Last Shabbos afternoon, as I and some other neighbors gathered for mincha 4.8 miles from the Belmont Racetrack, we were wondering how American Pharaoh - the racehorse owned by an observant Jew and jockeyed by a true spiritual mentch - would fare. He had won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness, and winning the third leg of the Triple Crown down Hempstead Turnpike would make racing history. Due to the gift of Shabbos and its wonderful mandate of electronic unplugging, we were blissfully unaware of the results, as we were basking in the glory of the day of rest. 

As a big believer in the dual axioms that Torah represents the locus of our lives, and that there are no coincidences in life, I emerged from mincha with a smile on my face, confidently predicting American Pharaoh’s victory. After all, we just publicly read the first Aliyah of Shlach, which contains the names of the men representing the twelve tribes who would scout the Land for the Jews in the Sinai Wilderness. The eighth scout, hailing from the tribe of Menashe was Gadi ben Susi. Susi in Hebrew means ‘my horse.’ 

Works every time! 

These twelve scouts become the center of a drama that would impose a verdict of aimless wandering for the next 40 years, a death sentence to the adult Hebrews, and would create an annual rite in which we mournfully sit on the floor reading lugubrious dirges and recalling the worst day in our history.

Many commentaries focus on the different nouns and verbs used for scouting, spying or surveying. But an obvious question emerges at the beginning of the parshah..

(במדבר י"ג:א-ב)

“And HASHEM spoke to Moshe, saying. Send out men for you that they may explore the land of Canaan which I give to the children of Israel, one man each of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send out, every one a prominent one among them”(Bamidbar 13:1-2).

“Every Spy a Prince” was the title of a great book on the history of the Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service. The end of verse 2 describes each one as a nasi. In modern Hebrew nasi means president, as in Obama or Rivlin. From a purely textual point of view, however, one cannot ignore the fact that nasi also refers to the tribal princes who donated twelve identical gifts during the first twelve days after the Tabernacle’s inauguration. It would make sense that the leader of each tribe would be its representative in this reconnaissance mission. Yet clearly, these are not the same men unless they all changed their names or assumed pseudonyms. If the Torah uses the term nasi yet introduces twelve brand new characters why were the twelve tribal leaders mentioned in Parshas Naso not sent on the mission? The scouts left just shy of 3 months after the 12 donations. Presumably they were available?

Several commentaries address this question.

Abarbanel suggests that the original princes died in the rebellion at Tav’erah mentioned in last week’s parshah (Bamidbar 11:3). Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin disagrees. He advances in his Oznayim laTorah that a different type of person is need on such a mission. According to his view, each tribe provided Moshe with a list of possible candidates for the mission and Moshe ultimately selected the one he felt was the most appropriate. The nesi’im were not slighted; a different type of person was needed.  

Similarly, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch stresses the term bahem, which denotes “of them.” While the tribal leaders functioned as the official heads of their tribes - as statesmen - these scouts were less political leaders, and were selected due to their popularity and influence among the people of their tribe. Netziv in his Emek Davar goes a bit further. He writes that this was a mission that required men who were knowledgeable in reconnaissance, topography, warfare and military strategy. This operation was not a mere political gesture, or a symbolic act.

Me’am Loez suggests that the princes from parshas Naso needed to remain back home leading their tribes and preparing for travel. Moshe feared that if he sent the princes, it would cause dysfunction in the day-to-day running of the tribes. 

A different approach is advanced by Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk. He opines in his Meshech Chochmah that while the original nesi’im were selected by Hashem, Moshe chose the m’raglim. 

So the answer takes on a few basic themes.

The nesi’im were not available; they died during a rebellious plague.

The nesi’im were not appropriate for this specific task.

The nesi’im were needed ‘back home.’ They did not have the ability to travel.

It was meant to be a totally different group of leaders.

Personally, I’m very happy that no one made negative claims against the nesi’im. After all, Rashi cites a Midrash that sheds some negative lights on the nesi’im (see Shmos 35:27). The verse states that the nesi’im donated the onyx stones and stones to be set for the breastplate of the high priest. Yet the Hebrew word nesi’im is spelled with the minimum amount of letters, known as chaser in Hebrew. When this takes place the sages often see it as an attempt to present the subject in a negative light. What then was their transgression, to deserve such a literary slight? Rashi quotes Rabbi Nassan’s question: why did the nesi’im donate last when the donations were solicited for the construction of the Temple but did so immediately upon the inauguration of the Tabernacle? The nesi’im figured that they would donate last to the Tabernacle to supplement whatever was needed prior to completion. But they did not count on the nation donating more than Moshe and Betzalel could handle (see Shmos 36:7). So the Midrash shows how they fixed their initial error and donated early when the next opportunity arose.

I would imagine that some could look at their donations during the first twelve days of the Inauguration of the Tabernacle and comment how lame they were: they all brought the same gift. Most Torah commentaries actually compliment them on showing unity and uniformity in bestowing their respective favors. 

Leadership is difficult. To paraphrase a popular aphorism, often you just can’t win whether you do or you don’t. How many generous donors and philanthropists match gifts? They wait to see what everyone else donated and match, or double the gift. Or they wait to see what is left over and generously provide it. Conversely, can you imagine if every US Senator gave the same exact gift to a dignitary (not to give one big one on behalf of all of them). That would be awkward, gauche and embarrassing.

Sefer Bamidbar is all about leadership, its successes, challenges and often times, its futility. Interestingly in addition to being called Bamidbar (in the wilderness), the fourth of the Five Books of Moses, is also called numbers, or in HebrewSefer hapikudim, the book of the census. Both describe leadership. You need to make decisions based on data, on numbers and figures. But like a desert, you are also often alone, your visibility is limited and you are both freezing (at night) and scorched (during the day). You can’t win no matter what the data says.

I see another valuable lesson in the answers we have seen to our initial question about the two sets of leaders. We have already learned via Moshe’s shver (father in law) the need and import of delegation of responsibility. No one can do it all, nor should they if they can. It is important to empower others. 

But here, at least according to some of the commentaries, we are taught a different component of leadership. A leader must understand his or her limitations. If someone else is more suited for the job, let them do it. Know those around you and be aware of their talents. When they are most fit to complete a task, invest them to do so. A leader must know his or her employees or colleagues well in order to accomplish this.

Assuming the nesi’im were alive and could have left their posts, it’s important for a leader to know that they are not the most qualified for everything. As a matter of fact, I’ve always been interested in Moshe’s role in the whole episode. He sends the scouts and gives them their marching orders (we’re not exactly sure if it was his initiative or God’s based on the verses in chapter 1 of Devarim). When the scouts return, they come to “Moshe, Aharon, all of the nation of Israel in the desert of Paran in Kadesh” (Bamidbar 13:26). It appears that Moshe heard their report when the entire nation did. Yet (Ibid. 14:1-2) they complained to Moshe and Aharon. Moshe and Aharon fell on their faces and Kalev and Yehoshua mourned. 

If a leader is not cognizant of his/her strengths and weaknesses, they cannot lead. Most leaders, unless they truly live in an ivory tower surrounded by a moat, are aware of these positive and negative traits. Knowing someone else can do a better job is a critical component of the job description of the leader, the theme of Sefer Bamidbar.