A Three Day Journey/2/he

"דרך שלשת ימים"?

גישות פרשניות

סקירה

Commentators disagree regarding whether any deception was involved in the request for merely a three day journey. Some suggest that Moshe did not mislead Paroh. According to HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, upon Paroh's denial of the original request, Moshe demanded complete freedom, and thus Paroh was fully cognizant from a very early stage that he was being asked to emancipate the nation. In contrast, the Netziv proposes that the change in plans occurred only after the unworthy among the Hebrews perished in the Plague of Darkness, as it was only then that the rest of the nation merited complete redemption. Finally, R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that had the Egyptians not drowned in Yam Suf, the Israelites would have in fact returned to Egypt as promised, and apparently the Exodus would have occurred in stages.

Most exegetes, though, think that the request was indeed a ruse, and a necessary one. They argue that had Moshe requested permanent freedom (an outrageous request by the moral standards of that era), Paroh would not have granted the Israelites even temporary leave, the Egyptians would not have loaned their valuables, and the process which ended with the Egyptians drowning at Yam Suf would not have been triggered. Additionally, the full extent of Paroh's intransigence would not have been displayed, and Moshe himself might have even been beheaded. Ramban also agrees that there was intent to deceive, but he proposes that the primary target of the deception was the Children of Israel themselves, who were not yet mentally prepared to leave Egypt permanently to go and conquer Canaan.

The differing positions are influenced by their views on a number of related issues. Under what circumstances or for what purposes is deception and/or lying permitted? How inflexible was Paroh? What is the meaning of "דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים"? What was Paroh thinking when he finally let the nation go, and why did he give chase so soon after?

No Deception

Some commentators explain that Hashem did not mislead Paroh, and that although Moshe's original request was for only a three day journey, changing circumstances caused the ultimate departure to be a permanent one. The variations of this possibility differ regarding the cause and timing of this change:

Upfront from the Start

Only the initial request was for a three day holiday, and after Paroh rejected it, Moshe upped the ante and demanded permanent freedom for the Israelites. There was thus no deception because Paroh knew of the plans all along.

מקורות:ספר הנצחוןספר הניצחון נ״אאודות ר' יום טוב ליפמן מילהויזן, הכתב והקבלהשמות ג׳:י״חשמות ד׳:כ״גשמות י׳:י״אשמות י״ב:ל״בשמות י״ד:ה׳אודות ר' יעקב מקלנבורג

Purpose of the initial three day request – These commentators explain that this request was intended only to demonstrate how hard-hearted and inflexible Paroh was, that he would not consider even a temporary leave.¹

Moshe's subsequent conversations with Paroh – According to this approach, Moshe requested permanent freedom for the people even before the Plagues and throughout the process.² However, this position does not explain why in the middle of the Plagues (8:23) Moshe again mentions a leave of only three days.

Deception not permitted – R. Lipmann-Muhlhausen is reluctant to attribute deception or a lie to Hashem or Moshe. Regarding borrowing vessels, he writes (#49): "בזה טעו רבי' לפרשו דרך שאלה והלוואה... וח"ו שהש"י צוה לעשות זאת. ותמה על עצמך הא כתיב מדבר שקר תרחק". R. Mecklenburg is similarly reluctant, and this is consistent with his general tendencies in defending the Patriarchs.³

"שַׁלַּח אֶת עַמִּי" – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah asserts that the intensive פִּעֵל form of the verb שלח means to send away permanently, and stands in contrast to the simple פָּעַל form which means simply to send.⁴ For more, see שלח‎.⁵

"וְיַעַבְדֻנִי" – According to R. Lipmann-Muhlhausen and R. Mecklenburg, this refers to becoming servants of Hashem, and not just a one-time act of religious sacrifice.⁶

Understanding the negotiations – This opinion does not account for the protracted negotiations between Moshe and Paroh as to whether women, children, and livestock would be able to accompany the men.⁷ In fact, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah (Shemot 10:11) appears to say that Paroh was petitioned merely for a temporary journey, and it was only his suspicion that Moshe's real intention was to leave permanently.

