The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/1/en
The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled
Introduction
Was the Miracle of Yam Suf Only an Afterthought?
Parashat Beshalach opens by describing the path upon which Hashem led the Children of Israel when they left Egypt:
(יז) וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה. (יח) וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
The beginning of the first verse (v. 17) notes the rejected Philistine Route, while the first half of the second verse (v. 18) delineates the selected Wilderness Route heading toward Yam Suf. Sandwiched in between these is an enigmatic explanation of God's decision, namely the concern that the Israelites, upon encountering an enemy, would do an about face and flee back to Egypt.
Yet, was avoiding battle the primary reason that the God led the Children of Israel via the Wilderness Route toward Yam Suf? Was not the real reason that the Israelites needed to head for Yam Suf so that the Egyptians would chase after them and drown in the sea and so that the Israelites along with the world at large would behold the Almighty's awesome majesty? Is it possible that one of the greatest miracles of all time was but an afterthought?
What About Mt. Sinai?
The Torah's emphasis on the mundane concern of the nation's potential cowardice overshadows not only the splitting of the sea, but also the need to take the Wilderness Route so as to experience the revelation and giving of the Decalogue at Sinai. Had not Hashem already told Moshe that upon leaving Egypt the nation was to worship Him in the wilderness, at Mt. Sinai,1 and had not Moshe, throughout his negotiations with Paroh, repeatedly requested leave for a three day holiday to serve Hashem in the wilderness? Was this all just a sham? If not, how could taking the Philistine Route ever have been a consideration?
Additional Questions
Leaving aside the external considerations of Yam Suf and Mt. Sinai, the verses themselves contain multiple ambiguities and raise numerous questions:
- "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים" – Where exactly is the "Philistine Route" and why was it thus designated? Did not the Philistines arrive on the shores of Israel only in the 12th century BCE, much after the Exodus?
- The double "כִּי" – What is the relationship between the two clauses of "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" and "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם"? Does the word "כִּי" have the same meaning in both occurrences?2 Is the verse giving two reasons for the rejected route or just one?
- "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – To what is the Philistine Road close? To Canaan, Egypt, or Yam Suf? Is the proximity being presented as a reason to take this path or to eschew it?
- "בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Which potential battle is the cause of the concern? How does avoiding this route solve the problem? After all, just a few days into their journey the nation is attacked by the pursuing Egyptian army, and just a few weeks later they are again attacked by the Amalekites!
"וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל"
- – What does the word "וַחֲמֻשִׁים" mean? Why does the text emphasize that the nation left armed or equipped? Is this relevant to the choice of route?
The Torah explains that Hashem was concerned that faced with war, the nation might decide to return to Egypt. With whom, though, does God fear that the nation will battle? Moreover, how does the path taken solve the problem? Should not Hashem have been concerned that this path, too, would lead the nation to return to Egypt? Was the Desert Route merely the lesser of two evils, or did it have some intrinsic benefits of its own?
The verses raise several other smaller textual questions as well:
