Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
<category name="">Facilitating the Egyptians' Destruction | <category name="">Facilitating the Egyptians' Destruction | ||
− | <p>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 | + | <p>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.</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.  Like R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno, Bin-Nun also contends that the Wilderness Route was chosen to ensure the confrontation at Yam Suf and the drowning of the Egyptians.  However, he differs from them in his understanding of why Yam Suf was necessary – see notes below.</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.  Like R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno, Bin-Nun also contends that the Wilderness Route was chosen to ensure the confrontation at Yam Suf and the drowning of the Egyptians.  However, he differs from them in his understanding of why Yam Suf was necessary – see notes below.</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>).<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 was sending 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> | ||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים...‏ כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Where is the Israelites' destination?</b><ul> | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים...‏ 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 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 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 | + | <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 indeed 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.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Concern over war with whom?</b><ul> | <point><b>"בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" – Concern over war with whom?</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>With Egypt and the Philistines </b>– 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.<fn>Alternatively, this position could also suggest that the coastal Philistine Route was full of Egyptian fortifications (see below that the coastal Philistines had not yet arrived), and had the Israelites taken this route, they would have been caught in between Egyptian armies.  Cf. Cassuto below who for this reason | + | <li><b>With Egypt and the Philistines </b>– 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.<fn>Alternatively, this position could also suggest that the coastal Philistine Route was full of Egyptian fortifications (see below that the coastal Philistines had not yet arrived), and had the Israelites taken this route, they would have been caught in between Egyptian armies.  Cf. Cassuto below who contends that, for this reason, the Coastal Route was not even a consideration (according to him, the "Philistine Route" went through the Negev).</fn><b><br/></b></li> |
<li><b>With Egypt alone</b> – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon hearing<fn>Since the Israelites, despite taking the Wilderness Route, wound up seeing the pursuing Egyptian army, Seforno opts to read "בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" as <b>hearing</b> reports that the Egyptians were chasing, rather than seeing them.</fn> 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.<fn>In contrast, Y. Bin-Nun asserts that the concern was a long range one, and related to any future wars which might lead the nascent Israelite nation to return to Egypt for protection.  See above that he assumes the Egyptians were not initially planning on chasing after the Israelites, but would have willingly permitted them to emigrate to Israel and live there as Paroh's vassals.</fn></li> | <li><b>With Egypt alone</b> – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon hearing<fn>Since the Israelites, despite taking the Wilderness Route, wound up seeing the pursuing Egyptian army, Seforno opts to read "בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה" as <b>hearing</b> reports that the Egyptians were chasing, rather than seeing them.</fn> 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.<fn>In contrast, Y. Bin-Nun asserts that the concern was a long range one, and related to any future wars which might lead the nascent Israelite nation to return to Egypt for protection.  See above that he assumes the Egyptians were not initially planning on chasing after the Israelites, but would have willingly permitted them to emigrate to Israel and live there as Paroh's vassals.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