Permanent freedom granted at the Exodus – When Paroh finally agreed to release the Israelites, it was with the full knowledge that they were leaving for good. R. Mecklenburg reads "וּבֵרַכְתֶּם גַּם אֹתִי" in Shemot 12:32 to mean that Paroh will be blessed by their permanent departure as he will no longer need to endure further plagues.⁸

Despoiling Egypt – As the Egyptians knew that the Israelites were leaving permanently, both of these commentators understand that the gold and silver vessels were given as outright gifts, not loans.⁹ See Reparations and Despoiling Egypt.

Why did Paroh give chase? "כִּי בָרַח הָעָם" poses a difficulty particularly for the position that Paroh had given the Israelites their unconditional release.¹⁰ HaKetav VeHaKabbalah thus attempts to reinterpret "בָרַח" as if it were a passive (נפעל) form related to בריח, and thereby explains that Paroh thought the Israelites were locked in by the desert (as in "סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם הַמִּדְבָּר"‎).¹¹

Choice of the Wilderness Route – According to this approach, the choice of the longer route was likely out of concern that the Israelites were unprepared to conquer Canaan, and had nothing to do with the Egyptians ultimately giving chase.  For further discussion, see The Roundabout Route.

Switch Prior to the Exodus

The original request and subsequent negotiations related only to a three day journey. However, the situation changed after the Plague of Darkness, and when Paroh ultimately granted permission, it was to leave forever.

מקורות:נצי״בשמות ג׳:י״חשמות ה׳:ג׳שמות ז׳:ה׳שמות י״א:א׳שמות י״א:ב׳שמות י״ב:ל״אשמות י״ב:ל״השמות י״ד:ה׳במדבר ל״ג:ד׳אודות ר' נפתלי צבי יהודה ברלין¹²

Purpose of the initial three day request – The Netziv explains that had the Egyptians known that the Israelites were leaving for good, they would not have loaned them their gold and silver vessels.¹³ He adds that the Egyptians' desire to retrieve their loaned objects, in turn, led them to chase after the Israelites and drown in Yam Suf.¹⁴

Moshe's subsequent conversations with Paroh – The Netziv maintains that throughout the Plagues, the negotiations dealt with the plans for a temporary religious excursion (as is explicit in 8:23 and indicated by many other verses). Only after the Plague of Darkness during which the unworthy part of the Hebrew population perished, did the rest of the Children of Israel become worthy of complete freedom, and at this point Moshe demanded their permanent release.¹⁵

Permanent freedom granted at the Exodus – According to the Netziv, after the Plague of the Firstborn, Paroh banished the Israelites permanently, as per Hashem's prediction "כְּשַׁלְּחוֹ כָּלָה גָּרֵשׁ יְגָרֵשׁ אֶתְכֶם מִזֶּה" (שמות י״א:א׳).¹⁶

Why did Paroh give chase? The Netziv posits that Paroh regretted his decision to permanently free the Israelites ("וַיֵּהָפֵךְ לְבַב פַּרְעֹה וַעֲבָדָיו"), and that the Egyptian masses were never even aware that the Israelites had been granted permanent freedom.¹⁷ Thus, when he received reports that the Israelites were lost and cowering ("כִּי בָרַח הָעָם") in the wilderness, he decided to change course.¹⁸

Despoiling Egypt – The Netziv maintains that although the objects were given as loans, they later became spoils of war and legitimately became the property of the Israelites. See Reparations and Despoiling Egypt.

Choice of the Wilderness Route – Since, according to the Netziv, Paroh expelled the nation for good, he asserts that the longer route was chosen only for its potential to instill faith, and was unconnected to a fear of Paroh chasing.  For more, see The Roundabout Route.

Always Planned to Return

Even after the Exodus, the Israelites were still planning on returning to Egypt after their three day journey, as Moshe had promised Paroh.¹⁹ Once Paroh and the Egyptians drowned at Yam Suf, though, there was no longer any reason to return.

מקורות:ר׳ יוסף בכור שורשמות י״ד:ב׳-ה׳אודות ר' יוסף בכור שור, חזקונישמות ג׳:י״חשמות ח׳:כ״גשמות י״ד:ב׳,ד׳אודות ר' חזקיה בן מנוח, ר׳ בחיישמות ג׳:י״חאודות ר' בחיי בן אשר²⁰

Purpose of the initial three day request – R. Bachya suggests that the point was for the Children of Israel to gradually become accustomed to Hashem's commandments.

