Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
|||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
<point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> This approach works simplest for those who posit that Paroh had already permanently freed the Israelites,<fn>These commentators include R. Saadia (see his commentary on Shemot 11:3), R. Hirsch (see his comments on Shemot 12:31 and 14:5), and Malbim.  R. D"Z Hoffmann appears to contradict himself on this issue.</fn> and that thus the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf was neither necessary as a prerequisite for entrance into Canaan nor inevitable.</point> | <point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> This approach works simplest for those who posit that Paroh had already permanently freed the Israelites,<fn>These commentators include R. Saadia (see his commentary on Shemot 11:3), R. Hirsch (see his comments on Shemot 12:31 and 14:5), and Malbim.  R. D"Z Hoffmann appears to contradict himself on this issue.</fn> and that thus the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf was neither necessary as a prerequisite for entrance into Canaan nor inevitable.</point> | ||
<point><b>Introduction for long range goals rather than short term decision</b> – Those who maintain that the Israelites were initially released for only a three day journey<fn>This list includes the Mekhilta (though not necessarily R. Eliezer himself), Shemot Rabbah, Shadal, and Cassuto.  See note above regarding R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> must grapple with the question of why the immediate Egyptian threat and the need for Yam Suf are not mentioned as factors in the selection of the route.<fn>This is especially a problem for Shemot Rabbah which states that the purpose of the three day ruse was to cause the Egyptians to chase and drown in Yam Suf. If so, one would have expected that the text would explain that Yam Suf was part of the reason for choosing the Wilderness Route.</fn>  They could explain that our verses are presenting Hashem's reasoning not for merely the short term decision to opt for the Wilderness Route until the events of Yam Suf, but also for why the Israelites continued on it even after the Egyptian threat had already been eliminated.<fn>In other words, the verses of Shemot 13:17-18 are a heading, not just for Shemot 13-14, but for the the duration of the stay (perhaps even the entire forty years – see note below) in the wilderness and the rest of the Torah.  While initially Hashem led the Children of Israel via the Wilderness Route in order to drown the Egyptians and remove the remaining yoke of slavery, the verses here focus on the long term benefits of the Route and explain the reason for the forty years in the wilderness.<br/>Alternatively, since it was inevitable that Paroh would pursue the Israelites no matter which route they took, and since Hashem could have destroyed Paroh's forces on the Philistine Route as well (cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor), the Egyptian threat did not have a significant impact on His decision and is thus not mentioned.</fn></point> | <point><b>Introduction for long range goals rather than short term decision</b> – Those who maintain that the Israelites were initially released for only a three day journey<fn>This list includes the Mekhilta (though not necessarily R. Eliezer himself), Shemot Rabbah, Shadal, and Cassuto.  See note above regarding R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> must grapple with the question of why the immediate Egyptian threat and the need for Yam Suf are not mentioned as factors in the selection of the route.<fn>This is especially a problem for Shemot Rabbah which states that the purpose of the three day ruse was to cause the Egyptians to chase and drown in Yam Suf. If so, one would have expected that the text would explain that Yam Suf was part of the reason for choosing the Wilderness Route.</fn>  They could explain that our verses are presenting Hashem's reasoning not for merely the short term decision to opt for the Wilderness Route until the events of Yam Suf, but also for why the Israelites continued on it even after the Egyptian threat had already been eliminated.<fn>In other words, the verses of Shemot 13:17-18 are a heading, not just for Shemot 13-14, but for the the duration of the stay (perhaps even the entire forty years – see note below) in the wilderness and the rest of the Torah.  While initially Hashem led the Children of Israel via the Wilderness Route in order to drown the Egyptians and remove the remaining yoke of slavery, the verses here focus on the long term benefits of the Route and explain the reason for the forty years in the wilderness.<br/>Alternatively, since it was inevitable that Paroh would pursue the Israelites no matter which route they took, and since Hashem could have destroyed Paroh's forces on the Philistine Route as well (cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor), the Egyptian threat did not have a significant impact on His decision and is thus not mentioned.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where and what was the concern?</b> These commentators assume that the verse is speaking of the route to Canaan and that the problematic issue is the shortness of the Philistine Route to Canaan, as expressed in the words "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא".  The result would have been that the Children of Israel would have arrived almost immediately in Canaan and been forced to fight the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared for them.</point> | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where and what was the concern?</b> These commentators assume that the verse is speaking of the route to Canaan and that the problematic issue is the shortness of the Philistine Route to Canaan, as expressed in the words "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא"‎.<fn>For this approach, the critical factor is the timing, while for the third approach, the critical factor is in the geographical location.</fn>  The result would have been that the Children of Israel would have arrived almost immediately in Canaan and been forced to fight the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared for them.</point> |
