Version as of 02:37, 30 January 2015

The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled

Exegetical Approaches

This topic is still being developed and updated

Overview

Some of the most formative events in the history of the Children of Israel occurred on the Wilderness Route, and it is difficult to imagine how history would have evolved without them. However, the sublime benefits of this travel route are more obvious only in retrospect, while the Torah's explanation of this choice appears to emphasize the more mundane dangers to the nation at that particular juncture. Commentators thus struggle with how to reconcile the relationship between theory and text, with their positions partially depending on whether baiting Paroh into chasing after the Israelites was part of the Divine master plan.

R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno focus exclusively on the immediate objective of reaching "יַם סוּף", assuming this was always Hashem's initial plan. The Mekhilta and many others instead stress the long range goals of traveling "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר", elaborating on how it provided the nation with the mental, physical, and spiritual preparation necessary for their arrival in Canaan. In contrast, Rashi and others opt to take the the text at face value, adopting the simple reading that the purpose is merely to avoid the dangers of "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים". Finally, Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel attempt to synthesize various approaches, combining the mundane reasoning explicit in the text with the more implicit transcendent motives.

Below is the spectrum of approaches in defining Hashem's primary objective in leading the Israelites by way of the Wilderness Route:

Inducing the Egyptians' Drowning

The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf, thereby displaying Hashem's might and/or ridding the Israelites of their dependence on Egypt.

Sources:Josephus #1, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Seforno, Yoel Bin-Nun

"דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף" – This approach emphasizes, not the wilderness aspect of the chosen route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר"), but that it led to Yam Suf ("‏יַם סוּף‏‏"‎).¹ The miracle of Yam Suf was the ultimate objective of Hashem's original plan, and thus it was the determining factor in His choice of route rather than being merely its consequence.

Avoiding war with whom?

With Egypt and the Philistines – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem's immediate concern was over the Israelites' potentially fearful response to being surrounded by foes on all sides, as they would be attacked from behind by the pursuing Egyptians and from the front by the looming Philistines.
With Egypt alone – Seforno concurs that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon seeing the Egyptians in hot pursuit and flee rather than fight. Seforno, though, assumes that this encounter would happen even before the Israelites reached Canaan and were confronted by the Philistines.
Future wars – In contrast, Y. Bin-Nun asserts that the concern was a long range one, and related to any future wars which might lead the nascent Israelite nation to return to Egypt for protection.

How is the Wilderness Route a solution? As all of these commentators maintain that the real reason for the choice of the Wilderness Route was in order to cause the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, they must show how this encounter at Yam Suf is also what forestalled the concerns over the Israelites' potential behavior:

Avoiding a two front battle – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that traveling via the Wilderness Route avoided Israelite exposure to a two-pronged attack and provided a body of water in which Hashem could drown the Egyptians and dispose of foes one at a time. Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the Splitting of the Sea would be a far greater one.
Forcing a confrontation – Seforno, in contrast, believes that even the Philistine Route would have led to Yam Suf,² but that the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was devoid of spies and informers. As such, the Israelites would be unaware of the chasing Egyptians until it was too late to flee. According to Seforno, Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, so as to accomplish His primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.
No more dependence – According to Y. Bin-Nun, the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf achieved their total defeat and freed the Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.³

"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים" – To where? Most commentators assume that Hashem is speaking of the route which would lead to the land of Israel. Seforno, in contrast, claims that Hashem is referring to the path that would lead to Yam Suf.⁴ He assumes that both the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route led to Yam Suf⁵ since that was always the intended goal. The only question was which route to prefer.

Double "כִּי"

Different meanings – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun understand the first "כִּי" to mean "that"⁶ and the second to mean "because". The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.
Identical meaning – According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean "because", and the two phrases together constitute the full dual concern.⁷

"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what? According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun the verse is simply making a statement of fact,⁸ that the route is close to Canaan,⁹ while according to Seforno, the verse is presenting the concern of the route's proximity to Egypt.

"וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno understand the phrase to refer to the fear lest the nation return physically to Egypt and servitude while Y. Bin-Nun asserts that the verse is referring instead to reliance on Egypt and seeking their help in the future when endangered by other enemies.

Did Paroh think the nation was to return? This approach assumes that Paroh was under the assumption that the nation would return after their "three day holiday", leading him to chase after the nation when they did not. It is possible that the whole ruse was in fact intended to guarantee the pursuit and subsequent drowning. For elaboration of this possibility, see A Three Day Journey.

"וַחֲמֻשִׁים" – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the verse to refer to food provisions. If so, one might say that the choice to travel through the wilderness 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 Mt. Sinai was always meant to be the second stop; first, though, Hashem wanted to drown the Egyptians.

Biblical parallels – Seforno compares Hashem's plan here to the words of Devorah to Barak in Shofetim 4, "וּמָשַׁכְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ אֶל נַחַל קִישׁוֹן אֶת סִיסְרָא". There, too, Hashem drew an enemy to follow Israel to a certain site with intent to defeat him there.

Facilitating National Growth

The Wilderness Route was not just the default alternative to a rejected route, but rather had value in its own right, as it offered the nation vital opportunities that the Philistine Route could not. This approach subdivides regarding what the route had to offer:

Physical and Mental Fortitude

The route afforded the nation both the time and environment needed to lose their slave mentality and gain the confidence and independence essential to conquer and rule Canaan.

Where is the Philistine Route? Most of these commentators do not address the issue but many readers assume that it refers to the route that leads northeast out of Egypt, traversing the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (also known as דרך הים). At the time of the Exodus, though, the Philistines who later live in this area had not yet arrived,¹¹ leading Cassuto to assert that the verse instead refers to a path that leads from Egypt to Israel via the Negev, home to the Philistines of Avraham's time.¹²

"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.

Avoiding war with whom? The war to be avoided was 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 Wilderness Route a solution?

Growth through trials – Rambam emphasizes how the scarcity and hardships of wilderness life would instill courage and strength.¹³ R. Hirsch adds that the challenges encountered would teach them to trust in Hashem, which, in turn, would give them the self-confidence needed to fight. Shadal further asserts that the time in the wilderness provided time to learn the skills necessary for self rule.
New generation – Rambam proposes that the forty years in the wilderness meant that it was a new generation that had never been enslaved which entered the land.¹⁴ This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.¹⁵
Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites¹⁶ and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim¹⁷ adds that the extra time afforded by the Wilderness Route ensured that the sins of the Emorites would be complete and they would be deserving of conquest by the time the nation arrived in the land.¹⁸

Later desires to return to Egypt – This position might explain that though the nation nonetheless desired to return to Egypt even on the longer route, this itself is proof that had they gone the shorter route and been forced to fight the Canaanites they would have surely fled. On the Wilderness Route, though there were grumblings to return, they were never acted upon.

"וַחֲמֻשִׁים" – 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 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 Sinai. 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.

What about Yam Suf? This approach might suggest that the verses speak of Hashem's long range goals in choosing a route, rather than focusing on the immediate ones such as the miracle at Yam Suf. The verses could perhaps be seen as an introduction to the entire trek in the wilderness and not just as a conclusion to the Exodus story. Alternatively, these exegetes might suggest that Hashem had not originally planned to drown the Egyptians and it was only after choosing this route and seeing Paroh's about-face and pursuit that He decided to do so.

Biblical parallels

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.

"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.²⁰

Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Shadal explain that once they arrived they would disperse to their own inheritances and work, losing the opportunity to learn Torah and be guided spiritually by Moshe.
Meshekh Chokhmah maintains that God feared the influence the idolatrous Canaanites would have on such a fledgling nation.

Double "כִּי" – Both occurrences of the word mean because.

