Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> 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 had sent them away only temporarily (see <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a>).<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 14:2 who notes that the Israelites were obligated to return to Egypt since they had taken leave only for a holiday and also because they had borrowed the Egyptians' vessels.  And see Seforno who interprets Shemot 14:30 as the Israelites being rescued from Egyptian slavery (rather than simply from death at the hands of the pursuing Egyptian army).  Cf. the contrasting position of Josephus and Y. Bin-Nun in the note below.</fn>  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.<fn>It is even possible that the ruses of the three day journey and borrowing of vessels were designed to cause the Egyptians' pursuit and subsequent drowning.  For elaboration on these twin theories and the commentators who adopt them, see <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a> and <a href="Reparations and Despoiling Egypt" data-aht="page">Reparations and Despoiling Egypt</a>.</fn></point> | <point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> 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 had sent them away only temporarily (see <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a>).<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 14:2 who notes that the Israelites were obligated to return to Egypt since they had taken leave only for a holiday and also because they had borrowed the Egyptians' vessels.  And see Seforno who interprets Shemot 14:30 as the Israelites being rescued from Egyptian slavery (rather than simply from death at the hands of the pursuing Egyptian army).  Cf. the contrasting position of Josephus and Y. Bin-Nun in the note below.</fn>  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.<fn>It is even possible that the ruses of the three day journey and borrowing of vessels were designed to cause the Egyptians' pursuit and subsequent drowning.  For elaboration on these twin theories and the commentators who adopt them, see <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a> and <a href="Reparations and Despoiling Egypt" data-aht="page">Reparations and Despoiling Egypt</a>.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Was the Splitting of the Sea preordained?</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 and education (see Shemot 14:5).  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 preordained?</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 and education (see Shemot 14:5).  For elaboration, see <a href="Purpose of the Plagues" data-aht="page">Purpose of the Plagues</a>.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱ-לֹהִים...‏ כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Where is the Israelites' destination?</b><ul> |
<li><b>Yam Suf</b> – Seforno contends that heading for Israel was not even a consideration prior to the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, as it was still assumed that the Israelites were returning to Egypt.  Accordingly, the verse cannot be speaking of which path was the shortest to Israel, but must rather be dealing with which was the quickest to Yam Suf.<fn>Seforno's interpretation differs from that of other exegetes who all assume that the verse is speaking of the shortest route to Canaan.  Seforno's motivation is the need to deal with the "elephant in the room" and address the question of why the verse would even need to explain why the Israelites were not going directly to Israel.  After all, before they could have gone to Israel, their slave status first needed to be resolved, with Paroh either willingly relinquishing his ownership (highly improbable) or having it stripped from him by force (as ultimately happened at Yam Suf).<br/>Seforno addresses this question by claiming that, in fact, the verse is not speaking about going to Israel at all, and this was not even a הוה אמינא at this stage.  See below for how R"Y Bekhor Shor and other commentators address this issue.</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 of the two.<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 heading for Israel was not even a consideration prior to the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, as it was still assumed that the Israelites were returning to Egypt.  Accordingly, the verse cannot be speaking of which path was the shortest to Israel, but must rather be dealing with which was the quickest to Yam Suf.<fn>Seforno's interpretation differs from that of other exegetes who all assume that the verse is speaking of the shortest route to Canaan.  Seforno's motivation is the need to deal with the "elephant in the room" and address the question of why the verse would even need to explain why the Israelites were not going directly to Israel.  After all, before they could have gone to Israel, their slave status first needed to be resolved, with Paroh either willingly relinquishing his ownership (highly improbable) or having it stripped from him by force (as ultimately happened at Yam Suf).<br/>Seforno addresses this question by claiming that, in fact, the verse is not speaking about going to Israel at all, and this was not even a הוה אמינא at this stage.  See below for how R"Y Bekhor Shor and other commentators address this issue.</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 of the two.<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>Israel</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, does assume that the verse is speaking of which path the nation was to take to arrive in the land of Israel.<fn>This is the opinion of almost all other commentators as well.</fn>  He explains that the Philistine Route was the shortest option<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> and would have been the obvious choice had the Egyptian threat not existed.<fn>According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, the verses are discussing the threat posed by the Egyptian enemy, and that the point of taking the Wilderness Route was to drown the Egyptians and eliminate this threat (see below).</fn>  According to him, this is precisely what the verses are saying – Yam Suf needed to occur and the Egyptian army needed to be disposed of before the Israelites could journey to Canaan.<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor thus disposes of the "elephant in the room" issue (see note on Seforno above) by saying that this is the very point which the verses themselves are making.  