Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<point><b>Was the Splitting of the Sea predestined?</b> Since Paroh was going to pursue the Israelites, the need to drown the Egyptians at Yam Suf was unavoidable.<fn>Cf. Josephus, who suggests that the Wilderness Route was taken only "in case the Egyptians should... pursue after them".  Josephus, here (see below that he brings other explanations as well), also understands the choice of route as enabling the drowning at Yam Suf.   However, since Josephus maintains that Paroh had freed the nation for good (and that the vessels were given as gifts rather than loans), he views neither the Egyptian pursuit nor their drowning in Yam Suf as inevitable components of the Divine plan.<br/>Y. Bin-Nun goes even one step further.  He posits that not only did Paroh free the Israelites permanently, but that had Hashem not elected to lead the Israelites on the Wilderness Route, Paroh would never have chased after them, but would have instead granted them permission to live in Israel as his vassals.  These understandings encounter some difficulty from the simple reading of "כִּי בָרַח הָעָם" in Shemot 14:5 which seems to imply that the Israelites had fled instead of returning to Egypt as planned.</fn>  Otherwise, the Israelites would have been forced to return to Egyptian bondage.<fn>In addition, see Seforno Shemot 7:4 that Yam Suf was a necessary part of the Egyptian punishment.  For elaboration, see <a href="Purpose of the Plagues" data-aht="page">Purpose of the Plagues</a>.</fn></point> | <point><b>Was the Splitting of the Sea predestined?</b> Since Paroh was going to pursue the Israelites, the need to drown the Egyptians at Yam Suf was unavoidable.<fn>Cf. Josephus, who suggests that the Wilderness Route was taken only "in case the Egyptians should... pursue after them".  Josephus, here (see below that he brings other explanations as well), also understands the choice of route as enabling the drowning at Yam Suf.   However, since Josephus maintains that Paroh had freed the nation for good (and that the vessels were given as gifts rather than loans), he views neither the Egyptian pursuit nor their drowning in Yam Suf as inevitable components of the Divine plan.<br/>Y. Bin-Nun goes even one step further.  He posits that not only did Paroh free the Israelites permanently, but that had Hashem not elected to lead the Israelites on the Wilderness Route, Paroh would never have chased after them, but would have instead granted them permission to live in Israel as his vassals.  These understandings encounter some difficulty from the simple reading of "כִּי בָרַח הָעָם" in Shemot 14:5 which seems to imply that the Israelites had fled instead of returning to Egypt as planned.</fn>  Otherwise, the Israelites would have been forced to return to Egyptian bondage.<fn>In addition, see Seforno Shemot 7:4 that Yam Suf was a necessary part of the Egyptian punishment.  For elaboration, see <a href="Purpose of the Plagues" data-aht="page">Purpose of the Plagues</a>.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</b><ul> | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Israel</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor assumes | + | <li><b>Israel</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor assumes that the verse is speaking of which path the nation was to take to ultimately arrive in the land of Israel,<fn>This is the opinion of almost all other commentators as well.</fn> and that the Philistine Route was the shortest.<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor (following Rashbam) attempts to prove that the Philistine Route was the obvious choice from Bereshit 26.  There Yitzchak is apparently considering descending to Egypt, and he first goes to the land of the Philistines.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Yam Suf</b> – Seforno contends that since the Egyptians needed to drown at Yam Suf before entering Israel would even be an option, arriving at Yam Suf must also be the subject of the verse.  Accordingly, the verse is speaking of, not which route was to be taken to Israel, but rather which path would be selected to reach Yam Suf.<fn>In this, he differs from virtually all other exegetes.</fn>  He thus posits that each of the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route must have led to Yam Suf,<fn>The geography of the region, though, makes Seforno's approach difficult, as it is hard to see how the Philistine Route could be on the way to Yam Suf.  See both <a href="Philistine Route" data-aht="page">Philistine Route</a> and <a href="Yam Suf" data-aht="page">Yam Suf</a> for the debate over the locations of each.</fn> but that the Philistine Route was the shorter one.<fn>Since both routes were originating in Egypt, they were obviously equally close to Egypt. Thus, Seforno explains that the Philistine Route to Yam Suf was shorter than the Wilderness Route (according to Seforno, both led to Yam Suf), making Yam Suf closer ("קָרוֹב הוּא") to Egypt via the Philistine Route.  According to Seforno, this is also what made the route more problematic – see below.</fn></li> | <li><b>Yam Suf</b> – Seforno contends that since the Egyptians needed to drown at Yam Suf before entering Israel would even be an option, arriving at Yam Suf must also be the subject of the verse.  Accordingly, the verse is speaking of, not which route was to be taken to Israel, but rather which path would be selected to reach Yam Suf.<fn>In this, he differs from virtually all other exegetes.</fn>  He thus posits that each of the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route must have led to Yam Suf,<fn>The geography of the region, though, makes Seforno's approach difficult, as it is hard to see how the Philistine Route could be on the way to Yam Suf.  See both <a href="Philistine Route" data-aht="page">Philistine Route</a> and <a href="Yam Suf" data-aht="page">Yam Suf</a> for the debate over the locations of each.</fn> but that the Philistine Route was the shorter one.<fn>Since both routes were originating in Egypt, they were obviously equally close to Egypt. Thus, Seforno explains that the Philistine Route to Yam Suf was shorter than the Wilderness Route (according to Seforno, both led to Yam Suf), making Yam Suf closer ("קָרוֹב הוּא") to Egypt via the Philistine Route.  According to Seforno, this is also what made the route more problematic – see below.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
<point><b>"דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף"</b> – This approach emphasizes, not the wilderness aspect of the chosen route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר"), but that it led to Yam Suf ("‏יַם סוּף‏‏"‎).<fn>This is in contrast to the second approach below, which focuses instead on the wilderness aspect of the chosen path.</fn>  The miracle of Yam Suf was Hashem's ultimate objective, and the <i>raison d'être</i> for this leg of the journey rather than merely its consequence.</point> | <point><b>"דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף"</b> – This approach emphasizes, not the wilderness aspect of the chosen route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר"), but that it led to Yam Suf ("‏יַם סוּף‏‏"‎).<fn>This is in contrast to the second approach below, which focuses instead on the wilderness aspect of the chosen path.</fn>  The miracle of Yam Suf was Hashem's ultimate objective, and the <i>raison d'être</i> for this leg of the journey rather than merely its consequence.</point> | ||
