The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2

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:Philo, Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, First opinion in Shemot Rabbah, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, R. Chaim Paltiel, Ramban, Abarbanel

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

• Philistines – According to most of these commentators, the Philistines living on the route itself were the threat.¹
• Past wars – 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.
• Egyptians – 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".² 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. ³

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.⁴ Philo, though, maintains that the problem was that whomever fought he nation would actively drive them back to Egypt.⁵

"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?

• 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.
• 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.⁶

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.

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 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.

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

Sources:

–

–

–

–

–

Spiritual Growth

Sources:

–

–

–

–

–

Drowning of Egyptians in the Sea

Sources:

–

–

–

–

–

Sources:

–

–

–

–

–

Sources:

–

–

–

–

–

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 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.

³ Moreover, if Paroh decided to chase, the nation would have been trapped and feel like they had no choice but to give in.

⁴ 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.

⁵ 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.

⁶ 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.