such as who initiated the mission. One of those questions concerns G-d’s reaction to the incident. After Moses argues against destroying the people for their faithlessness, G-d replies that ‘I have forgiven according to your word’, a phrase that we use on Yom Kippur. Yet He then proceeds to condemn that generation to die in the wilderness. What sort of forgiveness is this? This is in contradistinction to what happened after the sin of the Golden Calf, were following Moses’ pleas G-d merely agrees to refrain from destroying them, with forgiveness coming only later.

I think the answer to this riddle lies in the Sin of the Spies itself, which is not one, but two distinct transgressions. If we examine their words see that they first state that the Land is not conquerable because the inhabitants are too strong. However, after Caleb counters their argument, saying that they can indeed conquer the Land, they change tack. The other spies now contend that the Land is one which ‘consumes its inhabitants’ and thus is not just unconquerable but not worth conquering.

These two distinct arguments posit two separate sorts of contentions. One concerns the advisability of entering the Land, the other the desirability. To argue that it is not possible to win a fight against the Canaanites is to make a practical argument about the advisability of the venture at the current time. This shows a lack of belief in G-d but is still a transgression that can be forgiven. To say that it is not valuable or necessary to enter the Land is an ideological argument concerning the desirability of the undertaking and represents a rejection of G-d’s whole project and therefore cannot be countenanced. What G-d is therefore saying is that He indeed forgives the people’s disbelief. However, as they themselves have rejected his plan for them, it will be necessary to defer its fulfilment for a generation.

This distinction is important as we consider some of the arguments made against the Zionist project in the past and today and how we should view them. To argue against the advisability of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel for various practical reasons is an argument that can be contained within Judaism, no matter how mistaken most Jews currently believe it to be. To argue against the desirability of such a project or to deny the centrality of the Land to Jewish life is a contradiction to all Jewish history and thought, from the Torah until the modern era, and cannot be contained within Judaism.  G-d’s two responses to the Sin of the Spies thus provide a template for handling the disputes of today.