THE
“WAY OF THE LAND OF THE PHILISTINES”
AND THE
“WAY OF THE DESERT BY THE RED SEA”
THE SOURCE AND MEANING OF THE PROHIBITION ON RETURNING TO EGYPT
These verses are very problematic, and despite the many interpretations that have been offered, they seem as baffling as ever.
Three elementary questions which arise are:
1. What is the meaning of “though it is close”?
2. What war is being referred to in the phrase “if they see war”?
3. Why is the phrase, “the Israelites left Egypt armed” included in this context?
There are three deeper and more meaningful questions that we must raise:
1. Why do these verses refer to God as ELOHIM, the only such instance in the Exodus narrative, rather than God’s “personal” or “historical” name Y-H-V-H, the Name which appears exclusively from the Burning Bush story onward?
2. The revelation at Sinai (which is along “the Way of the Desert by the Red Sea”, rather than on the shorter coastal route through “the Land of the Philistines”) had been mentioned (and promised!) much earlier as the ultimate goal of the Exodus more than once. For example:
It is, indeed, for Pharaoh’s permission to worship at Sinai that all Moses’ negotiations – threats, wonders and all – are about, and it is with this understanding that Pharaoh gives his permission:
But this last verse seems to be diametrically opposed to our verses; it implies that the Revelation at Sinai was virtually accidental, merely an outcome of God’s concern that “the nation would have a change of heart” if they encountered war on the shorter, more direct coastal route.
These two questions, and others like them, have prompted some scholars to embrace the “documentary hypothesis”. They explain the contradiction between the verses as the result of the merging of two separate and distinct literary sources. One source, according to the theory, knows only of an Exodus along the coastal road (the Way of the Land of the Philistines); the other knows of the Sinai (“Desert”) route exclusively. Some proponents of the theory see this discrepancy as evidence that there were two waves of Exodus, one of the tribes of Joseph, and the other of the tribes of Judah.
The reader, at this point, might be surprised to learn that the Rabbis also speak of two waves of emigration – Israel and Ephraim. According to the Rabbis, however, the Ephramite wave preceded the Israelite wave by thirty years, and was abortive (see Mekhilta to the words “though it was close”; also compare Gen. 15:13 with Ex. 12:40; see also I Chron. 7:21).
3. The basic assumption in all the proposed interpretations is that God wanted to avoid confronting Israel with war at all costs, at least at the outset, concerned that this would inspire them to abandon their cause, and physically turn around and return to Egypt.
The difficulty in this assumption is that in actuality, the alternate Desert route led them into war with Egypt almost immediately, causing an instant public outcry to return to Egypt, so that God’s actions seems to have the achieved the opposite of its intention. And as for changing the route, why could God not have saved them from disaster on the shorter route as He saved them at the Sea?
Our classical commentators noted this difficulty, but their proposed solutions seem contrived:
The "war" in our verse cannot, according to Rashi, be the war with Egypt. Ramban states unequivocally that the Torah is referring to the wars with Amalek and the Canaanites upon entering Canaan:
Rashi further understands “though it was close” - to Egypt, making it easier to return there. Taking the nation to Canaan along the more distant desert road would deter the people from returning.
Rashbam reads “close” - to Eretz Yisrael, and that the shorter route would have brought the war for the Land earlier.
Maimonides [Rambam] is of a similar opinion:
All of these interpretations - and many others - are filled with great wisdom. However, they do not address the cardinal problem: the war with Egypt at the Red Sea, with the superpower to whom they had been enslaved for centuries and with whom they fought for independence. This war was far more deadly than any war with Amalekites, Canaanites or Philistines could have been. This war came immediately, and at a time when Israel was weak and confused.
Modern scholars find a different solution to our problem, which resembles Ramban’s interpretation. Bas-reliefs on the walls of the temple at Karnak, dating to the rule of Pharaoh Seti I (toward the end of the 13th Century BCE), show that the entire northern Sinai coastal region was under direct Egyptian sovereignty, with Egyptian military outposts all along the way. Israel, fearing a trap, avoided the coastal road from the outset. But plausible though thus theory may sound, the reason it proposes for the change of route is not that mentioned in the Torah.
Some of the earliest of sources are skeptical as to whether the actual reason for travelling via Sinai is mentioned in the Torah at all. For Abarbanel, God’s motive was not concern for Israel’s fear, but rather His will to give the Torah at Sinai.
With all due respect to all those who have interpreted these verses in the past, I would like to propose the following interpretation:
Contrary to the accepted opinion, God's intention was not to avoid war and save Israel undue fear, but precisely the opposite - to drag them straight into the face of war, and achieve final, total independence at the Red Sea; not only physical, legal and political freedom, but liberty from the heavy burden of slave mentality:
This complete liberation is brought about by war -
and through the rejoicing and singing of victory.
To "return to Egypt" is not a physical action but a concept; it means relinquishing total autonomy and relying on others, specifically Egypt, for aid. This is evident in the use of this theme by the prophets:
This last quotation contains more than one allusion to the Parting of the Sea.
The next allusion can probably be connected to King Hosea's request for the protection of So, king of Egypt (see II Kings 17:3):
and its opposing verse:
Jeremiah also uses this theme (2:36-37):
These prophesies do not see returning or "going down" to Egypt as the physical emigration of all or part of the nation to Egypt. Suffice it than an Israelite king send messengers to Pharaoh saying: "I am your servant and son" (I Kings 16:7), and the prohibition against "returning" has been violated.
The Torah itself, in describing the official and moral requirements of an Israelite king, commands that he "not return the nation to Egypt in order to acquire many horses" (Deuteronomy 17:16).
