Difference between revisions of "The Roundabout Route and The Road Not Traveled/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<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> | <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 | + | <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 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> | ||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
<mekorot>R. Eliezer in <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>, Various opinions in <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah</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="RSaadiaGaonShemot13-18" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonShemot13-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:18</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambamMoreh3-32" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamGuidetothePerplexed3-24" data-aht="source">Guide to the Perplexed 3:24</a><a href="RambamMoreh3-32" data-aht="source">Guide to the Perplexed 3:32</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shadal #1</a><a href="ShadalShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RHirschShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. S"R Hirsch</a><a href="RHirschShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MalbimShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink>,<fn>Malbim combines this approach with that below which speak of the nation's need for spiritual growth.</fn> <multilink><a href="RDZHoffmannShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDZHoffmannShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="CassutoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">U. Cassuto</a><a href="CassutoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot>R. Eliezer in <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>, Various opinions in <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah20-11" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah</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="RSaadiaGaonShemot13-18" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonShemot13-18" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:18</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambamMoreh3-32" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamGuidetothePerplexed3-24" data-aht="source">Guide to the Perplexed 3:24</a><a href="RambamMoreh3-32" data-aht="source">Guide to the Perplexed 3:32</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shadal #1</a><a href="ShadalShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RHirschShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. S"R Hirsch</a><a href="RHirschShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Samson Raphael Hirsch" data-aht="parshan">About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MalbimShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink>,<fn>Malbim combines this approach with that below which speak of the nation's need for spiritual growth.</fn> <multilink><a href="RDZHoffmannShemot13-17" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDZHoffmannShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="CassutoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">U. Cassuto</a><a href="CassutoShemot13-17" data-aht="source">Shemot 13:17-18</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
+ | <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 drowning the Egyptians at Yam Suf was thus neither inevitable nor necessary as a prerequisite for entrance into Canaan.  Those who maintain that they were 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 is not a factor 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></point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</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.  This meant that the people would arrive almost immediately in Canaan and be forced to fight the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared for them.</point> | <point><b>"וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים... כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא" – Close to where?</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.  This meant that the people would arrive almost immediately in Canaan and be forced to fight the wars of conquest before they were physically and mentally prepared for them.</point> | ||
<point><b>Where is "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"?</b> Most of these commentators do not explicitly address this issue, but most<fn>This is explicit in R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> likely assume that it refers to the coastal route (also known as "דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם") that leads northeast out of Egypt, traversing the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.  At the time of the Exodus, though, the Philistines who later live in this area had not yet arrived,<fn>The coastal route was instead filled with Egyptian garrisons who used the path on their campaigns to the North.  Cassuto suggests that as such, this route was not considered at all, leaving a choice between the shorter Philistine Route through the Negev and the more roundabout Wilderness Route.<br/>See, below, though that some modern scholars suggest that the verse really is referring to the coastal route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם") and simply explaining that Hashem rejected it specifically due to the Egyptians stationed there.</fn> leading Cassuto to assert that the verse instead refers to the way that leads from Egypt to Israel via the Negev,<fn>See below that Cassuto notes that this is the same path which the Spies later took and which produced exactly the results which Hashem had earlier tried to avoid.  Thus, when the Children of Israel finally (successfully) entered the land after their forty years in the wilderness, they avoided this route altogether and entered Canaan from the eastern bank of the Jordan.</fn> which was home to the Philistines of Avraham's time.<fn>I.e. the "אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים" mentioned in Bereshit 21:32.</fn></point> | <point><b>Where is "דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים"?</b> Most of these commentators do not explicitly address this issue, but most<fn>This is explicit in R. D"Z Hoffmann.</fn> likely assume that it refers to the coastal route (also known as "דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם") that leads northeast out of Egypt, traversing the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.  At the time of the Exodus, though, the Philistines who later live in this area had not yet arrived,<fn>The coastal route was instead filled with Egyptian garrisons who used the path on their campaigns to the North.  Cassuto suggests that as such, this route was not considered at all, leaving a choice between the shorter Philistine Route through the Negev and the more roundabout Wilderness Route.<br/>See, below, though that some modern scholars suggest that the verse really is referring to the coastal route ("דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּם") and simply explaining that Hashem rejected it specifically due to the Egyptians stationed there.</fn> leading Cassuto to assert that the verse instead refers to the way that leads from Egypt to Israel via the Negev,<fn>See below that Cassuto notes that this is the same path which the Spies later took and which produced exactly the results which Hashem had earlier tried to avoid.  Thus, when the Children of Israel finally (successfully) entered the land after their forty years in the wilderness, they avoided this route altogether and entered Canaan from the eastern bank of the Jordan.</fn> which was home to the Philistines of Avraham's time.<fn>I.e. the "אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים" mentioned in Bereshit 21:32.</fn></point> |
Version as of 12:50, 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.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 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.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.34 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.35 This generation was not encumbered by a slave mentality, and was thus more capable of dealing with the challenges of conquest and government.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.
- 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.46 He suggests that Hashem added this only because the nation would not have understood the real fear of assimilation.47
- 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 itself54 constituted the threat.55
- 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,56 the Philistine Route might be identified with what is known in Egyptian texts as the "Wall of Horus".57 At the time of the Exodus, it was under Egyptian control and heavily fortified with Egyptian sentries and garrisons.58 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.59
- 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.
- Chizkuni60 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 Egyptians61 and thus more likely to fight against the Israelites.62
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.71 If they headed towards the Philistine Route they would have been viewed as liars, and therefore Hashem led them through the wilderness.72