<point><b>Double "כִּי"</b><ul> | <point><b>Double "כִּי"</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Two opposing factors</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the "כִּי" of "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" to be providing the reason why the Philistine Route might have been chosen, while the "כִּי" of "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים" explains why this option was rejected.</li> | + | <li><b>Two opposing factors</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the "כִּי" of "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" to be providing the reason why the Philistine Route might have been chosen,<fn>Cf. R. Saadia and many others below.</fn> while the "כִּי" of "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים" explains why this option was rejected.</li> |
<li><b>Two parts of the same explanation</b> – According to Seforno, the two phrases combine to constitute the full reason why the Philistine Route was not chosen.<fn>See above that the fact that the route was close to Egypt meant that it would be filled with informers. These informers would provide news of the pursuing Egyptian army, and this would lead the Israelites to submissively return to their masters.</fn></li> | <li><b>Two parts of the same explanation</b> – According to Seforno, the two phrases combine to constitute the full reason why the Philistine Route was not chosen.<fn>See above that the fact that the route was close to Egypt meant that it would be filled with informers. These informers would provide news of the pursuing Egyptian army, and this would lead the Israelites to submissively return to their masters.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
<point><b>Where is "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"?</b> Most of these commentators do not explicitly address this issue, but most<fn>This is explicit in R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> likely assume that it refers to the coastal route (also known as "דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם") that leads northeast out of Egypt, traversing the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.  At the time of the Exodus, though, the Philistines who later live in this area had not yet arrived,<fn>The coastal route was instead filled with Egyptian garrisons who used the path on their campaigns to the North.  Cassuto suggests that as such, this route was not considered at all, leaving a choice between the shorter Philistine Route through the Negev and the more roundabout Wilderness Route.<br/>See, below, though that some modern scholars suggest that the verse really is referring to the coastal route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם") and simply explaining that Hashem rejected it specifically due to the Egyptians stationed there.</fn> leading Cassuto to assert that the verse instead refers to the way that leads from Egypt to Israel via the Negev,<fn>See below that Cassuto notes that this is the same path which the Spies later took and which produced exactly the results which Hashem had earlier tried to avoid.  Thus, when the Children of Israel finally (successfully) entered the land after their forty years in the wilderness, they avoided this route altogether and entered Canaan from the eastern bank of the Jordan.</fn> which was home to the Philistines of Avraham's time.<fn>I.e. the "אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים" mentioned in Bereshit 21:32.</fn></point> | <point><b>Where is "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"?</b> Most of these commentators do not explicitly address this issue, but most<fn>This is explicit in R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> likely assume that it refers to the coastal route (also known as "דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם") that leads northeast out of Egypt, traversing the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.  At the time of the Exodus, though, the Philistines who later live in this area had not yet arrived,<fn>The coastal route was instead filled with Egyptian garrisons who used the path on their campaigns to the North.  Cassuto suggests that as such, this route was not considered at all, leaving a choice between the shorter Philistine Route through the Negev and the more roundabout Wilderness Route.<br/>See, below, though that some modern scholars suggest that the verse really is referring to the coastal route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם") and simply explaining that Hashem rejected it specifically due to the Egyptians stationed there.</fn> leading Cassuto to assert that the verse instead refers to the way that leads from Egypt to Israel via the Negev,<fn>See below that Cassuto notes that this is the same path which the Spies later took and which produced exactly the results which Hashem had earlier tried to avoid.  Thus, when the Children of Israel finally (successfully) entered the land after their forty years in the wilderness, they avoided this route altogether and entered Canaan from the eastern bank of the Jordan.</fn> which was home to the Philistines of Avraham's time.<fn>I.e. the "אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים" mentioned in Bereshit 21:32.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> The wars to be avoided for the near future were the battles of the conquest of Canaan.</point> | <point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> The wars to be avoided for the near future were the battles of the conquest of Canaan.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Double "כִּי"</b> – According to these commentators, both appearances of the word mean "because", and the two provided reasons work together. Although one might have thought that a quick route would be advantageous, in this case it constitutes a problem. If the nation was forced to wage war against the Canaanites so soon after being freed, when they were still not battle ready, they would inevitably choose to return to servitude in Egypt.</point> | + | <point><b>Double "כִּי"</b> – According to these commentators, both appearances of the word mean "because", and the two provided reasons work together, together explaining why the Philistine Route was not chosen. Although one might have thought that a quick route would be advantageous, in this case it constitutes a problem. If the nation was forced to wage war against the Canaanites so soon after being freed, when they were still not battle ready, they would inevitably choose to return to servitude in Egypt.</point> |