<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> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno understand the phrase to refer to the fear lest the nation physically return to Egypt and its bondage.<fn>Cf. Y. Bin-Nun who asserts that "וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" is referring instead to reliance on Egypt and seeking its help in the future when endangered by other enemies.  However, his theory does not work well with other verses in the Torah in which the Children of Israel use similar language which seemingly refers to physically returning to Egypt (see Bemidbar 14:4, Devarim 28:66) or yearning for the days in which they physically | + | <point><b>"וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno understand the phrase to refer to the fear lest the nation physically return to Egypt and its bondage.<fn>Cf. Y. Bin-Nun who asserts that "וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" is referring instead to reliance on Egypt and seeking its help in the future when endangered by other enemies.  However, his theory does not work well with other verses in the Torah in which the Children of Israel use similar language which seemingly refers to physically returning to Egypt (see Bemidbar 14:4, Devarim 28:66) or yearning for the days in which they physically resided there (see Shemot 14:11-12, 16:3, 17:3, Bemidbar 11:5,20, 20:5, 21:5).</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the verse to refer to food provisions and to be clarifying that | + | <point><b>"וַחֲמֻשִׁים"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the verse to refer to food provisions and to be clarifying that the Israelites were well supplied enough to take the longer route through the wilderness. Seforno, in contrast, understands it to refer to military arms and suggests that the verse is highlighting that despite being armed, the nation lacked the courage to fight their masters.</point> |
− | <point><b>Was the objective of the Wilderness Route achieved?</b> According to this approach, traveling via the Wilderness Route succeeding in ensuring that the Egyptians drowned at Yam Suf and | + | <point><b>Was the objective of the Wilderness Route achieved and when?</b> According to this approach, traveling via the Wilderness Route succeeding in ensuring that the Egyptians drowned at Yam Suf and in permanently casting off the Egyptian yoke of slavery.<fn>For Y. Bin-Nun, the choice of route achieved a lesser degree of success; see the note above for the many occasions (already in the Torah) on which the Israelites wanted to return to Egypt.  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 longs to return to Egypt if Yam Suf was designed to make them totally independent. 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 therefore Hashem wrought the miracle instead.  This saved the people, but did not accomplish the primary goal of psychologically freeing the Israelites from dependence upon Egypt.</fn>  This though raises the question of why the Israelites did not take the Philistine Route once Yam Suf had already occurred and accomplished its goal.<fn>This is a question only for R"Y Bekhor Shor (and Y. Bin-Nun), but not for Seforno (who says that the Philistine Route did not lead to Israel at all).  R"Y Bekhor Shor could respond that the Israelites did indeed attempt to take the Philistine Route to Israel in the episode of the Spies (this would assume like Cassuto below that the Philistine Route went through the Negev).  Alternatively, once they were on the other side of Yam Suf, it is possible that the nation could no longer get back to the Philistine Route, or that it was no longer the shortest route.</fn></point> |
<point><b>What about Sinai?</b> Seforno asserts that Mt. Sinai was always meant to be the second stop; first, though, Hashem wanted to drown the Egyptians.</point> | <point><b>What about Sinai?</b> Seforno asserts that Mt. Sinai was always meant to be the second stop; first, though, Hashem wanted to drown the Egyptians.</point> | ||
<point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – Seforno compares Hashem's plan here to the words of Devorah to Barak in Shofetim 4:7, "וּמָשַׁכְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ אֶל נַחַל קִישׁוֹן אֶת סִיסְרָא".  There, too, Hashem drew the enemy to a particular place with intent to drown its chariots and wipe out its army.<fn>Cf. Y. Bin-Nun who cites numerous prophecies (Yeshayahu 30:2, 31:1-3, Hoshea 7-11, Yirmeyahu 2:36) which criticize the reliance on Egypt for protection.</fn></point> | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – Seforno compares Hashem's plan here to the words of Devorah to Barak in Shofetim 4:7, "וּמָשַׁכְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ אֶל נַחַל קִישׁוֹן אֶת סִיסְרָא".  There, too, Hashem drew the enemy to a particular place with intent to drown its chariots and wipe out its army.<fn>Cf. Y. Bin-Nun who cites numerous prophecies (Yeshayahu 30:2, 31:1-3, Hoshea 7-11, Yirmeyahu 2:36) which criticize the reliance on Egypt for protection.</fn></point> |
Version as of 11:07, 24 February 2015
The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Some of the most formative events in the history of the Children of Israel occurred on the Wilderness Route, and it is difficult to imagine how history would have evolved without them. However, the sublime benefits of this travel route are more obvious only in retrospect, while the Torah appears to explain its choice by highlighting the more mundane dangers associated with the alternative Philistine Route. Commentators thus struggle with how to reconcile the relationship between theory and text, with their positions partially dependent on whether baiting Paroh into chasing after the Israelites was a crucial element of the Divine master plan.
