Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
(Import script) |
(Import script) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
− | <point><b>Double | + | <point><b>Double כִּי </b> – These commentators agree that the second "כִּי" of the verse means because but disagree about the meaning of the first "כִּי". |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Because</b> – Rashi and Ibn Ezra imply that it, too, means "because." Hashem is, thus, giving two related reasons why to avert the Philistine route. Since the route was close by, it would be more likely for the nation to return to Egypt upon encountering war.</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. Since the route was close by, it would be more likely for the nation to return to Egypt upon encountering war.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Even though or that</b> – Chizkuni maintains that the first " | + | <li><b>Even though or that</b> – Chizkuni maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though", while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, the verse is giving but one reason. Hashem chose to dismiss the shorter (and thus seemingly more logical route), because of the wars it would lead to.</li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
− | <point><b>" | + | <point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>According to most of these commentators, the verse is saying that the route is close to Egypt, and either despite this fact, or because of this fact, it is rejected.</li> | <li>According to most of these commentators, the verse is saying that the route is close to Egypt, and either despite this fact, or because of this fact, it is rejected.</li> | ||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
− | <point><b>וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה </b> – According to most of these commentators, God's worry was that when faced with war, the nation would panic and return of the own volition to the relative safety of Egypt. Philo, though, maintains that the problem was that whomever fought he nation would actively drive them back to Egypt.<fn>See Chizkuni who brings a similar possibility, suggesting that the Philistines would return the fleeing slaves to Egypt. This ignores the wording of the text " | + | <point><b>וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה </b> – According to most of these commentators, God's worry was that when faced with war, the nation would panic and return of the own volition to the relative safety of Egypt. Philo, though, maintains that the problem was that whomever fought he nation would actively drive them back to Egypt.<fn>See Chizkuni who brings a similar possibility, suggesting that the Philistines would return the fleeing slaves to Egypt. This ignores the wording of the text "פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם" which suggests that the nation themselves would have a change of heart.</fn></point> |
<point><b>How is the Desert route a solution?</b> | <point><b>How is the Desert route a solution?</b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
<p>The route afforded the nation both the time and atmosphere needed to lose their slave mentality and gain the confidence and independence necessary to conquer and rule Canaan.</p> | <p>The route afforded the nation both the time and atmosphere needed to lose their slave mentality and gain the confidence and independence necessary to conquer and rule Canaan.</p> | ||
<mekorot>Josephus, various opinions in Shemot Rabbah, Rashbam, (?Ibn Ezra 1413)Rambam, Shadal, R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Malbim, R. David Zvi Hoffmann, Cassuto</mekorot> | <mekorot>Josephus, various opinions in Shemot Rabbah, Rashbam, (?Ibn Ezra 1413)Rambam, Shadal, R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Malbim, R. David Zvi Hoffmann, Cassuto</mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>" | + | <point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> – According to this approach, the problematic issue is the proximity of the route to Canaan. The shortness of the route would mean that the people would arrive in Canaan and be forced to begin the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared to fight.</point> |
<point><b>War with whom? </b> – The war to be avoided is the battle of conquest in Canaan.</point> | <point><b>War with whom? </b> – The war to be avoided is the battle of conquest in Canaan.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Double | + | <point><b>Double כִּי </b> – According to these commentators, both appearances of the word mean because, and the two reasons given work together. Though one might have thought that a quick route would be advantageous, in this case it itself is the problem. If the nation was forced to wage war against the Canaanites so soon after being freed, when they were still not ready for battle, they would inevitably choose to return to Egypt and servitude.</point> |
<point><b>How is the Desert route a solution?</b> – | <point><b>How is the Desert route a solution?</b> – | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
<p>The time in the desert enabled the nation to witness miracles, grow in their Torah learning, and deepen their connection to Hashem.</p> | <p>The time in the desert enabled the nation to witness miracles, grow in their Torah learning, and deepen their connection to Hashem.</p> | ||