<point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem?</b><ul> | <point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem?</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Growth through trials</b> – Rambam emphasizes how the scarcity and hardships of wilderness life instilled courage and strength.<fn>See similarly R. Eliezer in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael.</fn> 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.</li> | <li><b>Growth through trials</b> – Rambam emphasizes how the scarcity and hardships of wilderness life instilled courage and strength.<fn>See similarly R. Eliezer in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael.</fn> 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.</li> | ||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
<point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding which enemy needed to be avoided: | <point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding which enemy needed to be avoided: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Philistines</b></li> | + | <li><b>Philistines</b> – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that it was the Philistines who posed the threat on the Philistine Route:</li> |
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Current threat</b> – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself<fn>See above, though, that it is questionable whether there were any Philistines living on the coast at the time of the Exodus.</fn> 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.  <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>, instead, proposes 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></li> | <li><b>Current threat</b> – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself<fn>See above, though, that it is questionable whether there were any Philistines living on the coast at the time of the Exodus.</fn> 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.  <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>, instead, proposes 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></li> | ||
− | <li><b>Previous defeat</b> – 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 had attempted to make their way to Israel but were massacred by the Philistines. Hashem did not want the Israelites to see their | + | <li><b>Previous defeat</b> – 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 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.</li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Egyptians</b> – According to modern scholars,<fn>See, for example, N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 103-106.</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 | + | <li><b>Egyptians</b> – According to modern scholars,<fn>See, for example, N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 103-106.</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.<fn>See above that the coastal Philistines had not yet arrived.</fn> 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.<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></point> | </ul></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>Double "כִּי"</b> – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means "because" but disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי". |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Because</b> – Rashi and Ibn Ezra imply that it, too, means "because. | + | <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.  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.</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 | + | <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 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 wars it would lead to.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</b><ul> | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</b><ul> |
Version as of 03:21, 24 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 theory and text, 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 encapsulated in the words "יַם סוּף"). This would both sever the Israelites' remaining bonds of servitude and display Hashem's might.
- Israel – R"Y Bekhor Shor assumes that the verse is speaking of which path the nation was to take to ultimately arrive in the land of Israel,6 and that the Philistine Route was the shortest.7
- Yam Suf – Seforno contends that since the Egyptians needed to drown at Yam Suf before entering Israel would even be an option, arriving at Yam Suf must also be the subject of the verse. Accordingly, the verse is speaking of, not which route was to be taken to Israel, but rather which path would be selected to reach Yam Suf.8 He thus posits that each of the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route must have led to Yam Suf,9 but that the Philistine Route was the shorter one.10
- 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, as they would be attacked by the pursuing Egyptians from behind as well as the looming Philistine threat from the front.11
- With Egypt alone – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon hearing12 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.13
- Avoiding a dual front battle – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that traveling via the Wilderness Route avoided the Israelites being exposed to a two-pronged attack.15
- 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.16
- 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,18 while the "כִּי" of "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים" explains why this option was rejected.
- Two parts of the same explanation – According to Seforno, the two phrases combine to constitute the full reason why the Philistine Route was not chosen.19
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 are "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.28 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.29 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.30
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites31 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim32 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.33
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.
- Meshekh Chokhmah maintains that God feared the influence the idolatrous Canaanites 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.40 He suggests that Hashem added this only because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.41
- 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.
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 worried that 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 on the Philistine Route:
- Current threat – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself48 constituted the threat.49
- Previous defeat – 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 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.
- Egyptians – According to modern scholars,50 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".51 At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.52 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.53
- 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 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 wars it would lead to.
- 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.
- Chizkuni54 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 Egyptians55 and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.56
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.65 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.66