Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
|||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<p>The Wilderness Route was selected in order to ensure that the Egyptians would drown in Yam Suf.  This would display Hashem's might and sever the Israelites' remaining bonds of servitude.</p> | <p>The Wilderness Route was selected in order to ensure that the Egyptians would drown in Yam Suf.  This would display Hashem's might and sever the Israelites' remaining bonds of servitude.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot14-2-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:2-4</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="SefornoShemot14-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:5</a><a href="SefornoShemot14-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:30</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink><fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="BinNun" data-aht="source">Y. Bin-Nun</a><a href="BinNun" data-aht="source">Megadim 3</a></multilink>, <a href="http://www.herzog.ac.il/tvunot/fulltext/mega3_ybn.pdf">"'דרך ארץ פלשתים' מול 'דרך המדבר ים סוף'"</a>, Megadim 3 (5747): 21-32.</fn></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot13-17-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorShemot14-2-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:2-4</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="SefornoShemot14-5" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:5</a><a href="SefornoShemot14-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 14:30</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink><fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="BinNun" data-aht="source">Y. Bin-Nun</a><a href="BinNun" data-aht="source">Megadim 3</a></multilink>, <a href="http://www.herzog.ac.il/tvunot/fulltext/mega3_ybn.pdf">"'דרך ארץ פלשתים' מול 'דרך המדבר ים סוף'"</a>, Megadim 3 (5747): 21-32.</fn></mekorot> | ||
− | <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 was sending them away only temporarily (see <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a>).  Thus, | + | <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 was sending them away only temporarily (see <a href="A_Three_Day_Journey/2" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a>).  Thus, regardless of the route taken, once Paroh would realize that the 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, 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 predestined?</b> According to this position, since Paroh was going to pursue the Israelites, the | + | <point><b>Was the Splitting of the Sea predestined?</b> According to this position, since Paroh was going to pursue the Israelites, the need to drown the Egyptians at Yam Suf was unavoidable.<fn>Josephus, though, says that the Wilderness Route was taken only "in case the Egyptians should... pursue after them".</fn></point> |
+ | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים" – To where?</b> Most commentators assume that Hashem is speaking of the route which would lead to the land of Israel.  Seforno, in contrast, claims that Hashem is referring to the path that would lead to Yam Suf.<fn>In this, he differs from virtually all other exegetes.</fn>  He assumes that both the Philistine Route and the Wilderness Route 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.  The locations of both the Philistine Route and Yam Suf are the subjects of debate.</fn> since that was always the intended goal. The only question was which route to prefer.</point> | ||
<point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b><ul> | <point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Avoiding war with whom?</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>With Egypt and the Philistines </b>– According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem's immediate concern was over the Israelites' potentially fearful response to being surrounded by foes on all sides, as they would be attacked by the pursuing Egyptians from behind and by the looming Philistines from in front.<b><br/></b></li> | <li><b>With Egypt and the Philistines </b>– According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem's immediate concern was over the Israelites' potentially fearful response to being surrounded by foes on all sides, as they would be attacked by the pursuing Egyptians from behind and by the looming Philistines from in front.<b><br/></b></li> | ||
Line 24: | Line 25: | ||
<point><b>How does the Wilderness Route toward Yam Suf solve the problem?</b> Since all of these commentators maintain that the real reason for the choice of the Wilderness Route was in order to cause the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, they must show how this route together with the encounter at Yam Suf is what forestalled the concerns over the Israelites' potential panicky behavior:<br/> | <point><b>How does the Wilderness Route toward Yam Suf solve the problem?</b> Since all of these commentators maintain that the real reason for the choice of the Wilderness Route was in order to cause the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, they must show how this route together with the encounter at Yam Suf is what forestalled the concerns over the Israelites' potential panicky behavior:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Avoiding a | + | <li><b>Avoiding a dual front battle</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that traveling via the Wilderness Route avoided Israelite exposure to a two-pronged attack and provided a body of water in which Hashem could drown the Egyptians and dispose of foes one at a time.  Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the Splitting of the Sea would be a far greater one.</li> |
<li><b>Forcing a confrontation</b> – Seforno, in contrast, believes that even the Philistine Route would have led to Yam Suf,<fn>See note above that it questionable whether this is true based on the geography of the area.</fn> but that the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was devoid of spies and informers.  As such, the Israelites would be unaware of the chasing Egyptians until it was too late to flee.  According to Seforno, Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, so as to accomplish His primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.</li> | <li><b>Forcing a confrontation</b> – Seforno, in contrast, believes that even the Philistine Route would have led to Yam Suf,<fn>See note above that it questionable whether this is true based on the geography of the area.</fn> but that the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was devoid of spies and informers.  As such, the Israelites would be unaware of the chasing Egyptians until it was too late to flee.  According to Seforno, Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, so as to accomplish His primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.</li> | ||
