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 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 | + | <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 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 what we know to be important and what the text says, with their positions partially dependent on whether baiting Paroh into chasing after the Israelites was a crucial element of the Divine master plan.</p> |
<p>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.</p></div> | <p>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.</p></div> | ||
<p>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:</p> | <p>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:</p> | ||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
<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> | <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: | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</b> 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.<fn>However, see Chizkuni (as well as <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> and the Minchah Belulah) who 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 and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.  Cf. 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><fn data-ahtedit="PointText">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></point> |
+ | <point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding which enemy was on the Philistine Route which needed to be avoided: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Philistines</b> – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that it was the Philistines who posed the threat.  According to the medieval commentators, the Philistines currently<fn>See above, though, that it is questionable whether there were any Philistines living on the coast at the time of the Exodus.</fn> living on the route itself constituted the threat.<fn>Ramban asserts that the Philistines would not want outsiders trespassing their land, and as such would fight to prevent them from doing so.  See 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> below who 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> However, the Mekhilta suggests that the concern was over seeing the frightening remains of previous skirmishes.<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.  The motivation for the Midrash may be the perplexing question of why the nation would be more afraid of the Philistines than they would be from the pursuing Egyptians.</fn></li> | <li><b>Philistines</b> – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that it was the Philistines who posed the threat.  According to the medieval commentators, the Philistines currently<fn>See above, though, that it is questionable whether there were any Philistines living on the coast at the time of the Exodus.</fn> living on the route itself constituted the threat.<fn>Ramban asserts that the Philistines would not want outsiders trespassing their land, and as such would fight to prevent them from doing so.  See 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> below who 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> However, the Mekhilta suggests that the concern was over seeing the frightening remains of previous skirmishes.<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.  The motivation for the Midrash may be the perplexing question of why the nation would be more afraid of the Philistines than they would be from the pursuing Egyptians.</fn></li> | ||
Line 100: | Line 101: | ||
<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>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>"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>"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> | + | <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>Double "כִּי" and their relationship</b> – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means "because", but they disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי" and its relationship to the second. | <point><b>Double "כִּי" and their relationship</b> – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means "because", but they disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי" and its relationship to the second. | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 109: | Line 107: | ||
<li><b>Even though or that</b> – R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla‎ (cited by Ibn Ezra) maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though",<fn>Ibn Ezra cites other examples where "כִּי" might have this meaning, but they are all debatable (see Biur).</fn> while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, though, the meaning is the same,<fn>While they suggest opposite meanings for the "כִּי", they also have opposite readings of the sentence structure.  According to Ibn Chiquitilla‎, the "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" explains the end result of what Hashem did not do (‏"[וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים] [כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא]"‏), while according to Ramban it explains what Hashem did not do (‏"[וְלֹא] [נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא]"‏). Their interpretations thus have the same net result.</fn> and 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 danger involved.</li> | <li><b>Even though or that</b> – R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla‎ (cited by Ibn Ezra) maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though",<fn>Ibn Ezra cites other examples where "כִּי" might have this meaning, but they are all debatable (see Biur).</fn> while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, though, the meaning is the same,<fn>While they suggest opposite meanings for the "כִּי", they also have opposite readings of the sentence structure.  According to Ibn Chiquitilla‎, the "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" explains the end result of what Hashem did not do (‏"[וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים] [כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא]"‏), while according to Ramban it explains what Hashem did not do (‏"[וְלֹא] [נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא]"‏). Their interpretations thus have the same net result.</fn> and 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 danger involved.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></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> | ||
<point><b>What about Sinai?</b> None of these commentators address the question, but one could argue that had the Philistine Route not been problematic, Hashem truly might have revealed himself somewhere on that path.<fn>Cf. R. D"Z Hoffmann above.</fn>  Hashem had previously told Moshe that the nation would serve Him at Chorev, only because He is omniscient and knew in advance that the nation would ultimately take the Wilderness Route.</point> | <point><b>What about Sinai?</b> None of these commentators address the question, but one could argue that had the Philistine Route not been problematic, Hashem truly might have revealed himself somewhere on that path.<fn>Cf. R. D"Z Hoffmann above.</fn>  Hashem had previously told Moshe that the nation would serve Him at Chorev, only because He is omniscient and knew in advance that the nation would ultimately take the Wilderness Route.</point> |
Version as of 04:29, 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 what we know to be important and what the text says, 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.
- Philistines – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that it was the Philistines who posed the threat. According to the medieval commentators, the Philistines currently66 living on the route itself constituted the threat.67 However, the Mekhilta suggests that the concern was over seeing the frightening remains of previous skirmishes.68
- Egyptians – According to modern scholars,69 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".70 At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.71 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.72
- 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 – R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla (cited by Ibn Ezra) maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though",77 while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, though, the meaning is the same,78 and 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 danger involved.
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.84 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.85