A Three Day Journey/2/he
"דרך שלשת ימים"?
גישות פרשניות
סקירה
פרשנים חלוקים בנוגע למעורבות כלשהי של הונאה בבקשה לצאת למדבר לשלושה ימים. יש המציעים כי משה לא רימה את פרעה. על פי בעל הכתב והקבלה, כאשר פרעה סירב לבקשתו הראשונה של משה, משה דרש שחרור מוחלט, וכך פרעה היה מודע לחלוטין מההתחלה כי הוא מתבקש לשחרר את העם לגמרי. מנגד, הנצי"ב מציע כי השינוי התוכניות אירע רק לאחר שבני ישראל, שלא היו ראויים לצאת ממצרים מתו במכת בכורות. רק אז שאר העם היה ראוי לגאולה שלמה. לבסוף, ר"י בכור שור מציע כי לולא המצרים לא טבעו בים סוף, בני ישראל היו חוזרים למצרים כפי שהובטח ויציאת מצרים הייתה מתבצעת בשלבים.
אולם, רוב המפרשים חושבים כי הבקשה אכן הייתה הונאה נצרכת. הם טוענים כי אם משה היה מהקש שחרור מוחלט (בקשה הזויה לנוכח הסטנדרטים המוסריים של אותה התקופה) פרעה לא היה מאפשר לבני ישראל אפילו שחרור זמני, המצרים לא היו מלווים את אוצרותיהם והתהליך אשר הסתיים בטביעת המצרים בים סוף לא היה מתרחש. בנוסף, עוצמת נוקשותו של פרעה לא הייתה מתגלה ואולי משה עצמו היה מוצא להורג. רמב"ן גם מסכים כי הייתה כוונה להונות, אך הוא מציע כי המטרה העיקרית של ההונאה הייתה בני ישראל עצמם, אשר עדיין לא היו מוכנים מנטלית לעזוב את מצרים לצמיתות ולכבוש את ארץ כנען.
העמדות השונות של המפרשים הושפעו מהשקפתם על מספר עניינים נושקים. תחת אילו נסיבות או לאיזה מטרות מותר להונות או לשקר? כמה נוקשה היה פרעה? מה המשמעות של צירוף המילים "דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים"? מה פרעה חשב כאשר הוא גירש את העם? מדוע רדף אחר העם מיד לאחר מכן?
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?
לא הייתה הונאה
עמה פרשנים מסבירים כי ה' לא הונה את פרעה, וכי על כף שבקשתו הראשונית של משה עסקה במסע בן שלושה ימים, הנסיבות שהשתנו גרמו לכך שהעזיבה הסופית הייתה לצמיתות. הוריאציות השונות של אופציה זו חלוקות באשר לסיבה ולתזמון של שינוי זה:
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:
כנים למן ההתחלה
רק הבקשה הראשונה הייתה לחג בן שלושה ימים, ואחרי שפרעה דחה בקשה זו, משה העצים את ההימור ודרש חופש מוחלט עבור בני ישראל. בשל כך, לא הייתה שום הונאה כי פראה ידע את התוכניות לאורך כל הדרך.
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.
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.2
According to this approach, Moshe requested permanent freedom for the people even before the Plagues and throughout the process.4 However, this position does not explain why in the middle of the Plagues (8:23) Moshe again mentions a leave of only three days.
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.6
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.9 For more, see שלח.10
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.12
עמדה זו לא מתייחסת למשא ומתן של משה ופרעה בנוגע לאפשרות שהנשים, הילדים והצאן יצטרפו לגברים.13 למעשה, משתמע מדברי בעל הכתב והקבלה (שמות י':י"א) כי פרעה התבקש לאשר רק מסע זמני ורק חשד כי כוונתו האמיתית של משה היא לעזוב לצמיתות.
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.14 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.
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.16
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.18 See פיצויים לעבדות וניצול מצרים.
poses a difficulty particularly for the position that Paroh had given
the Israelites their unconditional release.21 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").22
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.
מהפך לפני יציאת מצרים
הבקשה המקורית והמשא ומתן שבעקבותיה עסקו במסע שלושת הימים בלבד. אולם המצב השתנה בעקבות מכת חושך, וכאשר פרעה נתן את רשותו לעזוב, הכוונה הייתה לצמיתות.
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.
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.25 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.26
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.27
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׳).29
he 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.32 Thus, when he received reports that the Israelites were lost and cowering ("כִּי בָרַח הָעָם") in the wilderness, he decided to change course.33
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.34 Once Paroh and the Egyptians drowned at Yam Suf, though, there was no longer any reason to return.
- 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.36 According to him, despite the Israelites turning back toward Egypt, talebearers told Paroh that the Israelites intended to flee.37
- Alternatively, though, "דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים" means a distance covered by an average person in three days.38 According to this, the Israelites might have still been at the beginning of their allotted journey time39 when Paroh was goaded into chasing after them.
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
- 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,41 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 Suf42 – 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.43 Ibn Ezra assumes that the objects were a loan – see פיצויים לעבדות וניצול מצרים 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 permanently44 – an opinion cited by the Ran,45 Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel.46 While slavery itself was the norm during this time period in Egypt and the rest of the world,47 records exist of other Egyptian slaves being granted furloughs for religious worship.48
- Moshe would not have dared to request that Paroh completely free the Israelites,49 and such a bold request might even have caused Paroh to kill Moshe and act even harsher toward the Israelites – Shadal.50
- Rashbam and Shadal maintain that it is permissible to be deceptive in such cases.52 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.53 The Ran also, while highlighting the potential moral issues involved and noting that these caused both the Israelites54 and Paroh himself55 to doubt whether Moshe was acting as God's messenger,56 nevertheless explains that Hashem uses such means in administering punishment to the wicked.57
- Ibn Ezra is more circumspect in his justification of the action, saying "וחלילה שהנביא דבר כזב".58 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.59 Even according to Ibn Ezra, though, Moshe's request was misleading.
- Three travel days – Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Shemot Rabbah, and Rashi.63 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.64 According to them, Moshe did not lie,65 and the nation was, in fact, on its way to Mt. Sinai as promised.66 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.