The Egyptian threat precluded entry into Israel (regardless of the route taken), and it needed to first be eliminated before they could proceed to conquer the land.</fn></li> | <li><b>Israel</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, does assume that the verse is speaking of which path the nation was to take to arrive in the land of Israel.<fn>This is the opinion of almost all other commentators as well.</fn>  He explains that the Philistine Route was the shortest option<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> and would have been the obvious choice had the Egyptian threat not existed.<fn>According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, the verses are discussing the threat posed by the Egyptian enemy, and that the point of taking the Wilderness Route was to drown the Egyptians and eliminate this threat (see below).</fn>  According to him, this is precisely what the verses are saying – Yam Suf needed to occur and the Egyptian army needed to be disposed of before the Israelites could journey to Canaan.<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor thus disposes of the "elephant in the room" issue (see note on Seforno above) by saying that this is the very point which the verses themselves are making.  The Egyptian threat precluded entry into Israel (regardless of the route taken), and it needed to first be eliminated before they could proceed to conquer the land.</fn></li> | ||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
<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,<fn>Cf. R. Saadia and many others below.</fn> while only the "כִּי" of "כִּי אָמַר | + | <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 only the "כִּי" of "כִּי אָמַר אֱ-לֹהִים" explains why this option was rejected.</li> |
<li><b>Two parts of the same explanation</b> – According to Seforno, both "כִּי" phrases constitute part of the reason for not choosing the Philistine Route.<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, both "כִּי" phrases constitute part of the reason for not choosing the Philistine Route.<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 47: | Line 47: | ||
<point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> This approach works simplest for those who posit that Paroh had already permanently freed the Israelites,<fn>These commentators include R. Saadia (see his commentary on Shemot 11:3), R. Hirsch (see his comments on Shemot 12:31 and 14:5), and Malbim.  R. D"Z Hoffmann appears to contradict himself on this issue.</fn> and that thus the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf was neither necessary as a prerequisite for entrance into Canaan nor inevitable.</point> | <point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> This approach works simplest for those who posit that Paroh had already permanently freed the Israelites,<fn>These commentators include R. Saadia (see his commentary on Shemot 11:3), R. Hirsch (see his comments on Shemot 12:31 and 14:5), and Malbim.  R. D"Z Hoffmann appears to contradict himself on this issue.</fn> and that thus the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf was neither necessary as a prerequisite for entrance into Canaan nor inevitable.</point> | ||
<point><b>Introduction for long range goals rather than short term decision</b> – Those who maintain that the Israelites were initially released for only a three day journey<fn>This list includes the Mekhilta (though not necessarily R. Eliezer himself), Shemot Rabbah, Shadal, and Cassuto.  See note above regarding R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> must grapple with the question of why the immediate Egyptian threat and the need for Yam Suf are not mentioned as factors in the selection of the route.<fn>This is especially a problem for Shemot Rabbah which states that the purpose of the three day ruse was to cause the Egyptians to chase and drown in Yam Suf. If so, one would have expected that the text would explain that Yam Suf was part of the reason for choosing the Wilderness Route.</fn>  They could explain that our verses are presenting Hashem's reasoning not for merely the short term decision to opt for the Wilderness Route until the events of Yam Suf, but also for why the Israelites continued on it even after the Egyptian threat had already been eliminated.<fn>In other words, the verses of Shemot 13:17-18 are a heading, not just for Shemot 13-14, but for the the duration of the stay (perhaps even the entire forty years – see note below) in the wilderness and the rest of the Torah.  While initially Hashem led the Children of Israel via the Wilderness Route in order to drown the Egyptians and remove the remaining yoke of slavery, the verses here focus on the long term benefits of the Route and explain the reason for the forty years in the wilderness.<br/>Alternatively, since it was inevitable that Paroh would pursue the Israelites no matter which route they took, and since Hashem could have destroyed Paroh's forces on the Philistine Route as well (cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor), the Egyptian threat did not have a significant impact on His decision and is thus not mentioned.</fn></point> | <point><b>Introduction for long range goals rather than short term decision</b> – Those who maintain that the Israelites were initially released for only a three day journey<fn>This list includes the Mekhilta (though not necessarily R. Eliezer himself), Shemot Rabbah, Shadal, and Cassuto.  See note above regarding R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> must grapple with the question of why the immediate Egyptian threat and the need for Yam Suf are not mentioned as factors in the selection of the route.<fn>This is especially a problem for Shemot Rabbah which states that the purpose of the three day ruse was to cause the Egyptians to chase and drown in Yam Suf. If so, one would have expected that the text would explain that Yam Suf was part of the reason for choosing the Wilderness Route.</fn>  They could explain that our verses are presenting Hashem's reasoning not for merely the short term decision to opt for the Wilderness Route until the events of Yam Suf, but also for why the Israelites continued on it even after the Egyptian threat had already been eliminated.<fn>In other words, the verses of Shemot 13:17-18 are a heading, not just for Shemot 13-14, but for the the duration of the stay (perhaps even the entire forty years – see note below) in the wilderness and the rest of the Torah.  