The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2

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.

Sources:PhiloOn the Life of Moses XXIX: 163-166About Philo, Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBeshalach VayehiAbout Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 13:17-18About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Shemot Rabbah20:11-16About Shemot Rabbah #1, RashiShemot 13:17-18About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 13:17-18About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, ChizkuniShemot 13:17-18About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, R. Chaim PaltielShemot 13:17-18About R. Chaim Paltiel, RambanShemot 13:17-18About R. Moshe b. Nachman, AbarbanelShemot 13:17About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

War with whom? Commentators divide regarding the enemy that needed to be avoided:

• Philistines – According to most of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself were the threat.¹
• 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,² the Philistine route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".³ 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.⁴

Double כִּי – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means because but disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי".

• Because – Rashi and Ibn Ezra imply that it, too, means "because." Hashem is, thus, giving two related reasons why to avert the Philistine route. Since the route was close by, it would be 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. Hashem chose to dismiss the shorter (and thus seemingly more logical route), because of the wars it would lead to.

"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?

• 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 "הוא" is the Philistines themselves (not the route) who were relatives (קרובים) of the Egyptians and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.⁵

וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה – According to most of these commentators, God'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 whomever fought he nation would actively drive them back to Egypt.⁶

How is the Desert route a solution?

• 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 for 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.

Armed? According to Rashi the verse highlights this point because it was only due to the change of route (into the desert) 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.

What about Sinai? 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. Yet, knowing in advance that they were to travel via the desert, Hashem previously told Moshe that the service would take place in Chorev.

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 valuable 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.

Sources:JosephusAntiquities of the Jews 2:15About Josephus, various opinions in Shemot Rabbah20:11-16About Shemot Rabbah, RashbamShemot 13:17-18About R. Shemuel b. Meir, RambamGuide to the Perplexed 3:32About R. Moshe b. Maimon, ShadalShemot 13:17-18About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. S"R Hirsch, MalbimShemot 13:17-18About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, R. David Zvi Hoffmann, CassutoShemot 13:17-18About Umberto Cassuto

"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what? According to this approach, the problematic issue is the proximity of the route to Canaan. The shortness of the route would mean that the people would arrive in Canaan and be forced to begin the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared to fight.

War with whom? The war to be avoided is the battle of conquest in Canaan.

Double כִּי – According to these commentators, both appearances of the word mean because, and the two reasons given work together. Though one might have thought that a quick route would be advantageous, in this case it itself is the problem. If the nation was forced to wage war against the Canaanites so soon after being freed, when they were still not ready for battle, they would inevitably choose to return to Egypt and servitude.

How is the Desert route a solution?

• 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.⁷ This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.⁸
• Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the desert would both instill fear in the Canaanites⁹ 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.

Armed? Shadal asserts that the verses point this fact out to highlight that it was not due to lack of weaponry that the nation would flee, but rather to their lack of courage.

What about Sinai? This approach, like the above, might maintain that Hashem knew in advance which path the nation was to travel and therefore He previously told Moshe that the nation would serve him at Chorev. This, though, was not the reason for the change of route, for, as R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts, had He wanted to, God could have chosen any site he wanted for revelation.

Spiritual Growth

The time in the desert enabled the nation to witness miracles, grow in their Torah learning, and deepen their connection to Hashem.

Sources:PhiloOn the Life of Moses XXIX: 163-166About Philo, Jospehus, various opinions in Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBeshalach VayehiAbout Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, opinions in Shemot Rabbah20:11-16About Shemot Rabbah, R. Chananel, Toledot YitzchakShemot 13:17-18About R. Yitzchak Karo,  Keli YekarShemot 13:17About R. Shelomo Ephraim Lunshitz, Shadal, R. S"R Hirsch, MalbimShemot 13:17-18About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, Netziv, Meshekh ChokhmahShemot 13:17-18About R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk

"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what? Most of the commentators who take this approach would assert that the problem was the proximity to Canaan. The people needed more time to develop their connection to Hashem before arrival. 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, in contrast, points to the negative influences of the Philistines which God wanted to avoid.¹⁰

Double כִּי – Both occurrences of the word mean because.

