Russian novelist and activist Alexander Solzhenitsyn once commented that “the one good thing about repeating your mistakes is that you know when to cringe.” When one reads through Sefer Bamidbar, it is hard not to cringe as you see our nation falter so many times.
On the surface, the greatest sin of the desert generation is the sin of the egel hazahav, the golden calf. Some consider the sin literally incomprehensible; the commentaries struggle to understand how a nation could rebel against G-d, committing idolatry, under the leadership of the kohen gadol. Some go to great lengths to downplay the magnitude of their sin, but however one understands the narrative, we are not shocked that they are punished for such an atrocious crime.
Yet in our parsha, the punishment for the chet hamiraglim, the sin of the spies, surpasses that of the egel hazahav. We do not find a full forgiveness, and the entire nation with few exceptions is destined to perish before reaching Eretz Yisroel. It seems reasonable to assume that the sin of our parsha, an act which changed the course of history, was incredibly significant.
But the Ramban in his opening comments to our parsha asks a critical basic question on the narrative:
What did the miraglim do wrong?
Moshe commands them:
Ureesem es haaretz ma hee- tell me about the quality of the land. Hatovah hee im raah- is it good or bad.
Haam hayoshev aleha, and the nation that dwells there, hachazak hu harafeh, are they strong or weak?
Habimachanim im bmivtzarim- are the cities fortified.
They were sent to scout the land, to ascertain the strength of its inhabitants, and to assess the security.
They return: The land is good. The people are giants. The cities are heavily protected.
Everything they said was true! They did their job!
Where is the terrible sin that warrants the death of an entire generation!?
In 1981 psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman published a study on human rationality and decision making which I believe sheds light on the sin of the miraglim.
They divided participants into two groups, and asked each group to choose a theoretical treatment plan for 600 people infected with a deadly disease.
Group 1 was told the following: 600 people are infected with this deadly disease and there are two options, two different modes of treatment.
If we opt for Treatment A, 400 people will die. Treatment B has a risk: a 1 in 3 chance that no people will die, but a 2 in 3 chance that all 600 will die.
What would you choose?
Tversky and Kahneman found that 22% of participants chose Treatment A. 600 infected people, 22% chose Treatment A where 400 people will die, and the rest, by far the majority, opted for treatment B, with a 1 in 3 chance no one dies, 2 in 3 chance that all 600 will die.
This was Group 1.
Group 2 was given the same information, but the choices were worded very differently.
If we opt for Treatment A, we will save 200 lives. Treatment B has 1 in 3 chance of saving all 600 people, but a 2 in 3 chance of saving no one.
Groups 1 and 2 were told the exact same information, but form different perspectives. Group 1 was told how many people will die, and group 2 how many will be saved.
For group 1, only 22 percent chose Treatment A, 400 people dying.
Group 2, who heard saving 200 lives, chose Treatment A 72% of the time.
Both groups were given the exact same information, but it was framed very differently. Only 22% chose Treatment A when it was framed negatively as “400 will die,” but over three times as many people chose this same option when it was framed positively “saving 200 lives.”
The 15th century Rav Elyahu Mizrachi explains that this was the sin of the miraglim. The Miraglim shared the facts, but then they framed the information negatively: THIS NATION IS STRONGER THAN US. WE CANNOT NATURALLY DEFEAT THEM. The righteous Yehoshua and Kalev did not argue with the factual report, they simply stressed Hashem itanu al tiraum- Hashem is with us do not fear! But their voices were drowned out by the negativity that the miraglim had framed around the report.
We hear and read reports like those of the miraglim every day. I read an article online, and immediately scroll to the comments underneath. What did everyone else think. More often than not, the online comments have something to criticize, framing the article negatively.
Advertising agencies take advantage of framing all the time. Even the wealthiest consumer would never buy something marketed as EXPENSIVE, but that same person will reach for his or her wallets at the word LUXURIOUS. On a tight budget, a person does not search for a CHEAP car, he or she seeks an AFFORDABLE car.
Of course, framing can be very beneficial. One of my best friends in high school has an infectiously positive personality, and I found myself laughing out loud every time I watched a movie with him. Later I would speak to someone else and find out the movie received negative reviews and most considered it lame. The experience watching that movie was framed positively by my friend’s upbeat personality.
By nature, as humans, the words and actions of those around us affect us, and there is only so much we can do to combat this framing tendency which often affects us subconsciously.
But one thing we certainly con control are the frames that we ourselves place.
These frames affect ourselves, and those around us.
We place frames around our Judaism. We place frames around our Jewish identity.
At Yeshiva University, they prepare students for Halachic-Workplace issues that may arise. Business ethics, eating out at non-kosher restaurants, holiday gifts and greeting. A friend of mine commented that he feels they overlook the greatest issue that he confronts: he finds himself embarrassed to make a bracha in front of his non-Jewish co-workers. How can he bench, or say asher yatzar after using the restroom without appearing strange?
When we frame our Judaism as a set of restrictions and odd customs, we feel this discomfort. If we feel embarrassed by our Jewish identity, then how are we framing Judaism for ourselves? for our families? For the next generation? We can choose to frame our religion as a road-map for a life of closeness with the Almighty
How do we frame the Jewish community? The Orthodox Jewish community has its share of challenges, but if we share cynicism and pessimism at the Shabbos table each week, how are we framing these issues for those around us? Beyond the larger Orthodox community, how do we frame our local orthodox community? The Riverdale community, the RJC community, and the microcommunities that make up the RJC community. If we do not demonstrate respect for our differences and strive for hopefulness and confidence in our future, then what type of frame are we putting around ourselves?
Lastly, the very item that the miraglim framed negatively: the Land of Israel. Every Zionist community and Zionist home must put thought to the frame placed around the situation in Israel. We cannot allow or accept the frame that others may place on the situation.
The generation of the desert were victims of the framing effect. They accepted the pessimism of the miraglim because it was the loudest voice in their ears. It is our job to present a different frame for ourselves, our families, and our communities.
No responses yet