<mekorot>Philo, Jospehus, various opinions in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, opinions in Shemot Rabbah, R. Chananel, Toledot Yitzchak, Kli Yakar, Shadal, R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Malbim, Netziv, Meshekh Chokhmah</mekorot> | <mekorot>Philo, Jospehus, various opinions in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, opinions in Shemot Rabbah, R. Chananel, Toledot Yitzchak, Kli Yakar, Shadal, R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Malbim, Netziv, Meshekh Chokhmah</mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>" | + | <point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> Most of the commentators who take this approach would assert that the problem was the proximity to Canaan. The people needed more time to develop their connection to Hashem before arrival. Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishamel and Shadal explain that once they arrived they would disperse to their own inheritances and work, losing 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. Neziv, in contrast, points to the negative influences of the Philistines which God wanted to avoid.<fn>According to him, the problem is the route's proximity to Egypt. They would encounter the influences of the Philistines before strengthening their own beliefs.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>Double | + | <point><b>Double כִּי </b> – Both occurrences of the word mean because. |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li>Neziv stresses that the first reason given (proximity) was the primary one. He points out that as the people did desire to return to Egypt when facing war even on the longer path, this could not have been a major concern and goes as far as to suggest that God just said this because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.<fn>Neziv is picking up on the somewhat awkward formulation " | + | <li>Neziv stresses that the first reason given (proximity) was the primary one. He points out that as the people did desire to return to Egypt when facing war even on the longer path, this could not have been a major concern and goes as far as to suggest that God just said this because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.<fn>Neziv is picking up on the somewhat awkward formulation "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים" which seems unnecessary. Thus,he understands that this reason was actually said to the nation (and is not just an explanation to the reader).</fn></li> |
<li>Toledot Yitzchak, R. Hirsch and Malbim, though, maintain that the reasons work together. 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>Toledot Yitzchak, R. Hirsch and Malbim, though, maintain that the reasons work together. 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> | </ul> | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
<mekorot>R"Y Bekhor Shor, Seforno, R. Yoel b. Nun</mekorot> | <mekorot>R"Y Bekhor Shor, Seforno, R. Yoel b. Nun</mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף</b> - This approach emphasizes not the desert aspect of the chosen route, but that it led to Yam Suf.</point> |
− | <point><b>Double | + | <point><b>Double כִּי</b> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li>R"Y Bekhor Shor and Yoel b. Nun understands the first " | + | <li>R"Y Bekhor Shor and Yoel b. Nun understands the first "כִּי" to mean "that".<fn>R"Y BekhorShor does not address the question explicitly but implies this.</fn> The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.</li> |
− | <li>According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean because. There was a dual, but connected concern. The fact that the route was close to Egypt meant that it would be filled with informers who would both tell Paroh of the fleeing Israelites and, subsequently, tell the Israelites of the pursuing Egyptian army. Fear of the encounter would lead them to submissively return to their masters without even fighting.<fn>In the first part of Seforno's comments, he appears to be offering a different understanding of this part of the verse. There he implies that the first " | + | <li>According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean because. There was a dual, but connected concern. The fact that the route was close to Egypt meant that it would be filled with informers who would both tell Paroh of the fleeing Israelites and, subsequently, tell the Israelites of the pursuing Egyptian army. Fear of the encounter would lead them to submissively return to their masters without even fighting.<fn>In the first part of Seforno's comments, he appears to be offering a different understanding of this part of the verse. There he implies that the first "כִּי" means that or even though and suggests that although the Philistine route was the closest path to Yam Suf (the nation's intended first stop so as to drown the Egyptians), God preferred to go there via a longer route due to the informers on the path. This suggestion does not work with our knoledege of the area's geography.</fn></li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
<point><b>וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה </b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno understand the phrase to refer to the concern that the nation return physically to Egypt and servitude while Yoel B. Nun asserts that the verse is referring to reliance on Egypt and seeking their help in the future when endangered by other enemies.</point> | <point><b>וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה </b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno understand the phrase to refer to the concern that the nation return physically to Egypt and servitude while Yoel B. Nun asserts that the verse is referring to reliance on Egypt and seeking their help in the future when endangered by other enemies.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>" | + | <point><b>"כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to what?</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and R. Yoel b. Nun the verse is simply saying that the route is close to Canaan, while according to Seforno, the verse is presenting the concern of the route's proximity to Egypt.<fn>See above note, that in the beginning of Seforno's comments he suggests that the verse is saying that the Philistine route is the closest one by which to arrive at Yam Suf.</fn></point> |
<point><b>How is the Desert route a solution?</b> | <point><b>How is the Desert route a solution?</b> |
Version as of 16:22, 12 May 2014
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Avoiding the Philistine Route
The choice of the Desert route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine route. Hashem worried that the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten them into returning to Egypt.