<li><b>No more dependence</b> – According to Y. Bin-Nun, the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf achieved their total defeat and freed the Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.<fn>See Y. Barzilai, <a href="http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=11733">"וימרו על ים בים סוף - התכנית שלא התממשה"</a>  in על דרך האבות (Alon Shevut: 5761): 297-315, who agrees with Y. Bin-Nun's general approach but questions why the nation continuously asks to return to Egypt if their dependence was severed after the miracle.  He therefore suggests that Hashem had originally planned that the people themselves would defeat Paroh at Yam Suf.  Only their own victory would give them the necessary courage to turn their backs on Egypt in the future.  The nation, though, was not up to the task and in the end Hashem wrought the miracle instead, which saved the people but did not accomplish the primary goal of achieving complete independence.</fn></li> | <li><b>No more dependence</b> – According to Y. Bin-Nun, the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf achieved their total defeat and freed the Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.<fn>See Y. Barzilai, <a href="http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=11733">"וימרו על ים בים סוף - התכנית שלא התממשה"</a>  in על דרך האבות (Alon Shevut: 5761): 297-315, who agrees with Y. Bin-Nun's general approach but questions why the nation continuously asks to return to Egypt if their dependence was severed after the miracle.  He therefore suggests that Hashem had originally planned that the people themselves would defeat Paroh at Yam Suf.  Only their own victory would give them the necessary courage to turn their backs on Egypt in the future.  The nation, though, was not up to the task and in the end Hashem wrought the miracle instead, which saved the people but did not accomplish the primary goal of achieving complete independence.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | |||
<point><b>Double "כִּי"</b><ul> | <point><b>Double "כִּי"</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Different meanings</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun understand the first "כִּי" to mean "that"<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor does not address the question explicitly but implies this.</fn> and the second to mean "because". The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.</li> | <li><b>Different meanings</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun understand the first "כִּי" to mean "that"<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor does not address the question explicitly but implies this.</fn> and the second to mean "because". The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.</li> |
Version as of 23:43, 10 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's explanation of this choice appears to emphasize the more mundane dangers to the nation at that particular juncture. Commentators thus struggle with how to reconcile the relationship between theory and text, with their positions partially depending on whether baiting Paroh into chasing after the Israelites was part of the Divine master plan.
R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno focus exclusively on the immediate objective of reaching "יַם סוּף", assuming this was always Hashem's initial plan. The Mekhilta and many others instead stress the long range goals of traveling "דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר", elaborating on how it provided the nation with the mental, physical, and spiritual preparation necessary for their arrival in Canaan. In contrast, Rashi and others opt to take the the text at face value, adopting the simple reading that the purpose is merely to avoid the dangers of "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים". Finally, Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel attempt to synthesize various approaches, combining the mundane reasoning explicit in the text with the more implicit transcendent motives.
Below is the spectrum of approaches in defining Hashem's primary objective in leading the Israelites by way of the Wilderness Route:
Facilitating the Egyptians' Drowning
The Wilderness Route was selected in order to ensure that the Egyptians would drown in Yam Suf. This would display Hashem's might and sever the Israelites' remaining bonds of servitude.
- 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 on all sides, as they would be attacked by the pursuing Egyptians from behind and by the looming Philistines from in front.
- With Egypt alone – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon seeing the Egyptians in hot pursuit and flee rather than fight. Seforno, though, assumes that this encounter would happen even before the Israelites reached Canaan and were confronted by the Philistines.
- Avoiding a dual front battle – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that traveling via the Wilderness Route avoided Israelite exposure to a two-pronged attack and provided a body of water in which Hashem could drown the Egyptians and dispose of foes one at a time. Although God could have ensured a victory even in a land battle, the miracle of the Splitting of the Sea would be a far greater one.
- Forcing a confrontation – Seforno, in contrast, believes that even the Philistine Route would have led to Yam Suf,7 but that the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was devoid of spies and informers. As such, the Israelites would be unaware of the chasing Egyptians until it was too late to flee. According to Seforno, Hashem did not want to avoid a confrontation, but rather to ensure one, so as to accomplish His primary purpose, the drowning of the Egyptians.
- No more dependence – According to Y. Bin-Nun, the drowning of the Egyptians at Yam Suf achieved their total defeat and freed the Israelites from the mentality of dependence on their former masters.8
- Different meanings – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Y. Bin-Nun understand the first "כִּי" to mean "that"9 and the second to mean "because". The Philistine route, which was shorter, was nevertheless rejected due to fear of the Israelite response to war.
- Identical meaning – According to Seforno both appearances of the word mean "because", and the two phrases together constitute the full dual concern.10
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, as it offered the nation vital opportunities that the Philistine Route could not. This approach subdivides regarding what the route had to offer:
Physical and Mental Fortitude
The route afforded the nation both the time and environment needed to lose 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.17 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.18 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.19
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites20 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim21 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.22
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 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.
- Netziv 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.27
- 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.
Avoiding Philistine Route Dangers
The choice of the Wilderness 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
- Current threat – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself34 were the threat.35
- 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,36 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".37 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.38
- 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 route is close to Egypt, and either despite this fact, or because of this fact, it is rejected.
- Chizkuni39 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 Egyptians and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.40
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.49 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.50