The Downside of Parting in Peace

And it was when Paroh sent forth the nation that the L-rd did not lead the nation by the way of the Pelishtim – for it was close.  For the L-rd said: Perchance, the nation will reconsider when it encounters battle and return to Egypt.  (Sefer Shemot 13:17)

  1. The problem with the short route to Cana’an

Bnai Yisrael has left Egypt.  Hashem is leading the nation to the promised Land of Cana’an.  He does not direct the nation along the shortest route to the Land of Cana’an, but instead selects a longer route.  The passage relates this decision to the people’s emotional state.  They were not yet prepared to face a fierce enemy in battle.  If they too quickly arrived at the Land of Cana’an, and were challenged by the nations inhabiting the land, they would not have the confidence and courage to face their enemies.  They would flee from before them and return to Egypt.

The above translation of the passage is suggested by Unkelus and many other commentators.  However, Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra acknowledges an alternative translation.  In this translation the passage states:  And it was when Paroh sent forth the nation that the L-rd did not lead the nation by the way of the Pelishtim – even though it was close.

Both of these translations agree that the shortest route to the Land of Cana’an is by way of the Land of the Pelishtim.  According to Unkelus, this route’s directness was its shortcoming.  Using this route to travel to Cana’an would provide 

the people with a direct path that they could travel back to Egypt.  According to the alternative translation noted by Ibn Ezra, the route’s directness was not a shortcoming.  It was, in fact, the preferable route.  But it was rejected by Hashem. The people needed to be prepared to face battle.  This would take time and the longer route would provide this opportunity.  Over the course of their travels along this longer route, the people would mature and prepare for the challenges that they would encounter.

These two translations suggest very different understandings of the message of the passage.  In order to appreciate these alternative interpretations, the opening of the passage needs to be more carefully considered. 

  1. Paroh’s farewell to Bnai Yisrael

The pasuk begins: And it was when Paroh sent forth the nation.  This seems a strange description of Bnai Yisrael’s redemption.  Hashem redeemed His nation.  Paroh was forced to release the nation and was only responding to the plagues that Hashem brought upon Egypt.  Why does the passage attribute the liberation of Bnai Yisrael to Paroh?

The midrash addresses this issue.  It explains that Paroh actually accompanied Bnai Yisrael as the nation left his land.  He conducted himself as a host bidding farewell to an honored guest.  Apparently, the passage’s point is that Bnai Yisrael did not leave Egypt in defiance of Paroh.  They did not engage in a rebellion, arm themselves, and wage battle to achieve freedom.  They left with Paroh’s blessing – at his behest. 

  1. The impact on Bnai Yisrael of leaving Egypt without conflict

The manner in which Bnai Yisrael departed from Egypt impacted their preparedness to face the nations of Cana’an.  First, they did not fight for their freedom.  They were passive actors in their redemption.  This left them unprepared to confront the warriors of the Land of Cana’an.  This adversary would not welcome them and give-up to them their land and their homes.  They could be expected to wage a determined and even desperate fight to protect their land.

Second, they did not leave Egypt as escaping slaves rebelling and defying their rulers.  They left Egypt in peace and with the blessings of their former masters. They could easily imagine returning to Egypt and being welcomed.

Now, let us reconsider the two interpretations of the passage.  According to Unkelus, the passage explains that Hashem did not lead Bnai Yisrael along the shorter route. He recognized that when faced with war the people might retreat from the threat and return to Egypt along this easy road.  The overall message of the passage is that Bnai Yisrael left Egypt accompanied by Paroh. They parted in peace.  The manner in which they parted suggested to the people that if necessary, they could return to Egypt.  Therefore, Hashem avoided the shorter route – the route that would have facilitated their return to Egypt.

Ibn Ezra’s alternative interpretation is that Hashem lead them along the longer route in order to provide the nation with the time needed to mature and develop courage and confidence.  The overall message of the passage is that Bnai Yisrael left Egypt without a fight.  They were not required to test their courage and overcome adversity.  A period of nation building was needed before these freed slaves would be prepared to face a fierce enemy.  Hahsem led the nation along the longer road to Cana’an in order to provide the time needed for this maturation process.

Both interpretations recognize the inevitability of adversity and the necessity of building the confidence and courage to face it.  If we are to face adversity, we must not delude ourselves into believing that it can be avoided by seizing false alternatives.  We cannot imagine that we have the opportunity to return to our own Egypts.  In other words, the easier alternative to facing adversity is tempting, but often illusionary.  Furthermore, we must develop our confidence and courage.  If we constantly avoid adversity, then we cannot grow and mature.  We remain uncertain of our abilities and timid.  But when we take on challenges and test ourselves we grow in confidence and self-assuredness.