The roundabout route

(17) Now when Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Phillistines, although it was nearer; for God said, “The people may have a change of heart when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

(18) So God led the people roundabout, by way of the wilderness at the Sea of Reeds. Now the Israelites went up armed out of the land of Egypt.

"by way of the land of the Philistines, for it was near":

Near (i.e., "close") is the thing of which the Holy One Blessed be He spoke to Moses (Exodus 2:12): "When you take the people out of Egypt, you will serve G d on this mountain."

Another approach: "for it was near": It afforded easy return to Egypt, viz. (Ibid. 5:3) "Let us go a three days' distance in the desert."

Another approach: "for it was near": Close (in time) was the oath that Abraham had sworn to Avimelech, viz. (Genesis 21:23) "And now, swear to me here by G d that you will not deal with me falsely (by trespassing on my land), or to my son or my grandson," and his grandson was still alive.

Another approach: "for it was near": The first war (that with Egypt) was too close to the second (that with Canaan).

Another approach: "for it was near": The Canaanites had only recently acquired the land, and (Genesis 15:16) "And they (the Israelites) shall return here in the fourth generation, for the sin of the Amorites is not yet complete."

Another approach: "for it was near": The Holy One Blessed be He did not bring them directly to Eretz Yisrael but by way of the desert, saying: If I bring them there now, immediately each man will seize his field, and each man his vineyard and they will neglect Torah study. Rather, I will keep them in the desert forty years, eating manna and drinking from the well, and the Torah will be absorbed in their bodies. From here R. Shimon would say: The Torah was given to be expounded only by the eaters of manna, and, like them, the eaters of terumah (i.e., the Cohanim).

Another approach: "for it was near": The L rd did not bring them in directly. For when the Canaanites heard that the Israelites were coming, they arose and burned all the vegetation and cut down all the trees, and razed the buildings, and stopped up the springs — whereas the Holy One Blessed be He said: I did not promise their fathers to bring them to a ruined land, but one full of all good things, viz. (Devarim 6:11) "and houses full of all good." Rather, I will keep them in the desert until the Canaanites arise and restore what they have destroyed. (Ibid.)

"for the L rd said: Lest the people bethink themselves when they see war":

This is the war of Amalek, viz. (Numbers 14:45).

"Another approach: "for the L rd said, etc.": This is the war of the sons of Ephraim, viz. (I Chronicles 7:20-21), and (Psalms 78:9-72). They transgressed the appointed time (for the redemption) and the oath, viz. (Genesis 50:25). "for the L rd said, etc.": So that they not see the bones of their brethren strewn in Philistia and return (to Egypt). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If, when He took them in a circuitous way, they said (Numbers 14:4) "Let us make a head and return to Egypt," how much more so if He would take them in a straight way!

"And G d led the people circuitously by way of the desert to the Red Sea"

in order to perform miracles and mighty acts with the manna and the quail and the well.

R. Eliezer says: "way" — in order to weary them, viz. (Psalms 102:24) "He drained my strength on the way; He shortened my days." "the desert" — in order to purify them, viz. (Devarim 8:15) "Who led you through the great and awesome desert." "the Red Sea" — in order to try them, viz. (Psalms 106:7) "Our fathers in Egypt did not absorb Your wonders. They did not remember the abundance of Your lovingkindness, and they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea."

R. Yehoshua says: "way" — in order to give them the Torah, of which it is written (Devarim 5:30) "In all the way that the L rd your G d has commanded you shall you go," and (Mishlei 6:23) "For a mitzvah is a lamp, and Torah is light, and the way of life." "the desert" — in order to feed them the manna, viz. (Devarim 8:16) "who fed you manna in the desert, etc." "the Red Sea" — in order to perform for them miracles and wonders, as it is written (Psalms 106:21-22) "They forgot the G d who saved them, who wrought great deeds in Egypt, wonders in the land of Cham, awesome acts at the Red Sea," and (Ibid. 9) "And He rebuked the Red Sea and it dried up, and He led them through the depths as through a desert."

ויהי בשלח פרעה... ולא נחם AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN PHARAOH HAD SENT [THE PEOPLE AWAY] THAT GOD GUIDED THEM NOT — The word נחם means He guided them, just as, (Exodus 32:34) “Go, guide (נחה) the people”, and (Proverbs 6:22) “when thou goest it shall guide (תנחה) thee”.

כי קרוב הוא BECAUSE IT WAS NEAR, and it would therefore be easy to return by the same route to Egypt. — Of Midrashic explanations there are many (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:17).

WHEN THEY SEE WAR — For instance the war mentioned in (Numbers 14:45) “Then the Amalekites and the Canaanites came down etc.” If they had proceeded by the direct route they would have then turned back. This is evident, for what would have been the case? If, when He led them about by a circuitous way, they said, (Numbers 14:4) “Let us appoint another chief and go back to Egypt”, had He led them by a direct route how much the more certainly would they have spoken so.

פן ינחם PERADVENTURE [THE PEOPLE] REPENT — peradventure they cherish a different thought (they change their mind) about having gone out and set their hearts on returning (cf. Rashi on Genesis 6:6).

ויסב means HE LED THE PEOPLE ABOUT from the direct route to a circuitous route.

ים סוף is the same as לים סוף TO THE REED SEA. The word סוף has the meaning of a marshy tract in which reeds grow; examples are: (Exodus 2:3) “She placed him in the reeds (בסוף)”; (Isaiah 19:6) “The flags and the reeds (וסוף) shall wither”.