While initially Hashem led the Children of Israel via the Wilderness Route in order to drown the Egyptians and remove the remaining yoke of slavery, the verses here focus on the long term benefits of the Route and explain the reason for the forty years in the wilderness.<br/>Alternatively, since it was inevitable that Paroh would pursue the Israelites no matter which route they took, and since Hashem could have destroyed Paroh's forces on the Philistine Route as well (cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor), the Egyptian threat did not have a significant impact on His decision and is thus not mentioned.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱ-לֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where and what was the concern?</b> 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, as expressed in the words "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא"‎.<fn>For this approach, the critical factor is the timing, while for the third approach, the critical factor is in the geographical location.</fn>  The result would have been that the Children of Israel would have arrived almost immediately in Canaan and been forced to fight the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared for them.</point> |
<point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> The wars to be avoided for the immediate 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 immediate future were the battles of the conquest of Canaan.</point> | ||
<point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem and when?</b><ul> | <point><b>How does the Wilderness Route solve the problem and when?</b><ul> | ||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
<point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> This approach works simplest for those who posit that Paroh had already permanently freed the Israelites,<fn>These commentators include R. Hirsch (see his comments on Shemot 12:31 and 14:5), Malbim, and Netziv.  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> and that thus the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf was neither necessary as a prerequisite for entrance into Canaan nor inevitable.<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></point> | <point><b>"בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם" – For three days or forever?</b> This approach works simplest for those who posit that Paroh had already permanently freed the Israelites,<fn>These commentators include R. Hirsch (see his comments on Shemot 12:31 and 14:5), Malbim, and Netziv.  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> and that thus the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf was neither necessary as a prerequisite for entrance into Canaan nor inevitable.<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></point> | ||
<point><b>Introduction for long range goals rather than short term decision</b> – Those who maintain that the Israelites were initially released for only a three day journey<fn>This list includes the Mekhilta (though not necessarily R. Eliezer himself), Shemot Rabbah, and Shadal.</fn> must explain why the immediate Egyptian threat and the need for Yam Suf are not mentioned as factors in the selection of the route. They could explain that our verses are presenting Hashem's reasoning not for merely the short term decision to opt for the Wilderness Route until the events of Yam Suf, but also for why the Israelites continued on it even after the Egyptian threat had already been eliminated.<fn>See the previous approach for development of this approach and alternative possibilities.</fn></point> | <point><b>Introduction for long range goals rather than short term decision</b> – Those who maintain that the Israelites were initially released for only a three day journey<fn>This list includes the Mekhilta (though not necessarily R. Eliezer himself), Shemot Rabbah, and Shadal.</fn> must explain why the immediate Egyptian threat and the need for Yam Suf are not mentioned as factors in the selection of the route. They could explain that our verses are presenting Hashem's reasoning not for merely the short term decision to opt for the Wilderness Route until the events of Yam Suf, but also for why the Israelites continued on it even after the Egyptian threat had already been eliminated.<fn>See the previous approach for development of this approach and alternative possibilities.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱ-לֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where and what was the concern?</b> 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.<fn>See Rashbam who notes that Bereshit 26 shows that the Philistine Route was the standard path taken between Canaan and Egypt.  [See also Rashbam Bereshit 26:1.]</fn> The people needed more time to develop their connection to Hashem before their arrival in Canaan.<fn>Netziv, in contrast, points to the negative influences of the Philistines which God wanted to avoid. The nation needed a longer, isolated route in which to strengthen their own beliefs before encountering and being swayed by the Philistines' beliefs.</fn><br/> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>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.</li> | <li>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.</li> | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
<point><b>Double "כִּי" and the concern of "בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה"</b> – According to this approach, "כִּי" mean "because" in both instances.  However, the commentators diverge in how they understand the relationship between the two phrases.<br/> | <point><b>Double "כִּי" and the concern of "בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה"</b> – According to this approach, "כִּי" mean "because" in both instances.  However, the commentators diverge in how they understand the relationship between the two phrases.<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li>Netziv stresses that the first reason of "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" was the primary one. He points out that the subsequent reason of "כִּי אָמַר | + | <li>Netziv stresses that the first reason of "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" was the primary one. He points out that the subsequent reason of "כִּי אָמַר אֱ-לֹהִים פֶּן... וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" could have been only a secondary concern, as the people did desire to return to Egypt even on the longer path.<fn>See, however, Mekhilta and Rashi who address this issue.</fn>  He suggests that Hashem added this second reason only because the nation would not have understood the meaning of the fear of assimilation.<fn>Netziv is picking up on the somewhat awkward formulation "כִּי אָמַר אֱ-לֹהִים" which seems unnecessary. Thus, he understands that this reason was actually said to the nation (and is not just an explanation provided for the reader).  [Cf. R. Saadia who says that Hashem did not communicate at all with the nation on this matter, but merely caused them to naturally miss the Philistine Route.]</fn></li> |