• 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.¹¹
• 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.

How is the Desert route a solution? The desert route enabled the nation to witness the miracles of the splitting of the sea, manna, and water which instilled faith in God. It further allowed them to receive the Torah and learn God's commandments.¹² Finally the isolated atmosphere protected them from outside influences¹³ and gave them the opportunity to grow and learn without the concerns of having to provide for themselves.¹⁴

Armed?

What about Sinai? According to this approach, getting the Torah on Mt. Sinai is one of the main advantages of the route. It is unclear, though, why it is not given as the reason in the verses.

Drowning in Yam Suf

The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf.

Sources:R"Y Bekhor Shor, Seforno, R. Yoel b. Nun

דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף - This approach emphasizes not the desert aspect of the chosen route, but that it led to Yam Suf.

Double כִּי

• R"Y Bekhor Shor and Yoel b. Nun understands the first "כִּי" to mean "that".¹⁵ The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.
• 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.¹⁶

War with whom? According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Seforno, Hashem was worried lest the nation encounter war with the pursuing Egyptians. R. Yoel B. Nun, though, suggests that the concern related to any future war which might lead the nation to return to Egypt for protection.

וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה – 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.

"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what? 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.¹⁷

How is the Desert route a solution?

• 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.¹⁸
• Seforno believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf¹⁹ 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.²⁰
• R. Yoel B. Nun, builds off the above, highlighting how Hashem's whole goal was to force a confrontation at Yam Suf, where a decisive victory over the Egyptians and a drowning of their enemies would rid the nation of their feelings of servitude and reliance on their previous masters.

Armed? R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the verse to refer to food provisions. If so, one might say that the choice to travel through the desert necessitated a supply of food, and that is why the fact is mentioned here. Seforno, in contrast, understands it to refer to military arms and suggests that the verse is highlighting that despite being armed, the nation lacked the courage to fight their masters.

What about Sinai? Seforno asserts that Matan Torah was always meant to be the second stop. First, Hashem wanted to drown the Egyptians.

¹ Both Ramban and Abarbanel assert that the Philistines would not want outsiders trespassing their land, and as such would fight to prevent them from doing so. R. Paltiel, instead, proposes that the Egyptian and Philistines were related (see Bereshit 10:13-14 ), making them more likely to fight the fleeing nation.Chizkuni and R. Paltiel also bring the possibility that the oath of Avraham to Avimelekh not to harm his descendants was still in effect, and thus Hashem did not want to take them via this route.

² See

³ 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.

⁴ Moreover, if Paroh decided to chase, the nation would have been trapped and feel like they had no choice but to give in.

⁵ See also Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael who suggests that the phrase is referring to the oath of Avraham to Avimelekh. The oath was "too close", meaning that it was still in effect.

⁶ 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.

⁷ Cf. Ibn Ezra similarly on 14:13.

⁸ This is assuming that from the beginning the nation was meant to wander in the desert for forty years. A simple reading of the text, though, assumes that had they not sinned, the nation would have entered the land soon after Matan Torah.

⁹ See Shemot Rabbah similarly.

¹⁰ According to him, the problem is the route's proximity to Egypt. They would encounter the influences of the Philistines before strengthening their own beliefs.

¹¹ Neziv is picking up on the somewhat awkward formulation "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים" which seems unnecessary. Thus,he understands that this reason was actually said to the nation (and is not just an explanation to the reader).

¹² See Josephus, R. Yehoshua in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, and the Keli Yekar.

¹³ This is emphasized by the Neziv and Meshekh Chokhmah.

¹⁴ See Shadal who develops this point.

¹⁵ R"Y BekhorShor does not address the question explicitly but implies this.

¹⁶ 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 knoledege of the area's geography.

¹⁷ 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.

¹⁸ He also points out that on the Philistine route, the Philistines would have joined the battle forcing a war on two fronts.

¹⁹ This is based on an erroneous understanding of the geography of the area.

²⁰ According to Seforno, from the very beginning, God's plan was to drown the Egyptians. To make sure that this happened and the nation did not cower into returning to Egypt, he had to bring the Egyptians close enough that retreat was no longer an option.