Why the Israelite Spies Resented Being Compared to Grasshoppers
No one knows the risks we face,
whether we’ll succeed or come a cropper,
but no one gets to even the first base
if he regards himself as a grasshopper.
Though one day locusts may destroy
what we’ve prepared, by imitating ants,
we surely never will enjoy
a future if we never take a chance.
Whereas all grasshoppers can jump,
the spies sent to explore the Holy Land
refused, and chose instead to grump,
disaffection making them demand
avoidance of all risks that must
be taken, such as jumping to conclusions,
as optimists do when they trust
what very sadly often are delusions.
Num. 13:33 explains why the response of ten of the Israelite scouts doomed their expedition to the land of Israel:
לג וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ, אֶת-הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק–מִן-הַנְּפִלִים; וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים, וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם. 33 And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, v’kein, and so, we were in their sight.’
Reuven Chaim Klein in “Lice Ain’t Nice,” in his column “What’s in a Word?” after pointing out that the Hebrew word kinnim, meaning lice, appears at least six times in the Bible, adds:
[One] possible instance of this word in the Bible is when the Ten Spies related their experience scouting out the Holy Land and told of the giants that inhabited that place. In that context, the spies said, “And we were in our eyes like grasshoppers, and we were kein in their eyes” (Num. 13:33). The classical way of interpreting the word kein in this verse is “likewise,” as the spies felt small when compared to the giants and felt that the giants likewise viewed them as small when compared to themselves. However, in light of the above, Malbim (there) suggests reading the word kein here as “louse,” with the spies saying that they felt as small as grasshoppers in their own eyes, and felt that in the eyes of the giants, they were as insignificant as lice.
Num. 13:33 explains why the response of ten of the scouts doomed their expedition to the land of Israel:
וְשָׁ֣ם רָאִ֗ינוּ אֶת־הַנְּפִילִ֛ים בְּנֵ֥י עֲנָ֖ק מִן־הַנְּפִלִ֑ים וַנְּהִ֤י בְעֵינֵ֙ינוּ֙ כַּֽחֲגָבִ֔ים וְכֵ֥ן הָיִ֖ינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶֽם׃ : And there
we saw the Nephilim —the Anakites are part of the Nephilim—and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them.”
Steven Shapin, the Franklin L. Ford Professor of the History of Science at Harvard, reviewing Malthus: The Life and Legacies of an Untimely Prophet by Robert Mayhew, in “Libel on the Human Race,” LRB, 6/5/14, quotes Bill McKibben:
Mary Douglas once asked rhetorically whether we can ‘know the risks we face, now or in the future’. ‘No, we cannot,’ she answered, ‘but yes, we must act as if we do.’ The game of predicting future states is wracked with uncertainties, and it’s always good to remember that, but it’s a game that has to be played, and one can’t imagine the shape of any present drained of its envisaged futures – predicted, prepared for, dreaded, anticipated with delight. So, in acting, we have a choice of optimistic or pessimistic frames of mind. Will something always ‘turn up’ to save us from catastrophe? Noam Chomsky once recommended optimism as a motive to action: ‘Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, you are unlikely to step up and take responsibility for making it so.’