The central episode in parshat Shlach is the sin of the meraglim. Upon conclusion of that episode, it is very striking that the Torah turns its attention to a group of halachot that are seemingly unrelated to each other or to the meraglim story. The first two issues, the requirement of nesachim in the context of certain korbonot, and the obligation to separate chalah in the process of kneading and baking bread, focus on life in Eretz Yisrael. These halachot are introduced respectively (Bamidbar 15:2, 18) with the phrases "ki tavou el eretz moshvoteichem asher ani noten lachem" and "bevoachem el ha-aretz asher ani meivi etchem shamah". Rashi (15:2) and Ramban (15:16), invoking these emphases, suggest that the Torah's purpose in delineating these laws in this context was precisely to underscore that notwithstanding the serious setback engendered by the meraglim's betrayal, Jewish destiny in Eretz Yisrael was insured.
However, the subsequent focus on the need for a special korbon for the violation of avodah zarah and the presentation of the mitzvah of tzitzis is puzzling. A brief analysis of these mitsvot may, however, reveal a common theme that makes them especially significant, indeed, crucial as a counterweight to Klal Yisrael's failings in the aftermath of the episode of the meraglim and the other "puraniyot" that preceded it.
Chazal (Shabbat 116a) indicate that the overturned "nun's" that bracket the small section of 85 pesukim in parshat Bahalotchah, beginning with "vayehi binsoa ha-aron" (10:35), establish these pesukim as a distinct biblical book ("sefer"). This status has halachic consequences for the issue of tumat yadayim (Yadayim3:5) and the salvaging of a scroll from a fire on Shabbat (Shabbat 116a). This "sefer" was intentionally placed to interrupt between two calamities ("puraniyot"), so as to deemphasize Klal Yisrael's pattern of destructive behavior. However, it is surely noteworthy that the first of these calamities is not at all explicated by the Torah. Ramban (10:35) rejects Rashi's view that it refers to the actions of the "asafsuf" whose passion for meat led them astray (11:4). Ramban ultimately concludes that the very fact that Klal Yisrael beat a quick retreat from the experience of kabalat ha-Torah lest more mitsvot be imposed upon them, hinted to by the phrase "va-yisiu mei-har Hashem", constituted a significant calamity. He sustains this view even though the Torah explicates neither the crime nor the punishment and despite the fact that this hardly seems to qualify as a sufficiently grave offense to justify the characterization of "puranut", requiring the interruption of an entire sefer.
Ramban's perspective on the subsequent offense/calamity is striking, as well. The Torah conveys only generally that "va-yehi ha-am ke-mitonenim ra be-aznei Hashem"(11:1). Again, the Torah obscures the actual crime, although it must have been a serious breach considering the punishment it triggered- "va-tivar bam eish Hashem va-tochal be-ketsei ha-machaneh". While Rash, Ibn Ezra, and others struggle to pinpoint and reconstruct the specifics of the offending conduct, Ramban (11:1) argues powerfully and simply that the very fact that Klal Yisrael, having experienced Divine providence repeatedly, were capable of petty complaint at this juncture itself justifies such a severe response. According to Ramban, sin, even calamity, is not limited to obviously and objectively reprehensible conduct or the violation of specific stringent aveirot. Flouting broader halachic values, like hakarat ha-tov and ahavat Hashem, especially in contexts that call for and are conducive to more ideal behavior can equally constitute rebellious, reprehensible and destructive behavior, with attendant devastating consequences. It was necessary to divide between the two general, simple, yet powerful failings exhibited by Klal Yisrael by introducing the "sefer" of "va-yehi binsoa". [Undoubtedly, it is not coincidental that Ramban in particular projects this perspective. Ramban demonstrates a pervasive sensitivity to the centrality of broader halachic values that are rooted in but also transcend specific obligations or prohibitions, as evidenced by his famous discussions of kedoshim tihiyu , ve-asita ha-yashar ve-ha-tov , the aseh of shevitah on shabbat-yom tov , arur asher lo yakim et divrei hatorah, etc.]
