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

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Import script)
(Import script)
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
<category name="">Avoiding the Philistine Route
 
<category name="">Avoiding the Philistine Route
−
<p>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</p>
+
<p>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.</p>
−
<mekorot>Philo, Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, First opinion in Shemot Rabbah, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, R. Chaim Paltiel, Ramban, Abarbanel</mekorot>
+
<mekorot>Philo, Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, First opinion in Shemot Rabbah, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, R. Chaim Paltiel, Ramban, Abarbanel</mekorot>
−
<point><b>War with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding the enemy that needed to be avoided:
+
 +
<point><b>War with whom?</b><p>Commentators divide regarding the enemy that needed to be avoided:</p>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
−
<li><b>Philistines</b> – According to most of these commentators, the Philistines living on the route itself were the threat.<fn>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.</fn></li>
+
<li><b>Philistines</b> – According to most of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself were the threat. <fn>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.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Past wars</b> – Targum Pseudo Jonathon, 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.</li>
 
<li><b>Past wars</b> – Targum Pseudo Jonathon, 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.</li>
−
<li><b>Egyptians</b> – According to N. Sarna and other modern scholars, the Philistine route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".<fn>This means the wall of the ruler, and refers to the heavily guarded, defensive line protecting Northern Egypt.  This might be the equivalent of the Biblical דרך שור. </fn>  At the time of the exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.  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. <fn>Moreover, if Paroh decided to chase, the nation would have been trapped and feel like they had no choice but to give in.</fn></li>
+
<li><b>Egyptians</b> – According to modern scholars,<fn>See </fn> the Philistine route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".<fn>This means the wall of the ruler, and refers to the heavily guarded, defensive line protecting Northern Egypt.  This might be the equivalent of the Biblical דרך שור. </fn>  At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.  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.<fn>Moreover, if Paroh decided to chase, the nation would have been trapped and feel like they had no choice but to give in.</fn></li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</point>
 
</point>
−
<point><b>וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה </b> – 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.<fn>According to the approach that the threat was the Egyptians themselves, one would say that upon encounter, the nation would submissively return to their old masters rather than try and fight.</fn> Philo, though, maintains that the problem was that whomever fought he 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>Double כִּי </b> – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means because but disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי".  
−
<point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b>
 
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
−
<li>According to this approach, the problematic issue is the proximity of the route to Egypt, which would make it easy for the Israelites to return there upon encountering war.</li>
+
<li><b>Because</b> – 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.</li>
−
<li>Both Chikuni and R. Paltiel also 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.<fn>See also, Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael that the verse is referring to the oath of Avraham. The oath was "too close", meaning that it was still in effect.</fn> </li>
+
<li><b>Even though or that</b> – 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.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</point>
 
</point>
−
<point><b>Double כִּי </b> – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means because but disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי".
+
<point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b>  
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
−
<li><b>Because</b> – 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.</li>
+
<li>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.</li>
−
<li><b>Even though or that</b> – 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.</li>
+
<li>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.<fn>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.</fn> </li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
−
</point>
+
</point>
−
<point><b>How is the desert route a solution?</b>
+
<point><b>וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה </b> – 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.<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>How is the Desert route a solution?</b>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>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.</li>
 
<li>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.</li>
 
<li>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.</li>
 
<li>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.</li>
 +
<li>Those who point to the Egyptians themselves as teh threat mig
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</point>
 
</point>
 
<point><b>Armed?</b> – 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.</point>
 
<point><b>Armed?</b> – 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.</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 en route.  Yet, knowing in advance that they were to travel via the desert, Hashem previously told Moshe that  the service would take place in Horev.</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 en route.  Yet, knowing in advance that they were to travel via the desert, Hashem previously told Moshe that  the service would take place in Horev.</point>
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 
</category>
 
</category>
  
 
<category name="">Intrinsic Value in the Desert Route
 
<category name="">Intrinsic Value in the Desert Route
−
<p>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: </p>
+
<p>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: </p>
 
<opinion name="">Practical Preparation for Conquest
 
<opinion name="">Practical Preparation for Conquest
−
<p></p>
+
<p>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.</p>
−
<mekorot></mekorot>
+
<mekorot>Josephus, various opinions in Shemot Rabbah, Rashbam, Rambam, Shadal, R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Malbim, R. David Zvi Hoffmann, Cassuto</mekorot>
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> – 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.</point>
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<point><b>War with whom? </b> – The war to be avoided is the battle of conquest in Canaan.</point>
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<point><b>Double כִּי </b> – 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.</point>
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<point><b>How is the Desert route a solution?</b> –
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<ul>
 +
<li><b>Growth through trials</b> – 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.</li>
 +
<li><b>New generation</b> – Rambam adds that the forty years in the desert meant that it was a new generation that had never been enslaved, which entered the land.  They were thus not encumbered by a slave mentality, and more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.<fn>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.</fn></li>
 +
<li><b>Miracles as morale booster</b> – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the desert would both instill fear in the Canaanites<fn>see Shemot Rabbah similarly.</fn> and boost the belief and hence the courage of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.</li>
 +
<li><b>Time for Canaanites</b> – 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.</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</point>
 +
<point><b>Armed?</b> – Shadal asserts that the verses point this fact out to show that it was not due to lack of weaponry that the nation would flee, but rather to their lack of courage.</point>
 +
<point><b>What about Sinai?</b> – This approach, like the above, might maintain that God knew in advance which path the nation was to travel and thus,told Moshe that nation would serve him at Chorev, but that was not the reason for the change of route.  As R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts, had he wanted to, God could have chosen any site he wanted for revelation.</point>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
  