<point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> The wars to be avoided for the immediate future were the battles of the conquest of Canaan.</point> | <point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> The wars to be avoided for the immediate future were the battles of the conquest of Canaan.</point> | ||
<point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem and when?</b><ul> | <point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem and when?</b><ul> | ||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category name="">Avoiding Philistine Route Dangers | <category name="">Avoiding Philistine Route Dangers | ||
− | <p>The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route (the critical factor was to avoid traveling "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"). Hashem | + | <p>The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route (the critical factor was to avoid traveling "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"). Hashem was concerned lest the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten it into returning to Egypt.</p> |
<mekorot><multilink><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Beshalach Vayehi</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>,<fn>The Midrash offers many possible reads of the verses, including some of the approaches below.</fn> <multilink><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="Targum Pseudo-Jonathan" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah #1</a><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">20:11-16</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Beshalach Vayehi</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>,<fn>The Midrash offers many possible reads of the verses, including some of the approaches below.</fn> <multilink><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="Targum Pseudo-Jonathan" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah #1</a><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">20:11-16</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
<point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding which enemy needed to be avoided:<b>Philistines</b> | <point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding which enemy needed to be avoided:<b>Philistines</b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <ul> – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that it was the Philistines who posed the threat.  According to many of these commentators, the Philistines currently | + | <ul> – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that it was the Philistines who posed the threat.  According to many of these commentators, the Philistines currently</ul> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
<fn>See above, though, that it is questionable whether there were any Philistines living on the coast at the time of the Exodus.</fn> | <fn>See above, though, that it is questionable whether there were any Philistines living on the coast at the time of the Exodus.</fn> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <ul> constituted the threat.</ul> | + | <ul> living on the route itself constituted the threat.</ul> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | <fn>Ramban asserts that the Philistines would not want outsiders trespassing their land, and as such would fight to prevent them from doing so.  Chizkuni and <multilink><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink>, instead, | + | <fn>Ramban asserts that the Philistines would not want outsiders trespassing their land, and as such would fight to prevent them from doing so.  Chizkuni and <multilink><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink>, instead, propose that the Egyptian and Philistines were related (see <a href="Bereshit10-13-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 10:13-14</a>), making them more likely to fight the fleeing nation.</fn> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <ul>  However, the Mekhilta suggests that the | + | <ul>  However, the Mekhilta suggests that the concern was over seeing the frightening remains of previous skirmishes.</ul> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | <fn>According to the Midrash, thirty years earlier, members of the tribe of Ephraim had attempted to make their way to Israel, but they were massacred by the Philistines and their corpses still lay on the Philistine Route.  Hashem did not want the Israelites to see their unburied bodies, panic, and then return to Egypt.  This Midrash is found also in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the first opinion in Shemot Rabbah.</fn> | + | <fn>According to the Midrash, thirty years earlier, members of the tribe of Ephraim had attempted to make their way to Israel, but they were massacred by the Philistines and their corpses still lay on the Philistine Route.  Hashem did not want the Israelites to see their unburied bodies, panic, and then return to Egypt.  This Midrash is found also in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and the first opinion in Shemot Rabbah, and Josephus may be alluding to an earlier form of it.</fn> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Egyptians</b> – According to modern scholars,<fn>See, for example, N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 103-106.