Netziv stresses that the first reason given (proximity) was the primary one. He points out that as the people did desire to return to Egypt when facing war even on the longer path, this could not have been a major concern and goes as far as to suggest that God just said this because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.²¹
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 Wilderness Route a solution? The Wilderness 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.²² Finally the isolated atmosphere protected them from outside influences²³ and gave them the opportunity to grow and learn without the concerns of having to provide for themselves.²⁴

Did Paroh think the nation was to return? Netziv suggests that by the time of the Exodus, Paroh knew that the nation was not supposed to return after three days and that when he ultimately granted permission, it was to leave forever. Thus, Netziv asserts that the the reason given in the verse for the chosen longer route was not fear that Paroh would chase (as he would surely have done if he saw them going the Philistine Route and expected that they were simply worshiping their god)²⁵, but only its potential for instilling faith.²⁶

"וַחֲמֻשִׁים" – This approach might suggest that choosing the longer route necessitated food provisions.

What about Sinai and Yam Suf? According to this approach, getting the Torah on Mt. Sinai and witnessing miracles such as the splitting of the Sea were some of the main advantages of the route. It is unclear, if so, why they are not given as the reason in the verses.

Biblical parallels – Shadal understands the forty year wandering in the wilderness after the Sin of the Spies as similarly motivated by a need for the nation to learn from Moshe and grow in the faith before entering the Land.

Avoiding the Dangers of the Philistine Route

The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route. Hashem worried that the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten them into returning to Egypt.

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

Philistines – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself²⁸ were the threat.²⁹
Past wars – Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and the first opinion in Shemot Rabbah assert that the fear related not to the consequences of present battles, but to the remnants of past wars. Thirty years earlier members of the tribe of Ephraim attempted to make their way to Israel but fell at the hand of the Philistines. Hashem did not want the Israelites to see their fallen bodies, panic, and then return to Egypt.
Egyptians – According to modern scholars,³⁰ the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".³¹ 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.³²

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. 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.

"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.
Chizkuni³³ raises a more metaphoric read of the verse, suggesting that the subject of "הוּא" is the Philistines themselves (not the route) who were relatives (קרובים) of the Egyptians and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.³⁴

"וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" – 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.³⁵

How is the Wilderness 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 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.³⁶

"וַחֲמֻשִׁים" – 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.³⁷

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 wilderness , Hashem previously told Moshe that the service would take place in Chorev.

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.

Sources:Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel

Where is the Philistine Route? Abarbanel asserts that this refers to the coastal route, and points out that via this path it would take a mere eight days to travel from Egypt to Jerusalem, proving that it was indeed the "shorter route."

War with whom?
– Both Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel maintain that the immediate concern related to war with the Philistines living on the route,³⁸ but they add that this fear would then cause the nation to cast doubts about their abilities to conquer the land as a whole.³⁹

How is the Wilderness Route a solution?

Longer route – Abarbanel points out that the war against the Philistines would have been almost immediate (due to their proximity to Egypt) and as such was much more likely to lead the nation to flee back to Egypt than later wars.
"דֶּרֶךְ... יַם סוּף" – In addition, only on this route was there a sea in which to drown the Egyptians. Akeidat Yitzchak suggests that this was the antidote to the original concern regarding war. After the miracle, news spread and instilling fear throughout Canaan, enabling the Israelites to more easily defeat them.
Preserve honesty – Abarbanel asserts that another motivating factor in traveling the Wilderness Route was the fact that Paroh had sent them assuming that they were leaving for a three day furlough to worship God in the wilderness.⁴⁰ If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and as such Hashem led them through the wilderness as per their own words.

Double "כִּי"
– Akeidat Yitzchak assumes that the first "כִּי" means "that" and is simply describing the route rather than explaining its rejection. The real concern was that wars encountered there would lead the nation back to Egypt. Abarbanel, in contrast, asserts that both words mean "because". Wars on this route specifically would lead the nation to return because its proximity meant an earlier confrontation.

"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?
– The concern related to the Philistines' proximity to the nation in Egypt and the fact that they would confron them a mere few days after leaving Egypt.

Did Paroh think the nation was to return?.
– According to Abarbanel Paroh believed that the nation was to return after three days. The very fact that he was not freeing them permanently but rather expecting them to head to the wilderness is one of the reasons that Hashem chose the route He did.⁴¹

"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"
– Abarbanel asserts that the verse is emphasizing that even though the nation left armed and/or in military formations of fifths they still lacked the courage to fight against the Philistines.