- Philistines – According to most of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself were the threat.1
- Past wars – Targum Pseudo Jonathon, Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishamel and the first opinion in Shemot Rabbah assert that the fear related not to the consequences of present battles, but to the remnants of past wars. Thirty years earlier members of the tribe of Ephraim attempted to make their way to Israel but fell at the hand of the Philistines. Hashem did not want the Israelites to see their fallen bodies, panic, and then return to Egypt.
- Egyptians – According to modern scholars,2 the Philistine route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".3 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.4
- Because – Rashi and Ibn Ezra imply that it, too, means "because." Hashem is, thus, giving two related reasons why to avert the Philistine route. Since the route was close by, it would be more likely for the nation to return to Egypt upon encountering war.
- Even though or that – Chizkuni maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though", while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, the verse is giving but one reason. Hashem chose to dismiss the shorter (and thus seemingly more logical route), because of the wars it would lead to.
- According to most of these commentators, the verse is saying that the route is close to Egypt, and either despite this fact, or because of this fact, it is rejected.
- Both Chikuni and R. Paltiel raise a more metaphoric read of the verse, suggesting that the subject of "הוא" is the Philistines themselves (not the route) who were relatives (קרובים) of the Egyptians and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.5
- Ramban asserts that the only wars that might have caused the nation to return were ones against settled peoples whose lands were being trespassed. Amalek was exceptional, as they attacked en route. As such, flight would have been pointless for the Amalekites would have continued to fight even as the nation ran. Ramban further proposes that once the nation went a roundabout route, they no longer knew the way back to Egypt.
- Abarbanel points out that the war against the Philistines would have been almost immediate (due to their proximity to Egypt) and as such was much more likely to lead the nation to flee back to Egypt.
Intrinsic Value in the Desert Route
The Desert route was not just the default alternative to a rejected route, but rather had value in its own right, as it offered the nation valuable opportunities that the Philistine route could not. This approach subdivides regarding what the route had to offer:
Practical Preparation for Conquest
The route afforded the nation both the time and atmosphere needed to lose their slave mentality and gain the confidence and independence necessary to conquer and rule Canaan.
- Growth through trials – Rambam emphasizes how the scarcity and hardships of desert life would instill courage and strength. R. Hirsch adds that the challenges encountered would teach them to trust in Hashem, which, in turn, would give them the self-confidence needed to fight. Shadal further asserts that the time in the desert provided time to learn the skills necessary for self rule.
- New generation – Rambam proposes that the forty years in the desert meant that it was a new generation that had never been enslaved, which entered the land.7 This generation not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.8
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the desert would both instill fear in the Canaanites9 and boost the belief (and hence the courage) of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Time for Canaanites – Malbim adds that the extra time afforded by the Desert 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.
Spiritual Growth
The time in the desert enabled the nation to witness miracles, grow in their Torah learning, and deepen their connection to Hashem.
- Neziv stresses that the first reason given (proximity) was the primary one. He points out that as the people did desire to return to Egypt when facing war even on the longer path, this could not have been a major concern and goes as far as to suggest that God just said this because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.11
- Toledot Yitzchak, R. Hirsch and Malbim, though, maintain that the reasons work together. 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.
Drowning in Yam Suf
The choice of route was aimed at ensuring the drowning of the Egyptians in Yam Suf.
- R"Y Bekhor Shor and Yoel b. Nun understands the first "כִּי" to mean "that".15 The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.
- According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean because. There was a dual, but connected concern. The fact that the route was close to Egypt meant that it would be filled with informers who would both tell Paroh of the fleeing Israelites and, subsequently, tell the Israelites of the pursuing Egyptian army. Fear of the encounter would lead them to submissively return to their masters without even fighting.16
- R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that only on the Desert route was there a sea in which God could drown the Egyptians. Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the splitting of the sea would be greater.18
- Seforno believes that both routes would have ultimately led to Yam Suf19 but the Desert route was chosen since it was empty of spies and informers. As such, the Israelites would not be aware of the chasing Egyptians until they were already upon them, leaving them no choice of flight back to Egypt. Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, thus accomplishing God's primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.20
- R. Yoel B. Nun, builds off the above, highlighting how Hashem's whole goal was to force a confrontation at Yam Suf, where a decisive victory over the Egyptians and a drowning of their enemies would rid the nation of their feelings of servitude and reliance on their previous masters.