</fn> the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".<fn>This means the wall of the ruler, and refers to the heavily guarded, defensive line protecting Northern Egypt. This might be the equivalent of the Biblical "דרך שור".</fn>  At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.<fn>See above that the coastal Philistines had not yet arrived.</fn> Traveling via such a route would inevitably lead to conflict with the Egyptians, and Israelite terror of their masters would lead to a quick surrender and return to servitude.<fn>Moreover, if Paroh decided to chase, the nation would have been trapped and feel like they had no choice but to give in.</fn></li> | <li><b>Egyptians</b> – According to modern scholars,<fn>See, for example, N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 103-106.</fn> the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".<fn>This means the wall of the ruler, and refers to the heavily guarded, defensive line protecting Northern Egypt. This might be the equivalent of the Biblical "דרך שור".</fn>  At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.<fn>See above that the coastal Philistines had not yet arrived.</fn> Traveling via such a route would inevitably lead to conflict with the Egyptians, and Israelite terror of their masters would lead to a quick surrender and return to servitude.<fn>Moreover, if Paroh decided to chase, the nation would have been trapped and feel like they had no choice but to give in.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>"וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה"</b> – According to most of these commentators, Hashem's worry was that when faced with war, the nation would panic and return of the own volition to the relative safety of Egypt. Philo, though, maintains that the problem was that whoever fought the nation would actively drive them back to Egypt.<fn>See Chizkuni who brings a similar possibility, suggesting that the Philistines would return the fleeing slaves to Egypt. This ignores the wording of the text "פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם" which suggests that the nation themselves would have a change of heart.</fn></point> |
+ | <point><b>Evidence and parallels</b> – See the Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel below who note that there were fearsome Philistine giants (see Yehoshua 11,<fn>See Yehoshua 11:22 that, as a result, the Philistine region was not conquerable at the time of Yehoshua and remained a thorn in the Israelites' side until (and even during) the period of the Monarchy.</fn> Shemuel I 17, Shemuel II 21), and that these were the subject of the similar concern in Devarim 9:1-2.<fn>However, see above that these coastal Philistines arrived in Israel in only a later time period.</fn>  The concern over the Philistine giants also parallels the Spies' trepidation in Bemidbar 13 regarding the giants in Chevron.</point> | ||
<point><b>Double "כִּי"</b> – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means "because" but disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי". | <point><b>Double "כִּי"</b> – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means "because" but disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי". | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 119: | Line 120: | ||
<li>Chizkuni<fn>See also <multilink><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink>.</fn> suggests a more metaphoric read of the verse, proposing that the subject of "הוּא" is the Philistines themselves (not the Route) who were relatives (קרובים) of the Egyptians<fn>Cf. Minchah Belulah.</fn> and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.<fn>See also Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael who also reads the verse metaphorically,  suggesting that the phrase is referring to the oath of Avraham to Avimelekh. The oath was "too close", meaning that it was still in effect.</fn></li> | <li>Chizkuni<fn>See also <multilink><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink>.</fn> suggests a more metaphoric read of the verse, proposing that the subject of "הוּא" is the Philistines themselves (not the Route) who were relatives (קרובים) of the Egyptians<fn>Cf. Minchah Belulah.</fn> and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.<fn>See also Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael who also reads the verse metaphorically,  suggesting that the phrase is referring to the oath of Avraham to Avimelekh. The oath was "too close", meaning that it was still in effect.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | |||
<point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem?</b> Ramban asserts that the only wars that might have caused the nation to return were ones against settled peoples whose lands were being trespassed. Amalek was exceptional, as they attacked en route. As such, flight would have been pointless since the Amalekites would have continued to fight even as the nation ran. Ramban further proposes that once the nation took a roundabout route, they no longer knew the way back to Egypt.<fn>Cf. Abarbanel below who suggests 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.</fn></point> | <point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem?</b> Ramban asserts that the only wars that might have caused the nation to return were ones against settled peoples whose lands were being trespassed. Amalek was exceptional, as they attacked en route. As such, flight would have been pointless since the Amalekites would have continued to fight even as the nation ran. Ramban further proposes that once the nation took a roundabout route, they no longer knew the way back to Egypt.<fn>Cf. Abarbanel below who suggests 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.