What about Sinai and Yam Suf?
– Abarbanel assumes that these were both factors in choosing the Wilderness Route. Perhaps the route is referred as "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף". to hint to both events. יַם סוּף refers to the miracle of the drowning in Yam Suf and "הַמִּדְבָּר" perhaps alludes to the nation's request to worship Hashem in the wilderness.

Biblical Parallels

¹⁸ See also similar opinions in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Shemot Rabbah that suggest that Canaanites had ruined the agriculture of Canaan and Hashem wanted to give the land time to rejuvenate. Another possibility raised there relates to the fact that the oath of Avraham not to harm the Philistines was still in effect, necessitating a forty year delay until conquest could begin.
All these opinions might be assuming that the nation of Israel left Egypt earlier than intended. Had they stayed the full 430 years as originally planned, the land would have been ready for conquest, but since Hashem needed to save the Israelites from the oppression earlier, a delay was needed in the wilderness. See Duration of the Egyptian Exile for different approaches that suggest that Hashem shortened the length of the original enslavement.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 <li><b> Future wars</b> – In contrast, Y. Bin-Nun asserts that the concern was a long range one, and related to any future wars which might lead the nascent Israelite nation to return to Egypt for protection.</li>
 </ul></point>
-	<point><b>How is the Wilderness Route a solution?</b> As all of these commentators maintain that the real reason for the choice of the Wilderness Route was in order to cause the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, they must show how this encounter at Yam Suf is also what forestalled the Israelites' fears:<br/>
+	<point><b>How is the Wilderness Route a solution?</b> As all of these commentators maintain that the real reason for the choice of the Wilderness Route was in order to cause the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, they must show how this encounter at Yam Suf is also what forestalled the concerns over the Israelites' potential behavior:<br/>
 <ul>
 <li><b>Avoiding a two front battle</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that traveling via the Wilderness Route avoided Israelite exposure to a two-pronged attack and provided a body of water in which Hashem could drown the Egyptians and dispose of foes one at a time.&#160; Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the Splitting of the Sea would be a far greater one.</li>
-<li><b>Forcing a confrontation</b> – Seforno, in contrast, believes that even the Philistine Route would have led to Yam Suf,<fn>See note above that it questionable whether this is true based on the geography of the area.</fn> but that the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was devoid of spies and informers.&#160; As such, the Israelites would not be aware of the chasing Egyptians until they were already upon them, leaving them no option of retreat.&#160; Accordingly, Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, so as to accomplish His primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.</li>
+<li><b>Forcing a confrontation</b> – Seforno, in contrast, believes that even the Philistine Route would have led to Yam Suf,<fn>See note above that it questionable whether this is true based on the geography of the area.</fn> but that the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was devoid of spies and informers.&#160; As such, the Israelites would be unaware of the chasing Egyptians until it was too late to flee.&#160; According to Seforno, Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, so as to accomplish His primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.</li>
 <li><b>No more dependence</b> – According to Y. Bin-Nun, the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf achieved their total defeat and freed the Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.<fn>See Y. Barzilai,&#160;<a href="http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=11733">"וימרו על ים בים סוף - התכנית שלא התממשה"</a>&#160; in על דרך האבות (Alon Shevut: 2001): 297-315, who agrees with Y. Bin-Nun's general approach but questions why the nation continuously asks to return to Egypt if their dependence was severed after the miracle.&#160; He therefore suggests that Hashem had originally planned that the people themselves would defeat Paroh at Yam Suf.&#160; Only their own victory would give them the necessary courage to turn their backs on Egypt in the future.&#160; The nation, though, was not up to the task and in the end Hashem wrought the miracle instead, which saved the people but did not accomplish the primary goal of achieving complete independence.</fn></li>
 </ul></point>

Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"

Version as of 02:37, 30 January 2015

The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Inducing the Egyptians' Drowning

Facilitating National Growth

Physical and Mental Fortitude

Spiritual Development

Avoiding the Dangers of the Philistine Route

Combination

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Tools