Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<h1>The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled</h1> | <h1>The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled</h1> | ||
<div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | <div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | ||
+ | <p>The commentators present a spectrum of approaches regarding Hashem's primary objective in leading the Israelites by the way of the wilderness:</p> | ||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
Version as of 15:47, 29 January 2015
The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled
Exegetical Approaches
The commentators present a spectrum of approaches regarding Hashem's primary objective in leading the Israelites by the way of the wilderness:
Facilitate the Drowning at Yam Suf
The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf, thereby spreading knowledge of Hashem through the miracle and/or ridding the nation of their dependence on Egypt.
- With Egypt – According to both R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno, Hashem feared the Israelite's fearful response to an encounter with Egypt. They differ, though, with regards to whether Hashem wanted to prevent a fight or ensure one:
- Prevent war – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem wanted to prevent a war on two fronts, from both the pursuing Egyptians and the Philistines. He, thus took them on a route which would lead instead to the Egyptians' drowning, thus sparing them the conflict.
- Ensure war – Seforno, in contrast, suggests that Hashem feared that the nation would panic at the site of the Egyptians and flee rather than fight. Hashem, thus, took them on a path which guaranteed that they knew of the Egyptians only at the last moment when flight was no longer an option,4 forcing a confrontation which would lead the Egyptians to drown in Yam Suf.
- Future wars – Y. Bin-Nun asserts instead that the concern related to any future wars which might lead the nation to return to Egypt for protection. Hashem wanted to ensure a total defeat which would free the nation from mental servitude, severing their dependence on their former masters.5
- Presence of sea – R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that only on the Wilderness Route was there a sea in which Hashem could drown the Egyptians. Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the splitting of the sea would be greater.6
- Lack of spies – Seforno, in contrast, believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf,7 but the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was empty of spies and informers. As such, the Israelites would not be aware of the chasing Egyptians until they were already upon them, leaving them no choice of retreat. Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, thus accomplishing His primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.
- Different meanings – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun understand the first "כִּי" to mean "that"8 and the second to mean "because". The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.
- Identical meaning – According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean "because", and the two phrases together constitute the full dual concern.9
Intrinsic Value in the Wilderness Route
The Wilderness Route was not just the default alternative to a rejected route, but rather had value in its own right, as it offered the nation vital opportunities that the Philistine Route could not. This approach subdivides regarding what the route had to offer:
Building Fortitude for the Conquest
The route afforded the nation both the time and atmosphere needed to lose their slave mentality and gain the confidence and independence necessary to conquer and rule Canaan.
- Growth through trials – Rambam emphasizes how the scarcity and hardships of wilderness life would instill courage and strength.14 R. Hirsch adds that the challenges encountered would teach them to trust in Hashem, which, in turn, would give them the self-confidence needed to fight. Shadal further asserts that the time in the wilderness provided time to learn the skills necessary for self rule.
- New generation – Rambam proposes that the forty years in the wilderness meant that it was a new generation that had never been enslaved which entered the land.15 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.16
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites17 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim18 adds that the extra time afforded by the Wilderness Route ensured that the sins of the Emorites would be complete and they would be deserving of conquest by the time the nation arrived in the land.19
Spiritual Growth
The time in the wilderness enabled the nation to receive the Torah at Mt. Sinai and witness many more miracles, thereby deepening their belief in and connection to Hashem and His ways.
- Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Shadal explain that once they arrived they would disperse to their own inheritances and work, losing the opportunity to learn Torah and be guided spiritually by Moshe.
- Meshekh Chokhmah maintains that God feared the influence the idolatrous Canaanites would have on such a fledgling nation.
- Netziv stresses that the first reason given (proximity) was the primary one. He points out that as the people did desire to return to Egypt when facing war even on the longer path, this could not have been a major concern and goes as far as to suggest that God just said this because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.21
- Toledot Yitzchak, R. Hirsch, and Malbim, though, maintain that the reasons work together. Without the benefit of a long route in which to grow spiritually, the nation would lack the trust in God needed to fight wars and win.
Avoiding the Philistine Route
The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route. Hashem worried that the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten them into returning to Egypt.
- Philistines – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself were the threat.26
- Past wars – Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and the first opinion in Shemot Rabbah assert that the fear related not to the consequences of present battles, but to the remnants of past wars. Thirty years earlier members of the tribe of Ephraim attempted to make their way to Israel but fell at the hand of the Philistines. Hashem did not want the Israelites to see their fallen bodies, panic, and then return to Egypt.
- Egyptians – According to modern scholars,27 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".28 At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons. Traveling via such a route would inevitably lead to conflict with the Egyptians, and Israelite terror of their hated masters would lead to a quick surrender and return to servitude.29
- Because – Rashi and Ibn Ezra imply that it, too, means "because." Hashem is, thus, giving two related reasons why to avert the Philistine route. Fear of war was significant specifically because the route was so close to Egypt. The proximity made it more likely for the nation to return to Egypt upon encountering war.
- Even though or that – Chizkuni maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though", while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, the verse is giving but one reason to avoid the Philistine Route. Even though it was the shorter (and thus seemingly more logical route), Hashem chose to dismiss it because of the wars it would lead to.
- According to most of these commentators, the verse is saying that the route is close to Egypt, and either despite this fact, or because of this fact, it is rejected.
- Chizkuni30 raises a more metaphoric read of the verse, suggesting that the subject of "הוּא" is the Philistines themselves (not the route) who were relatives (קרובים) of the Egyptians and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.31