Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
− | <p>Some of the most formative events in the history of the Children of Israel occurred on the Wilderness Route, and it is difficult to imagine how history would have evolved without them.  However, the sublime benefits of this travel route are more obvious only in retrospect, while the Torah's explanation of this choice appears to emphasize the more mundane dangers to the nation at that particular juncture.  Commentators thus struggle with how to reconcile the relationship between theory and text, with their positions depending on whether baiting Paroh into chasing after the Israelites was part of the Divine master plan.</p> | + | <p>Some of the most formative events in the history of the Children of Israel occurred on the Wilderness Route, and it is difficult to imagine how history would have evolved without them.  However, the sublime benefits of this travel route are more obvious only in retrospect, while the Torah's explanation of this choice appears to emphasize the more mundane dangers to the nation at that particular juncture.  Commentators thus struggle with how to reconcile the relationship between theory and text, with their positions partially depending on whether baiting Paroh into chasing after the Israelites was part of the Divine master plan.</p> |
<p>R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno focuses exclusively on the immediate objective of reaching "יַם סוּף", the Mekhilta and many others stress the long range goals of traveling "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר", Rashi and others adopt the simple reading of the text that there is no hidden motive and the purpose is merely to avoid the worse alternative of "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים", while the Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel attempt to synthesize various approaches.</p></div> | <p>R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno focuses exclusively on the immediate objective of reaching "יַם סוּף", the Mekhilta and many others stress the long range goals of traveling "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר", Rashi and others adopt the simple reading of the text that there is no hidden motive and the purpose is merely to avoid the worse alternative of "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים", while the Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel attempt to synthesize various approaches.</p></div> | ||
<p>Below is the spectrum of approaches in defining Hashem's primary objective in leading the Israelites by way of the Wilderness Route:</p> | <p>Below is the spectrum of approaches in defining Hashem's primary objective in leading the Israelites by way of the Wilderness Route:</p> | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<p>The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf, thereby displaying Hashem's might and/or ridding the Israelites of their dependence on Egypt.</p> | <p>The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf, thereby displaying Hashem's might and/or ridding the Israelites of their dependence on Egypt.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Josephus #1</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 2:15</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink>, <a href="BinNun" data-aht="source">Yoel Bin-Nun</a></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Josephus #1</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 2:15</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink>, <a href="BinNun" data-aht="source">Yoel Bin-Nun</a></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>"דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף"</b> – This approach emphasizes, not the wilderness aspect of the chosen route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר"), but that it led to Yam Suf ("‏יַם סוּף‏‏"‎).<fn>This is in contrast to the approach below, which focuses instead on the wilderness aspect of the chosen path.</fn>  The miracle of Yam Suf was the objective of Hashem's original plan, and thus the determining factor in His choice of route rather than being merely a consequence of it.</point> | + | <point><b>"דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף"</b> – This approach emphasizes, not the wilderness aspect of the chosen route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר"), but that it led to Yam Suf ("‏יַם סוּף‏‏"‎).<fn>This is in contrast to the approach below, which focuses instead on the wilderness aspect of the chosen path.</fn>  The miracle of Yam Suf was the ultimate objective of Hashem's original plan, and thus it was the determining factor in His choice of route rather than being merely a consequence of it.</point> |
<point><b>Avoiding war with whom?</b><ul> | <point><b>Avoiding war with whom?</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>With Egypt </b>– According to | + | <li><b>With Egypt and the Philistines </b>– According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem's immediate concern was over the Israelites' potentially fearful response to being surrounded by enemies on all sides, when attacked from behind by the pursuing Egyptians and from the front by the looming Philistines.<b><br/></b></li> |
− | + | <li><b>With Egypt alone</b> – Seforno concurs that the danger was from the hot pursuit of the Egyptians, though he assumes that this encounter would happen even before the Israelites reached Canaan and were confronted by the Philistines.</li> | |
− | <li><b> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<li><b> Future wars</b> – 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 Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.<fn>See Y. Barzilai, <a href="http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=11733">"וימרו על ים בים סוף - התכנית שלא התממשה"</a>  in על דרך האבות (Alon Shevut: 2001): 297-315, who agrees with Y. Bin-Nun's general approach but questions why the nation continuously asks to return to Egypt if their dependence was severed after the miracle.  He therefore suggests that Hashem had originally planned that the people themselves would defeat Paroh at Yam Suf.  Only their own victory would give them the necessary courage to turn their backs on Egypt in the future.  The nation, though, was not up to the task and in the end Hashem wrought the miracle instead, which saved the people but did not accomplish the primary goal of achieving complete independence.</fn></li> | <li><b> Future wars</b> – 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 Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.<fn>See Y. Barzilai, <a href="http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=11733">"וימרו על ים בים סוף - התכנית שלא התממשה"</a>  in על דרך האבות (Alon Shevut: 2001): 297-315, who agrees with Y. Bin-Nun's general approach but questions why the nation continuously asks to return to Egypt if their dependence was severed after the miracle.  He therefore suggests that Hashem had originally planned that the people themselves would defeat Paroh at Yam Suf.  Only their own victory would give them the necessary courage to turn their backs on Egypt in the future.  The nation, though, was not up to the task and in the end Hashem wrought the miracle instead, which saved the people but did not accomplish the primary goal of achieving complete independence.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>How is the Wilderness Route a solution?</b> As all of these commentators maintain that the Wilderness Route was chosen in order to cause the drowning of the Egyptians, they need to show how the events of Yam Suf also provided the solution to preventing the Israelites' fears:<br/> |
− | + | <ul> | |