<li>The 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.</li> | <li>The 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.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
<p>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 was concerned lest the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten it into returning to Egypt.</p> | <p>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 was concerned lest the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten it into returning to Egypt.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Beshalach Vayehi</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>,<fn>The Midrash offers many possible reads of the verses, including some of the approaches below.</fn> <multilink><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah #1</a><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">20:11-16</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaVayehi" data-aht="source">Beshalach Vayehi</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>,<fn>The Midrash offers many possible reads of the verses, including some of the approaches below.</fn> <multilink><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a><a href="TargumPsJShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah #1</a><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">20:11-16</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotLong13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot Long Commentary 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱ-לֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</b> 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.<fn>However, see Chizkuni (as well as <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> and the Minchah Belulah) who 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 Egyptians and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.  Cf. Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael who also reads the verse metaphorically, suggesting 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></point> |
<point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding which enemy was on the Philistine Route which needed to be avoided: | <point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b> Commentators divide regarding which enemy was on the Philistine Route which needed to be avoided: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
<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.  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>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> – R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla‎ (cited by Ibn Ezra) maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though",<fn>Ibn Ezra cites other examples where "כִּי" might have this meaning, but they are all debatable (see Biur).</fn> while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, though, the meaning is the same,<fn>While they suggest opposite meanings for the "כִּי", they also have opposite readings of the sentence structure.  According to Ibn Chiquitilla‎, the "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" explains the end result of what Hashem did not do (‏"[וְלֹא נָחָם | + | <li><b>Even though or that</b> – R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla‎ (cited by Ibn Ezra) maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though",<fn>Ibn Ezra cites other examples where "כִּי" might have this meaning, but they are all debatable (see Biur).</fn> while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, though, the meaning is the same,<fn>While they suggest opposite meanings for the "כִּי", they also have opposite readings of the sentence structure.  According to Ibn Chiquitilla‎, the "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" explains the end result of what Hashem did not do (‏"[וְלֹא נָחָם אֱ-לֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים] [כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא]"‏), while according to Ramban it explains what Hashem did not do (‏"[וְלֹא] [נָחָם אֱ-לֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא]"‏). Their interpretations thus have the same net result.</fn> and 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 danger involved.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – 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.<fn><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> raises a different possibility, that the verse is referring to the gold and silver vessels that the nation took from the Egyptians.  He suggests that Hashem feared that if the Philistines saw what the Israelites had taken, they would surely have attacked.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – 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.<fn><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> raises a different possibility, that the verse is referring to the gold and silver vessels that the nation took from the Egyptians.  He suggests that Hashem feared that if the Philistines saw what the Israelites had taken, they would surely have attacked.</fn></point> | ||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></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>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 | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱ-לֹהִים... 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>"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 13:07, 24 July 2019
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 what we know to be important and what the text says, 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 sever the Israelites' remaining bonds of servitude, thereby enabling them to then (and only then) proceed to Israel.