What if Paroh had consented initially or not chased? R. Bachya's comments appear to suggest that there would have been multiple stages of the Exodus, and taking permanent leave of the Egyptians would have come only at a later stage.

Moshe's subsequent conversations with Paroh – According to this approach, the entire dialogue discussed only a temporary journey.

Deception not permitted – These commentators stress the importance of Moshe and the Israelites not being guilty of lying (or theft).

Temporary leave granted at the Exodus – Paroh permitted the Israelites merely to go to sacrifice.

Despoiling Egypt – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, the borrowed vessels would have been returned had the Egyptians not drowned and forfeited their claims. On the other hand, R. Bachya says that the objects were given in lieu of centuries of unpaid wages and with no expectation of their being returned. See Reparations and Despoiling Egypt.

If the Israelites were keeping their word, why did Paroh give chase?

• R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 5:4 interprets "דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים" as three travel days, and thus he says that the Israelites about-faced immediately after the three days.²¹ According to him, despite the Israelites turning back toward Egypt, talebearers told Paroh that the Israelites intended to flee.²²
• Alternatively, though, "דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים" means a distance covered by an average person in three days.²³ According to this, the Israelites might have still been at the beginning of their allotted journey time²⁴ when Paroh was goaded into chasing after them.

Choice of the Wilderness Route – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, the Wilderness Route was selected in order to ensure a confrontation in which the Egyptians would drown in the Sea and thus sever the Israelites' remaining bonds of servitude.  See The Roundabout Route for elaboration.

No Choice but to Deceive

This approach understands the three day proposal as a necessary ruse to facilitate the Exodus. Commentators diverge regarding the intended audience of the deception and as to why this ploy was essential:

Egyptians Were Misled

מקורות:מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל שמותבשלח ויהי א׳אודות מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל שמות,²⁵ שמות רבהשמות ג׳:ח׳אודות שמות רבה, רש״ישמות י״ד:ה׳אודות ר' שלמה יצחקי, לקח טובשמות ג׳:י״חשמות ח׳:כ״גאודות ר' טוביה בן אליעזר, רשב״םשמות ג׳:י״באודות ר' שמואל בן מאיר, אבן עזראשמות פירוש שני ה׳:ג׳שמות פירוש שני י׳:י׳שמות פירוש ראשון י״א:ד׳שמות פירוש שני י״ב:ל״אשמות פירוש שני י״ד:ב׳אודות ר' אברהם אבן עזרא, רלב״גשמות ביאור הפרשה ג׳:י״חאודות ר' לוי בן גרשום, ר״ןדרשות הר״ן י״אאודות ר' נסים גירונדי, עקדת יצחקשער ל״האודות ר' יצחק עראמה, אברבנאלשמות ג׳אודות ר' יצחק אברבנאל, שד״לשמות ג׳:י״חאודות ר' שמואל דוד לוצאטו

Purpose of the deceptive three day request – There are a number of different possibilities:

• Had Paroh known that the Israelites intended to leave permanently, he would not have let them go even temporarily – Rashbam identifies this as Moshe's concern,²⁶ and Ralbag says that this was Hashem's reason for the deception.
• Had Paroh and the Egyptians known from the beginning that the Israelites were leaving permanently, they would not have chased after them and drowned in Yam Suf²⁷ – Shemot Rabbah, Lekach Tov, Ibn Ezra, Ran.
• Hashem could have orchestrated the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf in some other way, but He deceived them in this fashion in order to punish them "measure-for-measure".  Just as the Egyptians had "bait-and-switched" the Israelites by inviting them into the country as temporary guests and then enslaving them permanently, they themselves were deceived when a temporary vacation became a permanent exodus – Oznayim LaTorah.
• The Egyptians would not have loaned their belongings to the Israelites had they known that they would not be returning – Ibn Ezra.²⁸ Ibn Ezra assumes that the objects were a loan – see Reparations and Despoiling Egypt for a full discussion.
• Paroh's refusal of the three day request demonstrated his intransigence more so than if he had been asked to free the Israelites permanently²⁹ – an opinion cited by the Ran,³⁰ Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel.³¹ While slavery itself was the norm during this time period in Egypt and the rest of the world,³² records exist of other Egyptian slaves being granted furloughs for religious worship.³³
• Moshe would not have dared to request that Paroh completely free the Israelites,³⁴ and such a bold request might even have caused Paroh to kill Moshe and act even harsher toward the Israelites – Shadal.³⁵