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – According to Rashi the verse highlights this point because it was only due to the change of route (into the wilderness) that the nation needed to be armed with provisions. Ramban, in contrast, asserts that the verse is emphasizing how fearful the nation was of a Philistine attack, to the extent that they even armed themselves as a precaution.<fn><multilink><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink> raises a different possibility, that the verse is referring to the gold and silver vessels that the nation took from the Egyptians.  He suggests that Hashem feared that if the Philistines saw what the Israelites had taken, they would surely have attacked.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – According to Rashi the verse highlights this point because it was only due to the change of route (into the wilderness) that the nation needed to be armed with provisions. Ramban, in contrast, asserts that the verse is emphasizing how fearful the nation was of a Philistine attack, to the extent that they even armed themselves as a precaution.<fn><multilink><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. Chaim Paltiel</a><a href="RCPaltielShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chaim Paltiel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chaim Paltiel</a></multilink> raises a different possibility, that the verse is referring to the gold and silver vessels that the nation took from the Egyptians.  He suggests that Hashem feared that if the Philistines saw what the Israelites had taken, they would surely have attacked.</fn></point> |
Version as of 02:51, 25 February 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 appears to explain its choice by highlighting the more mundane dangers associated with the alternative Philistine Route. Commentators thus struggle with how to reconcile the relationship between theory and text, with their positions partially dependent on whether baiting Paroh into chasing after the Israelites was a crucial element of the Divine master plan.
Two approaches emphasize the advantages of the Wilderness Route. R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno focus exclusively on the immediate objective of reaching Yam Suf, saying that this was always Hashem's initial plan and that this alone accounts for the path taken. The Mekhilta and many others also accent the positive, but they instead stress the long range benefits of traveling through the wilderness, as it allowed the nation to acquire the mental, physical, and spiritual fortitude needed to conquer and settle Canaan. In contrast to both of these positions, Rashi and others adopt the simple reading of the text that the purpose was merely to avoid the pitfalls of the alternative Philistine Route. Finally, Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel attempt to synthesize various approaches, combining the mundane reasoning explicit in the text with the more implicit transcendent motives.
The following is an analysis of the spectrum of approaches regarding Hashem's main objective in leading the Israelites by way of the Wilderness Route:
Facilitating the Egyptians' Destruction
The Wilderness Route was selected in order to ensure a confrontation in which the Egyptians would drown in the Sea (the primary purpose is indicated in the words "יַם סוּף"). This would sever the Israelites' remaining bonds of servitude, thereby enabling them to then (and only then) proceed to Israel.
- Yam Suf – Seforno contends that heading for Israel was not even a consideration prior to the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, as it was still assumed that the Israelites were returning to Egypt. Accordingly, the verse cannot be speaking of which path was the shortest to Israel, but must rather be dealing with which was the quickest to Yam Suf.6 He thus posits that each of the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route must have led to Yam Suf,7 but that the Philistine Route was the shorter one of the two.8
- Israel – R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, does assume that the verse is speaking of which path the nation was to take to arrive in the land of Israel.9 He explains that the Philistine Route was the shortest option10 and would have been the obvious choice had the Egyptian threat not existed.11 According to him, this is precisely what the verses are saying – Yam Suf needed to occur and the Egyptian army needed to be disposed of before the Israelites could journey to Canaan.12
- With Egypt and the Philistines – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem's immediate concern was about the Israelites' potentially fearful response to being surrounded by foes, as they would be attacked by the pursuing Egyptians from behind as well as the looming Philistine threat from the front.13
- With Egypt alone – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon hearing14 that the Egyptians were in hot pursuit and return to Egypt rather than fight. Seforno, though, assumes that this encounter would occur even before the Israelites reached Philistine territory.15
- Avoiding a dual front battle – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that traveling via the Wilderness Route avoided exposing the Israelites to a two-pronged attack.17
- Forcing a confrontation – Seforno posits that the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was devoid of spies and informers. As such, the Israelites would be unaware of the pursuing Egyptians until it was too late to flee.18
- Two opposing factors – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the "כִּי" of "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" to be providing the reason why the Philistine Route might have been chosen,20 while only the "כִּי" of "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים" explains why this option was rejected.