There is compelling reason to believe that Klal Yisrael did not sufficiently assimilate this lesson, as the episode of the meraglim illuminated the persistence of this fatal flaw. I have argued elsewhere (Parshat Shelach: The Transgression of the Meraglim. TorahWeb.org, 5760 ) that the inability of the nesiim to respond ideally to the challenge of religious leadership in the context of what was needed at that time and in light of all that had preceded, was not merely a sin of omission, but an act of rebellion bordering on blasphemy and idolatry. It is difficult to point to specific aveirot, but their broader spiritual and halachic perspective was certainly significantly flawed. It is possible that the halachot pertaining to the special korbon for avodah zarah, and the mitzvah of tzitzis were formulated in the aftermath of the episode of the meraglim precisely because they project and underscore the importance of a broader commitment and loyalty to halachic life.
Numerous commentators (see, for example, Abravanel for this and other discrepancies...) note that one would have anticipated the Torah's treatment of a korbon for avodah zarah in parshat Vayikra where parallel korbonot are developed. Moreover, the mefarshim struggle with the pesukim that describe the special korbon required to expiate an error leading to avodah zarah. The Torah omits any clear reference to avodah zarah. Instead, it formulates the circumstances that trigger the korbon in terms of a general neglect of the mitzvot - "ve-khi tishgu ve-lo tasu et kol hamitzvot ha-eleh asher diber Hashem el Moshe. Eit kol asher zivah Hashem aleichem be-yad Moshe min hayom asher zivah Hashem ve-halah le-doroteichem" (15:22-23). Ramban attacks Ibn Ezra's interpretation precisely because he emphasizes this general theme, ignoring the received tradition that limits this korbon to avodah zarah. However, Ramban (15:22) attempts to accommodate both the peshat and the halachah. He appears to argue that while technically the korbon is designated only for acts of avodah zarah, the Torah also intends to project a broader concept of avodah zarah that includes lack of identification with Klal Yisrael and a rejection of halachic life generally. Presumably, the Torah projects the significance of avodah zarah as the negation of all Torah (see also Seforno and Neziv), reflected in a unique korban, not only on the basis of its inherent abhorrence as a technical prohibition, but as the embodiment of a total disloyalty and disengagement from halachic life. It was essential to accent this broader motif of avodah zarah in the aftermath of the meraglim episode which was treated in a manner analogous with giduf and avodah zarah despite the complete absence of any technical conduct of this type. Kli Yakar (15:22) examines why the olah of this korbon precedes its chatat, an order atypical of other korbonot. He posits that while the maaseh aveirah (prohibited action), the focus of the chatat, is most consequential in other korbonot, it is the improper attitude that trigers the olah that accounts for the particular severity of avodah zarah. One might add in light of our analysis that the theme of national and theological disloyalty and total halachic disengagement that perhaps justify the inclusion of this section in parshat Shlach dictate this unusual order.
The parshah concludes with the mitzvah of tzitzis. Chazal (Menachot 43b) declare that this mitzvah has stature that corresponds to the entire corpus of 613 mitzvot. Rashi (15:39) explains this based on the numerical value of the term in combination with the number of strings and knots involved in the mitzvah. Ramban (15:39), however, disputes this, and argues that Chazal simply meant that staring at the techelet in the tzitzis and comprehending its significance brings one to a theological and religious awareness that will insure a total commitment to Torah and halachah. Indeed, the pesukim emphasize this broader theme - "u-reitem oto u-zekhartem et kol mitzvot Hashem va-asitem otam." Moreover, the extraordinarily ambitious prohibition of "velo taturu achrei levavkhem ve-achrei eineichem", focusing directly the prohibition to cultivate improper attitutdes (see Sefer ha-Chinuch, no. 387), reinforces the notion that halachic practice needs to be coordinated with halachic values and perspectives, all culminating in the most basic yet most significant affirmation of the Divine presence- "ani Hashem Elokeichem", a truly appropriate antidote to the calamities- puraniyot that culminated with the sin of the meraglim.