Is deception permitted?³⁶

• Rashbam and Shadal maintain that it is permissible to be deceptive in such cases.³⁷  Rashbam notes the parallel use of sacrificial worship as a cover story also in the case of Shemuel, and Shadal alludes to the verse "וְעִם עִקֵּשׁ תִּתְפַּתָּל" also in his justification of despoiling Egypt.³⁸ The Ran also, while highlighting the potential moral issues involved and noting that these caused both the Israelites³⁹ and Paroh himself⁴⁰ to doubt whether Moshe was acting as God's messenger,⁴¹ nevertheless explains that Hashem uses such means in administering punishment to the wicked.⁴²
• Ibn Ezra is more circumspect in his justification of the action, saying "וחלילה שהנביא דבר כזב"‎.⁴³ He is thus forced to resort to arguing that technically Moshe did not lie because he never explicitly said they would return, and that the nation did in fact sacrifice at Mt. Sinai.⁴⁴ Even according to Ibn Ezra, though, Moshe's request was misleading.

How could such a secret be kept from the entire Egyptian nation? Ibn Ezra praises the righteousness of the Israelites for not revealing the secret ("וצדיקים גמורים היו ישראל שלא גלו הסוד")‎.⁴⁵ Alternatively, the Egyptians were informed of the plans to leave permanently and this accounts for Paroh's suspicions and insistence on guaranteeing their return.⁴⁶

Moshe's subsequent conversations with Paroh – According to this approach, the entire dialogue discussed only a temporary journey.

Temporary leave granted at the Exodus – Ibn Ezra explains that Paroh gave the Israelites only temporary leave to sacrifice ("וגרשו אותם המצרים ללכת לזבוח", ‎"כדבריכם, שתלכו דרך שלשת ימים")‎.⁴⁷ Thus Paroh needed to specify "גַּם צֹאנְכֶם גַּם בְּקַרְכֶם קְחוּ", while had the Israelites been leaving permanently this would have been obvious.

Despoiling Egypt – These commentators diverge on this issue. Most explain that the items were given as loans with the expectation that they would be returned, but that the Israelites were entitled to keep them as compensation for the slavery. However, Rashbam maintains that the items were given as gifts to sponsor the religious worship, perhaps to gain Divine favor. See Reparations and Despoiling Egypt.

Why did Paroh give chase? According to this approach, "וַיֵּהָפֵךְ לְבַב פַּרְעֹה" means that Paroh regretted granting permission for a three day holiday and falling for the Israelite ruse. There is a difference of opinion, though, on how he knew that he had been deceived and that the Israelites had fled ("כִּי בָרַח הָעָם"). This disagreement centers on the meaning of the phrase "דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים":

• Three travel days – Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Shemot Rabbah, and Rashi.⁴⁸ According to them, Paroh's spies reported back to him that the Israelites did not head back to Egypt on the fourth day, and thus Paroh knew that he had been duped.
• A distance which takes an average person three days to cover – This is apparently the approach adopted by the Lekach Tov and Ibn Ezra who note that this is the distance to Mt. Sinai.⁴⁹ According to them, Moshe did not lie,⁵⁰ and the nation was, in fact, on its way to Mt. Sinai as promised.⁵¹ Thus, Ibn Ezra explains that it was the Israelites' U-turn at Pi-HaChirot which led Paroh to conclude that their intention was not to go to sacrifice.

Choice of the Wilderness Route – Abarbanel suggests that one of the motivations for taking the Wilderness Route was so that they would not be viewed as liars.⁵²  Had they headed towards the Philistine Route, it would have been clear that they were not planning on keeping their word.  For more, see The Roundabout Route.

Even the Israelites Themselves Did not Know

מקורות:רמב״ןשמות ג׳:י״באודות ר' משה בן נחמן

Purpose of the deceptive three day request – Ramban explains that the Children of Israel were not yet prepared to leave Egypt permanently and would not have agreed to enter and conquer the Land of Israel.⁵³

Moshe's subsequent conversations with Paroh – According to this approach, the entire dialogue discussed only a temporary journey.