- Two parts of the same explanation – According to Seforno, both "כִּי" phrases constitute part of the reason for not choosing the Philistine Route.21
Affording Opportunities for National Growth
The Wilderness Route was not just the default alternative to a rejected route, but rather had value in its own right (the key words being "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר"), as it offered the nation vital opportunities that the Philistine Route could not. This approach subdivides regarding what this route had to offer:
Physical and Mental Fortitude
The Wilderness Route afforded the nation both the time and environment needed to discard 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 instilled courage and strength,32 and he explains that this was the purpose of the trials (נסיונות) in the wilderness.33 R. Hirsch adds that the challenges encountered taught them to trust in Hashem, which, in turn, gave 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.34 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.35 Rambam's dim view of the generation of the Exodus is reflected also in his contention that numerous commandments needed to be given to address its deficiencies.36
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites37 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim38 adds that the extra time afforded by the Wilderness Route ensured that the sins of the Emorites would be complete and they would deserve to be eliminated by the time the Israelites arrived in the land.39
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 conquered the land they would disperse each to their own inheritance and no longer have the opportunity to learn Torah and be guided spiritually by Moshe.
- Netziv and Meshekh Chokhmah maintain that God feared the influence the idolatrous neighbors would have on such a fledgling nation.
- Netziv stresses that the first reason of "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" was the primary one. He points out that the subsequent reason of "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים פֶּן... וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" could have been only a secondary concern, as the people did desire to return to Egypt even on the longer path.55 He suggests that Hashem added this second reason only because the nation would not have understood the meaning of the fear of assimilation.56
- The Toledot Yitzchak, R. Hirsch, and Malbim, though, maintain that the reasons work in tandem. 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.
- Experiencing miracles and dependence on Hashem – The Wilderness Route enabled the nation to witness the miracles of the Splitting of the Sea, manna, and water, all of which instilled faith in God.57
- Receiving mitzvot – It further allowed the Children of Israel to receive the Torah and learn God's commandments.58
- Sterile environment – The isolated environs of the wilderness protected the people from outside influences.59
- All needs provided – The miraculous providing for their subsistence in the wilderness gave the Israelites the opportunity to grow and learn without being occupied with and overwhelmed by the normal concerns of having to work the land.60
Avoiding Philistine Route Dangers
The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route (the critical factor was to avoid traveling "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"). Hashem was concerned lest the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten it into returning to Egypt.
- – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that it was the Philistines who posed the threat. According to many of these commentators, the Philistines currently
- living on the route itself constituted the threat.
- However, the Mekhilta suggests that the concern was over seeing the frightening remains of previous skirmishes.
- Egyptians – According to modern scholars,67 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".68 At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.69 Traveling via such a route would inevitably lead to conflict with the Egyptians, and Israelite terror of their masters would lead to a quick surrender and return to servitude.70
- 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 only 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 Philistine Route is close to Egypt, and either despite this fact, or because of this fact, it is rejected.
- Chizkuni74 suggests a more metaphoric read of the verse, proposing that the subject of "הוּא" is the Philistines themselves (not the Route) who were relatives (קרובים) of the Egyptians75 and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.76
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.
- 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. The Akeidat Yitzchak suggests that this was the antidote to the original concern regarding war. After the miracle, the news spread and instilled fear throughout Canaan, enabling the Israelites to more easily defeat the Canaanite nations.
- 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.82 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.83