Two approaches emphasize the advantages of the Wilderness Route. R"Y Bekhor Shor and Seforno focus exclusively on the immediate objective of reaching Yam Suf, saying that this was always Hashem's initial plan and that this alone accounts for the path taken. The Mekhilta and many others also accent the positive, but they instead stress the long range benefits of traveling through the wilderness, as it allowed the nation to acquire the mental, physical, and spiritual fortitude needed to conquer and settle Canaan. In contrast to both of these positions, Rashi and others adopt the simple reading of the text that the purpose was merely to avoid the pitfalls of the alternative Philistine Route. Finally, Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel attempt to synthesize various approaches, combining the mundane reasoning explicit in the text with the more implicit transcendent motives.
The following is an analysis of the spectrum of approaches regarding Hashem's main objective in leading the Israelites by way of the Wilderness Route:
Facilitating the Egyptians' Destruction
The Wilderness Route was selected in order to ensure a confrontation in which the Egyptians would drown in the Sea (the primary purpose is 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.
- 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.12
- With Egypt alone – Seforno similarly contends that the Divine concern was that the Israelites might panic upon hearing13 that the Egyptians were in hot pursuit and return to Egypt rather than fight. Seforno, though, assumes that this encounter would occur even before the Israelites reached Philistine territory.14
- 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.16
- Forcing a confrontation – Seforno posits that the Wilderness Route was chosen since it was devoid of spies and informers. As such, the Israelites would be unaware of the pursuing Egyptians until it was too late to flee.17
- Two opposing factors – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands the "כִּי" of "כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" to be providing the reason why the Philistine Route might have been chosen,19 while only the "כִּי" of "כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים" 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.20
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.30 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.31 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.32
- Miracles as morale booster – Malbim maintains that the splitting of the sea and other miracles of the wilderness would both instill fear in the Canaanites33 and boost the belief, and hence the courage, of the Israelites enabling a victory over their enemies.
- Stalling for the Canaanites – Malbim34 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.35
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.
- Meshekh Chokhmah maintains that God feared the influence the idolatrous Canaanites 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 אֱלֹהִים פֶּן... וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה" could have been only a secondary concern, as the people did desire to return to Egypt even on the longer path.42 He suggests that Hashem added this only because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.43
- Toledot Yitzchak, R. Hirsch, and Malbim, though, maintain that the reasons work in tandem. Without the benefit of a long route in which to grow spiritually, the nation would lack the trust in God needed to fight wars and win.
Avoiding Philistine Route Dangers
The choice of the Wilderness Route was a response to the dangers lurking on the Philistine Route (the critical factor was to avoid traveling "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"). Hashem worried that the wars the nation would encounter en route would frighten it into returning to Egypt.
- Philistines – Most classical and medieval commentators assume that it was the Philistines who posed the threat on the Philistine Route:
- Current threat – According to many of these commentators, the Philistines presently living on the route itself50 constituted the threat.51
- Previous defeat – Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and the first opinion in Shemot Rabbah assert that the fear related not to the consequences of present battles, but to the remains of past wars. Thirty years earlier, members of the tribe of Ephraim had attempted to make their way to Israel, but they were massacred by the Philistines and their corpses still lay on the Philistine Route. Hashem did not want the Israelites to see their unburied bodies, panic, and then return to Egypt.
- Egyptians – According to modern scholars,52 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".53 At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.54 Traveling via such a route would inevitably lead to conflict with the Egyptians, and Israelite terror of their masters would lead to a quick surrender and return to servitude.55
- Because – Rashi and Ibn Ezra imply that it, too, means "because". Hashem is, thus, giving two related reasons why to avert the Philistine route. Fear of war was significant specifically because the route was so close to Egypt. The proximity made it more likely for the nation to return to Egypt upon encountering war.
- Even though or that – Chizkuni maintains that the first "כִּי" means "even though", while Ramban proposes that it means "that". According to both, the verse is giving only one reason to avoid the Philistine Route. Even though it was the shorter (and thus seemingly more logical route), Hashem chose to dismiss it because of the wars it would lead to.
- 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.
- Chizkuni56 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 Egyptians57 and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.58
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.67 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.68