When did the Israelites find out that they were going forever? While Moshe is instructed in Shemot 3:16-17 to inform the Elders of Israel about the long range plans, it is unclear if the masses were ever privy to this information.⁵⁴ Even if they were aware of the long term plan, it is difficult to determine when they thought it would be implemented and if even during the actual Exodus they knew they were leaving permanently.⁵⁵

Deception not permitted – Ramban does not address this issue.

Despoiling Egypt – Ramban does not address this issue.

Temporary leave granted at the Exodus – Paroh gave the Israelites only permission to go to worship.

Why did Paroh give chase? According to Ramban, Paroh's spies reported that the Israelites were not sacrificing but were rather parading as if they had achieved full freedom.

¹ See below for the עקדת יצחקשער ל״האודות ר' יצחק עראמה's similar position and Shadalשמות ג׳:י״חאודות ר' שמואל דוד לוצאטו's critique (and possible solution).

² This shift may be connected to the new mission of Moshe which began in Shemot 6. Initially, Hashem offered a more gradual process in which the Children of Israel would not have immediately left Egypt forever. Paroh's intransigence and the resulting impatience of the Israelites then caused a change in plans – see Double Mission.

³ See his commentary to Bereshit 27:19 and About R"Y Mecklenburg.

⁴ See also his commentsשמות י״ג:י״זאודות ר' יעקב מקלנבורג on Shemot 13:17.

⁵ See שלח for cases which do not fit this pattern, and see R"E Samet in עיונים בפרשת השבוע, סדרה ראשונה who takes issue with R. Mecklenburg's claim, arguing that the distinction between the forms depends not on permanence but the level of force involved.

⁶ However, see Shemot 10:26 from which it is apparent that the verb לעבוד in this story connotes sacrifices, and see R"E Samet.

⁷ All of this makes little sense if one assumes that Paroh knew the entire time that the Israelites would be leaving for good.

⁸ HaKetav VeHaKabbalah rejects the reading of other commentators that the verse is related to religious worship. However, R. Mecklenburg's reading does not explain why Paroh specified "גַּם צֹאנְכֶם גַּם בְּקַרְכֶם קְחוּ"; this fits better in a context of negotiations over who could participate in the religious ritual. Cf. the Netziv's explanation below.

⁹ See Sefer HaNitzachon 49 and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah Shemot 3:22 and 11:2.

¹⁰ R. Mecklenburg acknowledges this difficulty, but presents it as a problem even for those who say that Paroh had only authorized a temporary journey, as even according to them the Israelites were not fleeing.

¹¹ See the Netziv below for a more plausible alternative which could also work for HaKetav VeHaKabbalah's position.

¹² This appears to also be the position of הרכסים לבקעהשמות י״א:ב׳אודות ר' יהודה לייב פרנקפורטר, but it is much more fully developed by the Netziv.

¹³ According to the Netziv, the objects were loaned only after Paroh granted permission to leave (see Reparations and Despoiling Egypt for different opinions on this matter), but the Egyptians were still unaware that Paroh had expelled the Israelites permanently. The Netziv (Shemot 11:2) adds that therefore Hashem specified that Moshe should speak "in the ears of the people" so that secrecy would be maintained (cf. LXX).

¹⁴ Cf. Ibn Ezra and the Ran below.

¹⁵ It is unclear why the Netziv needs to propose both this factor and the previously mentioned aspect of the despoiling of the Egyptians, as either alone could have sufficed. The advantage of this second factor is that it does not involve any intentional deception.

¹⁶ The Netziv explains that Paroh emphasized "גַּם צֹאנְכֶם גַּם בְּקַרְכֶם קְחוּ" despite the permanent nature of the release, as there was room to think that Paroh would have confiscated their livestock. Cf. Josephus in Antiquities 2:14:5קדמוניות היהודים ב':י״ד:ה׳אודות יוספוס (307) that Paroh wanted to keep the Israelites' herds as the Plagues had wiped out that of the Egyptians.

¹⁷ This is how he interprets "וַיֵּהָפֵךְ לְבַב פַּרְעֹה וַעֲבָדָיו אֶל הָעָם", that Paroh changed his mind to agree with his people.

¹⁸ Cf. R"Y Albo in Sefer HaIkkarim 4:25.

¹⁹ Like the first two possibilities above, this option attempts to reconcile Moshe's requests with what the nation ultimately did. However, in contrast to HaKetav VeHaKabbalah's approach which reinterprets the subsequent requests to match them to the end result of the nation leaving permanently, this option posits that the originally intended outcome would have matched the requests. The Netziv's variation is a combination of these two.