<li><b>Presence of sea</b> – 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.<fn>As above, he also points out that on the Philistine Route the Philistines would have joined the battle forcing a war on two fronts.</fn></li> | <li><b>Presence of sea</b> – 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.<fn>As above, he also points out that on the Philistine Route the Philistines would have joined the battle forcing a war on two fronts.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Lack of spies</b> – Seforno, in contrast, believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf,<fn>See note above that it questionable whether this is true based on the geography of the area.</fn> 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.</li> | <li><b>Lack of spies</b> – Seforno, in contrast, believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf,<fn>See note above that it questionable whether this is true based on the geography of the area.</fn> 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.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים" – To where?</b> Most commentators assume that Hashem is speaking of the route which would lead to the land of Israel.  Seforno, in contrast, claims that Hashem is referring to the path that would lead to Yam Suf.<fn>In this, he differs from virtually all other exegetes.</fn>  He assumes that both the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route led to Yam Suf<fn>The geography of the region, though, makes Seforno's approach difficult, as it is hard to see how the Philistine Route could be on the way to Yam Suf.  The locations of both the Philistine Route and Yam Suf are the subjects of debate.</fn> since that was always the intended goal. The only question was which route to prefer.</point> | ||
<point><b>Double "כִּי"</b><ul> | <point><b>Double "כִּי"</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Different meanings</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun understand the first "כִּי" to mean "that"<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor does not address the question explicitly but implies this.</fn> and the second to mean "because". The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.</li> | <li><b>Different meanings</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun understand the first "כִּי" to mean "that"<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor does not address the question explicitly but implies this.</fn> and the second to mean "because". The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.</li> |
Version as of 01:39, 30 January 2015
The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Some of the most formative events in the history of the Children of Israel occurred on the Wilderness Route, and it is difficult to imagine how history would have evolved without them. However, the sublime benefits of this travel route are more obvious only in retrospect, while the Torah's explanation of this choice appears to emphasize the more mundane dangers to the nation at that particular juncture. Commentators thus struggle with how to reconcile the relationship between theory and text, with their positions partially depending on whether baiting Paroh into chasing after the Israelites was part of the Divine master plan.
R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno focuses exclusively on the immediate objective of reaching "יַם סוּף", the Mekhilta and many others stress the long range goals of traveling "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר", Rashi and others adopt the simple reading of the text that there is no hidden motive and the purpose is merely to avoid the worse alternative of "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים", while the Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel attempt to synthesize various approaches.
Below is the spectrum of approaches in defining Hashem's primary objective in leading the Israelites by way of the Wilderness Route:
Inducing the Egyptians' Drowning
The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf, thereby displaying Hashem's might and/or ridding the Israelites of their dependence on Egypt.
- With Egypt and the Philistines – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem's immediate concern was over the Israelites' potentially fearful response to being surrounded by enemies on all sides, when attacked from behind by the pursuing Egyptians and from the front by the looming Philistines.
- With Egypt alone – Seforno concurs that the danger was from the hot pursuit of the Egyptians, though he assumes that this encounter would happen even before the Israelites reached Canaan and were confronted by the Philistines.
- 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 Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.2
- 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.3
- Lack of spies – Seforno, in contrast, believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf,4 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"7 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.8
Facilitating National Growth
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:
Physical and Mental Fortitude
The route afforded the nation both the time and environment needed to lose their slave mentality and gain the confidence and independence essential 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 Development
The trek through the wilderness enabled the nation to receive the Torah at Mt. Sinai and/or witness many other miracles, thereby deepening their belief in and religious 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.22
- 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 Dangers of 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 itself29 were the threat.30
- 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,31 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".32 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.33
- 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.
- Chizkuni34 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.35
Combination
There were multiple reasons for the path taken. The nation needed to avoid the dangers of war lurking on the Philistine route but there was also intrinsic value in taking the Wilderness Route.
– Both Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel maintain that the immediate concern related to war with the Philistines living on the route,39 but they add that this fear would then cause the nation to cast doubts about their abilities to conquer the land as a whole.40
- Longer route – Abarbanel points out that the war against the Philistines would have been almost immediate (due to their proximity to Egypt) and as such was much more likely to lead the nation to flee back to Egypt than later wars.
- "דֶּרֶךְ... יַם סוּף" – In addition, only on this route was there a sea in which to drown the Egyptians. Akeidat Yitzchak suggests that this was the antidote to the original concern regarding war. After the miracle, news spread and instilling fear throughout Canaan, enabling the Israelites to more easily defeat them.
- Preserve honesty – Abarbanel asserts that another motivating factor in traveling the Wilderness Route was the fact that Paroh had sent them assuming that they were leaving for a three day furlough to worship God in the wilderness.41 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and as such Hashem led them through the wilderness as per their own words.
– Akeidat Yitzchak assumes that the first "כִּי" means "that" and is simply describing the route rather than explaining its rejection. The real concern was that wars encountered there would lead the nation back to Egypt. Abarbanel, in contrast, asserts that both words mean "because". Wars on this route specifically would lead the nation to return because its proximity meant an earlier confrontation.
– The concern related to the Philistines' proximity to the nation in Egypt and the fact that they would confron them a mere few days after leaving Egypt.
– According to Abarbanel Paroh believed that the nation was to return after three days. The very fact that he was not freeing them permanently but rather expecting them to head to the wilderness is one of the reasons that Hashem chose the route He did.42
– Abarbanel asserts that the verse is emphasizing that even though the nation left armed and/or in military formations of fifths they still lacked the courage to fight against the Philistines.
– Abarbanel assumes that these were both factors in choosing the Wilderness Route. Perhaps the route is referred as "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף". to hint to both events. יַם סוּף refers to the miracle of the drowning in Yam Suf and "הַמִּדְבָּר" perhaps alludes to the nation's request to worship Hashem in the wilderness.