The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 indicated in the words "יַם סוּף").  This would both sever the Israelites' remaining bonds of servitude and display Hashem's might.

"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever? R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno assume that Paroh had been led to believe that the Israelites intended to return to slavery after their holiday, and was sending them away only temporarily (see A Three Day Journey).2  Thus, regardless of the route taken, once Paroh would realize that his slaves were not returning of their own volition, it was inevitable that he would chase after them.3
Was the Splitting of the Sea preordained? Since Paroh was going to pursue the Israelites, the need to drown the Egyptians at Yam Suf was unavoidable.4  Otherwise, the Israelites would have been forced to return to Egyptian bondage.5
"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים...‏" – Where is the destination and "קָרוֹב" to what?
  • Yam Suf – Seforno contends that heading for Israel was not even a consideration prior to the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, as the Israelites needed to return to Egypt.6  Accordingly, the verse cannot be speaking of which path was the shortest to Israel, but rather of which was the quickest to Yam Suf.7   He thus posits that each of the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route must have led to Yam Suf,8 but that the Philistine Route was the shorter one of the two.9
  • 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,10 and that the Philistine Route was the shortest option.11
"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Concern over 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, as they would be attacked by the pursuing Egyptians from behind as well as the looming Philistine threat from the front.12
  • With Egypt alone – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon hearing13 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.14
How does the Wilderness Route provide the solution? According to both of these commentators, the Wilderness Route was not chosen to avoid a confrontation with the Egyptian enemy.  In fact, such an encounter was not only unavoidable, but also desirable so that the Egyptian masters would drown and the slavery would be terminated.15  The goal of the route was merely to avert the possibility that the Israelites would panic and flee back to Egypt before the Egyptians were eliminated.
  • 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.16
  • 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.17
"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"‎).18  The miracle of Yam Suf was Hashem's ultimate objective, and the raison d'être for this leg of the journey rather than merely its consequence.
Double "כִּי"
  • 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,19 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.20
"וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno understand the phrase to refer to the fear lest the nation physically return to Egypt and its bondage.21
"וַחֲמֻשִׁים" – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the verse to refer to food provisions and to be clarifying that they were well supplied enough to take the longer route through the wilderness. 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.
Was the objective of the Wilderness Route achieved? According to this approach, traveling via the Wilderness Route succeeding in ensuring that the Egyptians drowned at Yam Suf and that the Israelites' chains of slavery were permanently severed.22
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 the enemy to a particular place with intent to drown its chariots and wipe out its army.23

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 being "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.

"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where? These commentators assume that the verse is speaking of the route to Canaan and that the problematic issue is the shortness of the Philistine Route to Canaan.  This meant that the people would arrive almost immediately in Canaan and be forced to fight the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared for them.
Where is "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"? Most of these commentators do not explicitly address this issue, but most25 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,26 leading Cassuto to assert that the verse instead refers to the way that leads from Egypt to Israel via the Negev,27 which was home to the Philistines of Avraham's time.28
"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom? The wars to be avoided for the near future were the battles of the conquest of Canaan.
Double "כִּי" – 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.
How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem?
  • Growth through trials – Rambam emphasizes how the scarcity and hardships of wilderness life instilled courage and strength.29 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.30 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.31
  • Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites32 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
  • Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim33 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.34
Later desires to return to Egypt – The Mekhilta notes that the nation's later desires (even on the longer route) to return to Egypt proves that had they gone the shorter route and been forced to fight the Canaanites they would surely have fled back to Egypt.  On the Wilderness Route, although there were periodic 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 because of their lack of courage.
What about Sinai? R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that there was nothing so unique about Mt. Sinai, and had they taken a different route Hashem would have simply chosen a different site for revelation. It was only because Hashem knew in advance which path the nation was to travel that He had previously told Moshe that the nation would serve him at Sinai.
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 the opening to the immediately following story of Yam Suf.  Alternatively, these exegetes might suggest that Hashem had not originally planned to drown the Egyptians, and He decided to do so only after choosing this route and seeing Paroh's about-face and pursuit.
Biblical parallels – Cassuto notes that Hashem's concerns were realized only a little over a year later when the Spies traveled via the Negev Route35 and reported to the nation about the giants they had encountered.  The nation's reaction was, in fact, precisely "נִתְּנָה רֹאשׁ וְנָשׁוּבָה מִצְרָיְמָה"‎.36

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.

"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where? Most of the commentators who take this approach would assert that the problem with the Philistine Route was precisely its proximity to Canaan.39 The people needed more time to develop their connection to Hashem before their arrival in Canaan.40
  • 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.
Double "כִּי" – Both occurrences of the word mean "because".
  • 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.41  He suggests that Hashem added this only because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.42
  • 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.
How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem? The Wilderness Route enabled the nation to witness the miracles of the Splitting of the Sea, manna, and water, all of which instilled faith in God.  It further allowed them to receive the Torah and learn God's commandments.43  Finally the isolated atmosphere protected them from outside influences44 and gave them the opportunity to grow and learn without the concerns of having to provide for themselves.45
"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever? Netziv suggests that by the time of the Exodus, Paroh knew that the nation was not supposed to return after three days and that he expelled the nation for good.46  Thus, Netziv asserts that the fear of Paroh chasing was not a factor in the choice of the longer route, but only its potential for instilling faith.
"וַחֲמֻשִׁים" – This approach might suggest that choosing the longer route necessitated greater food provisions.47
What about Sinai and Yam Suf? According to this approach, receiving 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, though, why this is not stated explicitly 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 still immature nation to learn from Moshe and develop a stronger faith in Hashem before entering the Land.

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.

"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom? Commentators divide regarding which enemy needed to be avoided:
  • 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 itself49 constituted the threat.50
    • 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 remains 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,51 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".52  At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.53 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.54
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 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.
"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?
  • 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.
  • Chizkuni55 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 Egyptians56 and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.57
"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.58
How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem? 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.59
"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.60
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.61  Hashem had previously told Moshe that the nation would serve Him at Chorev, only because He is omniscient and knew in advance that the nation would ultimately take the Wilderness Route.
Biblical Parallels – See Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel below who note that there were fearsome Philistine giants (see Yehoshua 11,62 Shemuel I 17, Shemuel II 21), and that these were the subject of the similar concern in Devarim 9:1-2.63  The concern over the Philistine giants would also parallel the Spies' trepidation in Bemidbar 13 regarding the giants in Chevron.

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.

"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom? Both the Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel maintain that the immediate concern related to war with the Philistines living on the route,64 but they add that this fear would have caused the nation to cast doubts on its ability to conquer the land as a whole.65
How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem?
  • 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.66  If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.67
Double "כִּי" – The 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 "כִּי" in both of its occurrences means "because".  Wars on this route specifically would lead the nation to return because its proximity meant an earlier confrontation.
"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where? The concern related to the Philistines' proximity to the Israelites in Egypt and the fact that they would confront them a mere few days after leaving Egypt.
"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever? 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 Wilderness Route.68
"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, while "הַמִּדְבָּר" alludes to the nation's request to worship Hashem in the wilderness.