Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
m |
||
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>Factors going in | + | <li><b>Factors going in opposite directions</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 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 76: | Line 76: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem?</b> 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.<fn>See Josephus, R. Yehoshua in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, and the Keli Yekar.</fn>  Finally the isolated atmosphere protected them from outside influences<fn>This is emphasized by the Netziv 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>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem?</b> 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.<fn>See Josephus, R. Yehoshua in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, and the Keli Yekar.</fn>  Finally the isolated atmosphere protected them from outside influences<fn>This is emphasized by the Netziv 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>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> 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.<fn>See Netziv's position in <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a> for elaboration of his approach regarding the request to leave for three days.</fn>  Thus, Netziv asserts that the | + | <point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> 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.<fn>See Netziv's position in <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a> for elaboration of his approach regarding the request to leave for three days.</fn>  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.</point> |
− | <point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – This approach might suggest that choosing the longer route necessitated food provisions.</point> | + | <point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – This approach might suggest that choosing the longer route necessitated food provisions.<fn>Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor above.</fn></point> |
<point><b>What about Sinai and Yam Suf?</b> 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, if so, why they are not given as the reason in the verses.</point> | <point><b>What about Sinai and Yam Suf?</b> 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, if so, why they are not given as the reason in the verses.</point> | ||
<point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – 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 grow in the faith before entering the Land.</point> | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – 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 grow in the faith before entering the Land.</point> | ||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
<point><b>Double "כִּי"</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Double "כִּי"</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</b> 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.</point> | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</b> 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.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> 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.<fn>See above that Netziv argues that this reason is not explicit in the verses, and as such is proof that this was not one of Hashem's motivations, for Paroh did free the nation totally and as such did not care which route they took.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> 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.<fn>See above that Netziv argues that this reason is not explicit in the verses, and as such is proof that this was not one of Hashem's motivations, for Paroh did free the nation totally and as such did not care which route they took.  See <a href="A Three Day Journey" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a> for elaboration.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>What about Sinai and Yam Suf?</b> 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.</point> | <point><b>What about Sinai and Yam Suf?</b> 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.</point> |
Version as of 18:01, 23 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 (like most commentators) that the verse is speaking of which path the nation was to take to ultimately arrive in the land of Israel, and that the Philistine Route was the shortest.6
- Yam Suf – Seforno contends that since the first item on the agenda was arriving at Yam Suf and drowning the Egyptians, that 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.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.9
- 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.10
- With Egypt alone – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon hearing11 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.12
- 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.14
- 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.15
- Factors going in opposite directions – 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.
- 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.17
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.27 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.28 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.29
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites30 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim31 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.32
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 lose 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 (the proximity) was the primary one. He points out that as the people did desire to return to Egypt even on the longer path, this must have been only a secondary concern. He suggests that Hashem added this only because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.37
- 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 not travel "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"). Hashem worried that the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten it into returning to Egypt.
- Philistines
- Current threat – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself44 were the threat.45
- 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 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,46 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".47 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.48
- 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.
- 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.
- Chizkuni49 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 Egyptians50 and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.51
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.60 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.61