 
<opinion name="">Spiritual Growth
 
<opinion name="">Spiritual Growth
−
<p></p>
+
<p>The time in the desert enabled the nation to witness miracles, grow in their Torah learning, and deepen their connection to Hashem.</p>
−
<mekorot></mekorot>
+
<mekorot>Philo, Jospehus, various opinions in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, opinions in Shemot Rabbah, R. Chananel, Toledot Yitzchak, Kli Yakar, Shadal, R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Malbim, Netziv, Meshekh Chokhmah</mekorot>
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> 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.<fn>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.</fn></point>
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<point><b>Double כִּי </b> – Both occurrences of the word mean because.
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<ul>
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<li>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.<fn>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).</fn></li>
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
+
<li>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.</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</point>
 +
<point><b>How is the Desert route a solution?</b> – 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.<fn>See Josephus, R. Yehoshua in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, and Keli Yakar.</fn>  Finally the isolated atmosphere protected them from outside influences<fn>This is emphasized by the Neziv and Meshekh Chokhmah.</fn> and gave them the opportunity to grow and learn without the concerns of having to provide for themselves.<fn>See Shadal who develops this point.</fn></point>
 +
<point><b>Armed?</b> – </point>
 +
<point><b>What about Sinai?</b> According to this approach, getting the Torah on Mt. Sinai is one of the main advantages of the route.  If so, though, it is unclear why it is not given as the reason in the verses.</point>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
 +
</category>
 +
 +
<category name="">Drowning in Yam Suf
 +
<p>The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf.</p>
 +
<mekorot>R"Y Bekhor Shor, Seforno, R. Yoel b. Nun</mekorot>
 +
 +
<point>Fear of war: which?</point> According to R. Yosef Bekhor shor Hashem was concerned lest the nation encounter war with the pursuing Egyptians.
 +
<point><b>Double כִּי </b>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Yoel b. Nun understands the first "כִּי" to mean "that".<fn>R"Y BekhorShor does not address the question explicitly but seems to agree.</fn> The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the response to war.</li>
 +
<li>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 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.</fn></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</point>
 +
 +
<point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor 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>
 +
<li>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.<fn>He also points out that on the Philistine route, the Philistines would have joined the battle forcing a war on two fronts.</fn></li>
 +
<li>Seforno, in contrast, believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf 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.  This, thus, ensured the drowning of the Egyptians, God's primary purpose.<fn>According to Seforno, from the very beginning, God's plan was to drown the Egyptians. To ensure 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.  Cf. the approach of R. Yoel b. nun, who similarly points to the drowning of the Egyptians as God's primary goal.  He asserts that Hashem did not chose the closer Philistine route, to prevent the nation returning to Egypt in the case f future wars </fn></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</point>
 +
 +
<point><b>Armed?</b> – 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 depsite being armed, the nation lacked the courage to fight their masters.</point>
 +
<point><b>What about Sinai?</b> – Seforno asserts that Matan Torah was always meant to be a second stop.  First, Hashem wanted to drown the Egyptians.</point>
 +
 
 
−
<opinion name="">Drowning of Egyptians in the Sea
 
−
<p></p>
 
−
<mekorot></mekorot>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
</opinion>
 
−
</category>
 
  
−
<category name="">
+
−
<opinion name="">
 
−
<p></p>
 
−
<subopinion name="">
 
−
<p></p>
 
−
<mekorot></mekorot>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
</subopinion>
 
  
−
<subopinion name="">
 
−
<p></p>
 
−
<mekorot></mekorot>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
<point><b></b> – </point>
 
−
</subopinion>
 
−
</opinion>
 
 
</category>
 
</category>
−
 
 
</approaches>
 
</approaches>
  

Version as of 06:59, 13 January 2014

Fatal 76: Opening and ending tag mismatch: li line 46 and ul
46: 			<li>Those who point to the Egyptians themselves as teh threat mig
47: 		</ul>
Retrieved from "http://alhatorah.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roundabout_Route_and_The_Road_Not_Traveled/2&oldid=7610&useskin=vector"