²⁰ C. Chavel in his notes to the commentary suggests that this position should be attributed to R. Chananel due to its similarity to the position R. Bachya cites in the name of R. Chananel in 3:22. In contrast, Y. Ratzaby attributes it to R. Saadia.

²¹ This is how he explains "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָשֻׁבוּ" in Shemot 14:2. [R"Y Bekhor Shor's comment (Shemot 13:20) "ויסעו מסכות – ביום הששי" is apparently the result of a scribal error. See Chizkuni there who has "ביום השני".] R"Y Bekhor Shor does not address whether by this point the Israelites had already offered their sacrifices.

²² According to R"Y Bekhor Shor's approach that the Israelites were keeping their word, they should have been back in Egypt by the seventh day after the Exodus. Thus, it is likely that according to him, the splitting of Yam Suf took place earlier than that. Cf. Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael below.

²³ See Lekach Tov and Ibn Ezra below that the intent was to sacrifice at Mt. Sinai.

²⁴ Thus they had not yet sacrificed, as they had not yet arrived at Mt. Sinai.

²⁵ From the Mekhilta, it seems that this question was the subject of a dispute between the Egyptian guards (or informers?) who accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt and the Israelites themselves.  The Egyptians thought that the Israelites had committed to return after three days, while the Israelites themselves claimed that even though that was the initial plan, when Paroh had ultimately released them it was a permanent expulsion (cf. Netziv above).

²⁶ As opposed to most other commentators, Rashbam's point of departure is Shemot 3:12, and he tries to explain how Hashem's response there addresses Moshe's concerns.

²⁷ According to this approach, Hashem takes an active role in hardening a sinner's heart – see Hardened Hearts regarding whether Ibn Ezra is consistent on this issue. See also Abarbanel who critiques this position and says that Hashem could obviously have arranged the chase and drowning through less morally dubious means.

²⁸ The commentators differ regarding the relationship between the three day ruse, the borrowing of vessels, and the Egyptians chasing and drowning in Yam Suf. According to Ibn Ezra, the three day ruse facilitated both the borrowing and the chase, while the Ran says that the three day ruse and the borrowing together led to the chase (see HaKetav VeHaKabbalah above who critiques the position of the Ran). A third variation appears in the Netziv (see above) who says that the three day ruse facilitated the borrowing which, in turn, caused the Egyptians to chase.

²⁹ Shadal dismisses this possibility noting that the reason Paroh refused this request was only out of concern that the nation would not return. However, Shadal cites his student R. Yitzchak Pardo's response that Paroh's initial refusal made no mention of this concern and was also accompanied by a worsening of the conditions of the slavery.

³⁰ See above for the similar position in Sefer HaNitzachon. See also Hardened Hearts for the position cited by the Meiri that the meaning of "וַיְחַזֵּק ה' אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה" is that He displayed Paroh's stubborness for the world to see.

³¹ The Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel thereby avoid the opinion above that Hashem actively caused Paroh to harden his heart. For more on their positions on this issue, see Hardened Hearts.

³² Thus, Paroh's refusal to permanently free the Israelites would have been viewed as morally legitimate and perhaps the only rational course of action. Not allowing slaves the opportunity to worship their God, on the other hand, would have been considered a violation of accepted practice.

³³ See the sources cited by N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 227 fn.86. See also R. D"Z Hoffmann Shemot 3:16 who gives the polytheistic backdrop: "כלל גדול היה זה בעולמם של עובדי-האלילים, להניח לכל עם לעבוד את אלוהיו, ולפשע נחשב לפגוע אפילו באלילים של עם אחר". Thus, although from a modern perspective, demanding complete freedom may seem like the more sustainable request, projecting the (post-Biblical) moral standards of secular society on Ancient Egypt may be quite anachronistic.

³⁴ Such a demand would have been viewed as outrageous in a society where slavery was standard, and Moshe would have lost all credibility.

³⁵ Cf. מ״ד קאסוטושמות ג׳:י״ח-י״טאודות פרופ' משה דוד קאסוטו who suggests that diplomatic niceties required opening with a more limited request, and see R"E Samet who further develops this approach.