- Yam Suf – Seforno contends that heading for Israel was not even a consideration prior to the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, as it was still assumed that the Israelites were returning to Egypt. Accordingly, the verse cannot be speaking of which path was the shortest to Israel, but must rather be dealing with which was the quickest to Yam Suf.6 He thus posits that each of the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route must have led to Yam Suf,7 but that the Philistine Route was the shorter one of the two.8
- Israel – R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, does assume that the verse is speaking of which path the nation was to take to arrive in the land of Israel.9 He explains that the Philistine Route was the shortest option10 and would have been the obvious choice had the Egyptian threat not existed.11 According to him, this is precisely what the verses are saying – Yam Suf needed to occur and the Egyptian army needed to be disposed of before the Israelites could journey to Canaan.12
- With Egypt and the Philistines – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem's immediate concern was about 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.13
- With Egypt alone – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon hearing14 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.15
- Avoiding a dual front battle – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that traveling via the Wilderness Route avoided exposing the Israelites to a two-pronged attack.17
- 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.18
- 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,20 while only the "כִּי" of "כִּי אָמַר אֱ-לֹהִים" explains why this option was rejected.
- Two parts of the same explanation – According to Seforno, both "כִּי" phrases constitute part of the reason for not choosing the Philistine Route.21
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.
- Growth through trials – Rambam emphasizes how the scarcity and hardships of wilderness life instilled courage and strength,32 and he explains that this was the purpose of the trials (נסיונות) in the wilderness.33 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.34 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.35 Rambam's dim view of the generation of the Exodus is reflected also in his contention that numerous commandments needed to be given to address its deficiencies.36
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites37 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim38 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.39
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.
- Netziv and Meshekh Chokhmah maintain that God feared the influence the idolatrous neighbors 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 אֱ-לֹהִים פֶּן... וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" could have been only a secondary concern, as the people did desire to return to Egypt even on the longer path.55 He suggests that Hashem added this second reason only because the nation would not have understood the meaning of the fear of assimilation.56
- The 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.
- Experiencing miracles and dependence on Hashem – 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.57
- Receiving mitzvot – It further allowed the Children of Israel to receive the Torah and learn God's commandments.58
- Sterile environment – The isolated environs of the wilderness protected the people from outside influences.59
- All needs provided – The miraculous providing for their subsistence in the wilderness gave the Israelites the opportunity to grow and learn without being occupied with and overwhelmed by the normal concerns of having to work the land.60
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 was concerned lest the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten it into returning to Egypt.
- Philistines – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that the threat was posed by the Philistines. According to the medieval commentators, the Philistines currently65 living on the route itself constituted the threat.66 However, the Mekhilta suggests that the concern was over seeing the frightening remains of previous skirmishes.67
- Egyptians – According to modern scholars,68 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".69 At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.70 Traveling via such a route would inevitably lead to conflict with the Egyptians, and Israelite terror of their masters would lead them to a quick surrender and return to servitude.71
- 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 – R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla (cited by Ibn Ezra) maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though",78 while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, though, the meaning is the same,79 and 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 danger involved.
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.85 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.86