Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
<p>The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf.</p> | <p>The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf.</p> | ||
<mekorot>R"Y Bekhor Shor, <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">R. Yoel Bin Nun</a></mekorot> | <mekorot>R"Y Bekhor Shor, <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">R. Yoel Bin Nun</a></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף</b> – This approach emphasizes not the desert aspect of the chosen route, but that it led to Yam Suf.</point> | + | <point><b>דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף</b> – This approach emphasizes not the desert aspect of the chosen route, but that it led to Yam Suf.  Hashem's main goal in leading the nation via this path was to drown the Egyptians, and thus rid the nation of their dependence on Egypt.</point> |
<point><b>Double כִּי</b><ul> | <point><b>Double כִּי</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Different meanings</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Yoel b. Nun understands the first "כִּי" to mean "that"<fn>R"Y BekhorShor 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 Yoel b. Nun understands the first "כִּי" to mean "that"<fn>R"Y BekhorShor 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>Identical meaning</b> – According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean because. There was a dual, but connected concern. The fact that the route was close to Egypt meant that it would be filled with informers who would both tell Paroh of the fleeing Israelites and, subsequently, tell the Israelites of the pursuing Egyptian army. Fear of the encounter would lead them to submissively return to their masters without even fighting.<fn>In the first part of Seforno's comments, he appears to be offering a different understanding of this part of the verse. There he implies that the first "כִּי" means that or even though and suggests that although the Philistine route was the closest path to Yam Suf (the nation's intended first stop so as to drown the Egyptians), God preferred to go there via a longer route due to the informers on the path. This suggestion does not work with our knowledge of the area's geography.</fn></li> | <li><b>Identical meaning</b> – According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean because. There was a dual, but connected concern. The fact that the route was close to Egypt meant that it would be filled with informers who would both tell Paroh of the fleeing Israelites and, subsequently, tell the Israelites of the pursuing Egyptian army. Fear of the encounter would lead them to submissively return to their masters without even fighting.<fn>In the first part of Seforno's comments, he appears to be offering a different understanding of this part of the verse. There he implies that the first "כִּי" means that or even though and suggests that although the Philistine route was the closest path to Yam Suf (the nation's intended first stop so as to drown the Egyptians), God preferred to go there via a longer route due to the informers on the path. This suggestion does not work with our knowledge of the area's geography.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>War with whom?</b> According to R | + | <point><b>War with whom?</b><ul> |
− | <point><b>וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno understand the phrase to refer to the concern that the nation return physically to Egypt and servitude while Yoel B. Nun asserts that the verse is referring to reliance on Egypt and seeking their help in the future when endangered by other enemies.</point> | + | <li><b>Prevent war with Egypt and Philistines</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor Hashem wanted to prevent a war on two fronts, from both the pursuing Egyptians and the Philistines and thus took them on a route which would lead tothe drowning of the Egyptians.</li> |
+ | <li><b>Ensure war</b> <b>with egypt </b>- Seforno, in contrast, suggests that Hashem feared that the nation would panic at the site of the Egyptians and flee rather than fight.  Hashem wanted to ensure that they knew of the Egyptians only at the last moment when flight was no longer an option, forcing a confrontation which would lead the Egyptians to drown in Yam Suf.</li> | ||
+ | <li><b> Future wars</b> – R. Yoel B. 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.</li> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno understand the phrase to refer to the concern that the nation return physically to Egypt and servitude.  Seforno highlights how Hasehm's whole plan was to drown the  while Yoel B. Nun asserts that the verse is referring to reliance on Egypt and seeking their help in the future when endangered by other enemies.</point> | ||
<point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and R. Yoel b. Nun the verse is simply saying that the route is close to Canaan, while according to Seforno, the verse is presenting the concern of the route's proximity to Egypt.<fn>See above note, that in the beginning of Seforno's comments he suggests that the verse is saying that the Philistine route is the closest one by which to arrive at Yam Suf.</fn></point> | <point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and R. Yoel b. Nun the verse is simply saying that the route is close to Canaan, while according to Seforno, the verse is presenting the concern of the route's proximity to Egypt.<fn>See above note, that in the beginning of Seforno's comments he suggests that the verse is saying that the Philistine route is the closest one by which to arrive at Yam Suf.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>How is the Desert Route a solution?</b><ul> | <point><b>How is the Desert Route a solution?</b><ul> |
Version as of 00:20, 25 January 2015
The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Avoiding the Philistine Route
The choice of the Desert 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.2
- Past wars – Targum Pseudo Jonathan, Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishamel 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,3 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".4 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.5
- 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.
- Both Chikuni and R. Paltiel raise 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.6
- 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 went a roundabout route, they no longer knew the way back to Egypt.
- 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.
Intrinsic Value in the Desert Route
The Desert 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:
Practical Preparation for 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 desert life would instill courage and strength. 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 desert provided time to learn the skills necessary for self rule.
- New generation – Rambam proposes that the forty years in the desert meant that it was a new generation that had never been enslaved which entered the land.10 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.11
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the desert would both instill fear in the Canaanites12 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Time for Canaanites – Malbim adds that the extra time afforded by the Desert 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.
Spiritual Growth
The time in the desert enabled the nation to witness miracles, grow in their Torah learning, and deepen their connection to Hashem.
- Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishamel 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.
- Neziv 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.14
- 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.
Drowning in Yam Suf
The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf.
- Different meanings – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Yoel b. Nun understands the first "כִּי" to mean "that"18 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. There was a dual, but connected concern. The fact that the route was close to Egypt meant that it would be filled with informers who would both tell Paroh of the fleeing Israelites and, subsequently, tell the Israelites of the pursuing Egyptian army. Fear of the encounter would lead them to submissively return to their masters without even fighting.19
- Prevent war with Egypt and Philistines – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor Hashem wanted to prevent a war on two fronts, from both the pursuing Egyptians and the Philistines and thus took them on a route which would lead tothe drowning of the Egyptians.
- Ensure war with egypt - Seforno, in contrast, suggests that Hashem feared that the nation would panic at the site of the Egyptians and flee rather than fight. Hashem wanted to ensure that they knew of the Egyptians only at the last moment when flight was no longer an option, forcing a confrontation which would lead the Egyptians to drown in Yam Suf.
- Future wars – R. Yoel B. 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.
- Presence of sea – R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that only on the Desert Route was there a sea in which God 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.21
- Lack of spies – Seforno believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf22 but the Desert 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 flight back to Egypt. Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, thus accomplishing God's primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.23