³⁶ There are two aspects which may be problematic here. One is whether the Israelites sacrificed as Moshe said or whether this was an outright untruth. This depends on the understandings of "דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים" – see below. The second issue is that the Egyptians were led to believe that the Israelites would be returning.

³⁷ It is not clear whether they are permitting merely deception or even an outright lie. See below that according to the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Rashi, even an outright lie might be permitted.

³⁸ See also Bavli Megillah 13b regarding Yaakov.

³⁹ The Ran also raises the possibility that Moshe himself did not initially understand the reason for Hashem's command. Interestingly, R"Y Albo (Ran's disciple) makes a parallel suggestion in Sefer HaIkkarim 4:25 regarding the ruse which caused Sichon to attack. For more, see Hardened Hearts, and see Moshe. Also compare to Shadal above who suggests that the reason for the command here was Moshe's fears of being more direct.

⁴⁰ According to the Ran, Paroh's sins necessitated punishment, and thus Hashem intentionally hardened his heart. The Ran appears to adopt a Maimonidean position regarding the moral justification of this action – see Hardened Hearts.

⁴¹ According to the Ran, it was only at Yam Suf that the Israelites understood the purpose of the ruse, and this led to their belief "וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה' וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ". The nation's doubts may have returned, though, many times during the years in the wilderness – see Moshe.

⁴² The Ran compares this to Hashem's misleading of Paroh into thinking that Yam Suf dried up through natural means. Rather than positing that Hashem used the wind to dry up the sea, the Ran assumes that the sea could not have been dried through natural means, and the wind was merely a ruse to fool Paroh that the process was natural. For more, see Yam Suf. The parallel, however, is not exact, as using a natural decoy does not require human deceit or theft.

⁴³ Ibn Ezra's position is typical of exegetes who lived in Islamic lands, and is likely influenced by sensitivity to Muslim polemics and accusations. Cf. R. Saadia Bereshit 20:12 (p.390), R. Chananel Shemot 3:22 regarding despoiling Egypt "חס ושלום שיתיר הקדוש ברוך הוא לגנוב דעת הבריות", and Ibn Ezra Bereshit 27:19.

⁴⁴ See below that according to Ibn Ezra, "דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים" refers to the distance to Mt. Sinai, and that Moshe kept his word.

⁴⁵ Cf. Tanchuma Shemot 10.

⁴⁶ It is also possible that the Israelites did not believe such a plan was realistic – see R. Menachem Leibtag who develops this idea.

⁴⁷ He adds that the Egyptians thought that the Plagues had come because they had not allowed the Israelites to sacrifice, as per Shemot 5:3 (rather than because they had enslaved them unjustly). Thus, the necessary remedy was merely to permit the Israelites to sacrifice.

⁴⁸ According to this position, as the Israelites never sacrificed after three days, the three day request was a complete fabrication.

⁴⁹ Cf. Akeidat Yitzchak who speaks of a total of ten days for the entire journey. See also the suggestion of A. Shemesh, "Three Days' Journey from the Temple," DSD 6:2 (1999): 127 that the phrase means leaving the land of Egypt, and stands in contrast to Paroh's suggestion of "לְכוּ זִבְחוּ לֵאלֹהֵיכֶם בָּאָרֶץ".

⁵⁰ See above that Ibn Ezra is very concerned with this point.

⁵¹ See HaKetav VeHaKabbalah above who is bothered by why Paroh assumed that the Israelites had run away.

⁵² Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor above.

⁵³ Cf. שמות רבה(וילנא) י״ד:ג׳אודות שמות רבה that the ones who did not want to leave Egypt died during the Plague of Darkness. See also the interpretation of R. Bachya above who speaks of the need for a gradual religious initiation (and see Israelites' Religious Identity), and R. Hirsch Shemot 3:13 who notes that educating the Israelite nation was more difficult than speaking to Paroh. The fears of the nation to do battle with the Canaanites and their reluctance to leave Egypt are brought into sharp relief already in Shemot 14:12 and continue to be an issue throughout the forty years in the wilderness. For elaboration, see The Roundabout Route.

⁵⁴ שמות ד׳:ל״א and 6:9 might indicate they were, and see Ibn Ezra above who praises the Israelites for not revealing the secret.

⁵⁵ This question depends in part on when all of the laws in Shemot 12 were transmitted to the people – see Shemot 12.