Solomon, for example, disobeyed the commandment by sending only a handful of merchants to Pharaoh (I Kings 10:28-29).
Returning to Egypt for support and reliance on a heavy cavalry for victory are the spiritual opposites of the Exodus.
The Book of Deuteronomy ends with the tokheha, an admonition. The last verse, which describes the punishment to be inflicted on Israel should they disobey God's word in the Land warns:
But did Israel leave Egypt in ships, that God is threatening them with return along the same route? The Torah is not describing the route of return to Egypt, but rather the implication of return to Egypt - renewed bondage. The common denominator of a request for Egyptian protection, physical return to Egypt of one's own free will, and sale into Egyptian captivity is forfeiture of independence. The route God said Israel should never see again is the route of Slavery.
The Rabbis understood this point as being the crux of the commandment to puncture the ear of the voluntary slave:
At this point, we can take a new look at the prohibition against returning to Egypt and serving her:
Where and when did God say this to Moses, and what exactly did He say? The recurring theme of never seeing Egypt again leads us to Moses' words to Israel before the
Parting of the Sea, where the Israelites, out of absolute fear, cried out that they would rather be slaves. Moses answers that the Lord will fight for them, and he added - "for the way in which you see Egypt today, you shall not continue to see them again" (Exodus 14:13) - the meaning of this verse, in my opinion, is - "for the way in which you see Egypt today" - as slaves unto their masters; "you shall not continue to see them again" - in this way, ever again. If this is so, the three verses are in fact saying one thing!
This is the explicit opinion of the Rabbis in several places, and is summarised by Ramban in his commentary on Exodus 14:13:
Parting of the Sea, where the Israelites, out of absolute fear, cried out that they would rather be slaves. Moses answers that the Lord will fight for them, and he added - "for the way in which you see Egypt today, you will not continue to see them again" (Exodus 14:13) - the meaning of this verse, in my opinion, is - "for the way in which you see Egypt today" - as slaves unto their masters; "you shall not continue to see them again" - in this way, ever again. If this is so, the three verses are in fact saying one thing!
This is the explicit opinion of the Rabbis in several places, and is summarised by Ramban in his commentary on Exodus 14:13:
The understanding of the Rabbis that the prohibition on returning to Egypt means subjugation out of choice is derived from these three verses. It does not necessarily mean a physical return of the Israelite nation to Egypt, but merely a return to slavery. The prohibition is also incumbent on individuals returning to live in Egypt under Egyptian patronage, as well as an Israelite king, as a representative of the Israelite nation, requesting aid and assistance from a Pharaoh.
Clear proof that this is the approach of the Rabbis both in the interpretation of the verses as well as their halakhic implications is clearly seen:
Three prohibitions and three "returnings" mean three different kinds of submission. The first is asking for Egyptian patronage, as Hezekiah did when he was threatened by Sennacherib (according to the prophecies quoted earlier). The second is actual physical emigration to Egypt, as Judeans fearing the Babylonians - notably Yohanan ben Kareah - did, according to Jeremiah (40-43). The third kind of return is that of the Jewish community of Alexandria, which lived under Egyptian patronage from the time of Alexander the Great (c. 333 BCE) until the end of the Roman emperors Trajan (evidently Torginos in our text) and Hadrian. The defeat spoken of is the decimation of the Alexandrian community after hatred and persecution drove Diaspora Jewry to all-out revolt, forty-five years after the Destruction.
It is voluntary submission that the Rabbis see as so destructive:
The Exodus, the first and prototypical liberation of Israel, came about with Pharaoh's consent (Exodus 3:19 etc.).
Our verses call God ELOHIM ("God"), the "general" or "international" name known to all nations, and used, as a rule, when the Torah presents dialogue with gentiles (see Genesis 20, 31:40-41; Exodus 5:1-4; see also Ibn Ezra to Exodus 3:15; Kuzari, fourth chapter), and this is precisely because of Pharaoh's permission. This Exodus does not know of Revelation or the Parting of the Sea, but of a political-historical event which takes place along natural political lines.
Only when the Torah returns to the "other" Exodus, which results in complete freedom, with no foreign protection whatsoever, does it speak of Revelation and Law-giving, and does God reveal Himself through His transcendental, historical attribute Y-H-V-H ("the Lord"):
The "Way of the Land of the Philistines" was an official route under Egyptian jurisdiction, as where considerable portions of Canaan. Had Israel have taken Pharaoh's road, they would have displayed good faith in him, and de facto recognition of his protection. At every checkpoint along the road they would have shown Pharaoh's letter of safe passage; the soldiers would have saluted them through and entered in their logs that Pharaoh's subjects passed through safely. Israel would have sent Pharaoh a letter of thanks. Whenever they found themselves in danger, especially in situations of war, they would have sent Pharaoh's letters similar to the petition for aid sent to Pharaoh by Biridia, king of Shekhem:
Had Israel left Egypt in this fashion, Pharaoh would never have pursued them at all. He could have granted them the mountain region and even made them his representatives there.
Needless to say, this Exodus would not have been conducive to Revelation. A slave-nation which progressed from slave status in Egypt to vassal status in Canaan would never really have achieved freedom, and a nation which is not free could not have received the Torah - the Shekhina would not be present along with another master. God's sovereignty is possible only after all other sovereignties have been renounced:
Moses' prophecy and leadership - including God's revelation at Sinai and giving the Torah - stem from complete independence from Pharaoh. For this reason, God led them on the Desert route, into confrontation, into war, into salvation and singing, and into complete freedom.
© Yeshivat Hakibbutz Hadati - Ein Tzurim, 5763/ 2002