וחמשים — The word חמשים means provided with weapons (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:19:2). — [Because He led them by a circuitous route through the wilderness He brought it about that they went up from Egypt well-provided; for had He led them circuitously by the route of an inhabited district they would not have provided for themselves every thing that they needed, but only a part, like a person who is travelling from place to place and intends to purchase there whatever he will require. But if he were setting out for the wilderness he must provide all that he will require. — This verse (statement in the verse) is written only with the view of making the ear understand (preparing you for a later statement) viz., that you should not wonder with regard to the war with Amalek and the war with Sihon and Og and Midian where they obtained weapons, since they smote them with the sword]. In a similar sense it says, (Joshua 1:14) “and ye shall pass over armed (חמשים)”. Onkelos, too, translated it by מזרזין which signifies “armed” in Aramaic, just as he translates the word וירק in (Genesis 14:14) וירק את חניכיו which means, “And he armed his trained servants” by וזריז.

Another explanation of חמשים is: only one out of five (חמשה) went forth from Egypt, and four parts of the people died during the three days of darkness because they were unworthy of being delivered (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:19:3; cf. Rashi on 10:22).

Because it is close - And it would be easy to return on that same path to Egypt, and there are many Aggadic Midrashim [about this]. [The above is] the language of Rashi. And it is also the understanding of Rabbi Avraham (a.k.a Ibn Ezra): Because the reason that 'Hashem did not lead them on the path [through] the land of the Philistines' was because 'it was close' and they would regret [leaving] and return to Egypt immediately.

But according to my understanding, if it is like their words (Rashi and Ibn Ezra) 'Because Hashem said' would have been first [in the verse], but the verse says "Hashem led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines...for God said: ‘Lest the people regret when they see war, and they return to Egypt.’". But the correct [understanding] is that it is saying "Hashem led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines" which is "close" and [it would be] good to lead them on that path, "because Hashem said, 'Lest the people regret when they see war, and they return to Egypt.'" And the reason for war was that they would pass through to path of the land of the Philistines and the Philistines would not let them pass in peace, and then they would return to Egypt, but on the path of the wilderness, they would not see war until they were in their land; in the land of Sicon and Og, kings of the Emorites that was given to them, and they would be far from Egypt at that time.

And the war with Amalek in Rifidim was not worthwhile to return because of it, because they were that passing through [the Amalekims land] but [rather the Amelekim] came from its land and fought with them because of their hatred for them and if they had conceived of returning to Egypt, it would not have helped because [the Amelekim] would have fought them on the road. And also they were [already] far from Egypt on the crooked path that they went on and they didn't know another way [to return]. And the language of Rashi: When they see war - for example, the wars of the Cananim and the Amelekim, if they had went on a straight path, they would have returned. Just like when [Hashem] led them on a crooked path they said, 'Let us take initiative and return to Egypt', if they had went on a simple [path], all the more so [would they have returned].

[The following is a quote from] Michilta. And the reason it says, "God led them not...But God led the people about, by the way of the wilderness", is when they traveled from Succot, the pillar of cloud began to go before them, and it did not go by the way of the land of the Philistines, but rather went by the way of the wilderness of Eitam and Yisrael went after it. And the cloud rested in Eitam and they camped there, and [Eitam] is on the border of the wilderness.

And the for [saying] 'And Bnei Yisrael went up armed' - [as if] to say even though Hashem led them around [by] the way of the wilderness, they were scared maybe the Philistines would come upon them, those that lived in the cities close to them, and [therefore] they were armed like those who go to war. And there are those that say [that the reason for the phrase is] that the verse is telling us that they left 'with a raised hand' and they considered themselves redeemed people, and they did not walk like slaves who ran away.

ויהי בשלח...ולא נחם אלוקים דרך ארץ פלשתים, even though it had been G’d’s plan to lead the Israelites to Mount Sinai to receive the Torah there, and only from there to the land of Israel, as He stated Himself in Exodus 6,7-8 :”I will take you as My people, and I will bring you to the land, etc.,” at this point, G’d’s plan was to lead them to the Sea of Reeds, which was neither the route to the land of the Philistines, nor the route that led to Mount Sinai. [we must remember that Moses had stood at Chorev=Mt Sinai at the burning bush and he did not have to cross the sea to do this. Ed.] The major reason for this was to bring about the drowning of Pharaoh and his army in the sea.

An example of G’d acting in this manner is described in Judges 4,7 where G’d Himself speaks about how He “dragged” Sisera and his army and 900 armoured vehicles across the river Kishon to face Barak. The simplest route to get to the Sea of Reeds was by traversing the land of the Philistines. דרך ארץ פלשתים, G’d did not want them to travel this route

כי קרוב הוא because this route was too close to Egypt, afforded too easy a way to return to Egypt. Also, seeing it was a much traveled route, too many travelers would be able to report to Pharaoh about the Israelites and also too many Egyptians could keep the Israelites informed of what transpired in their country. If the Israelites would have to face combat

בראותם מלחמה, when they would hear that the Egyptians were mobilizing for war preparatory to chasing after the Israelites, the latter would no doubt return to Egypt out of fear of being killed. This is why G’d decided to lead them on a route not frequented by travelers at all.

דרך המדבר ים סוף, that they should march to the Sea of Reeds via the desert. On that route they would neither encounter travelers headed in the direction of Egypt, nor would they encounter travelers who had come from Egypt who could report that Pharaoh was going to chase them, until Pharaoh would actually catch up with them by which time a “voluntary” return to Egypt and slavery would not be of any advantage to them anymore, as their surrender would not then be acceptable to Pharaoh.

וחמושים עלו, although they had left Egypt fully armed. They did not have the courage to face the Egyptians in combat in spite of their being armed. They felt too inexperienced to face trained warriors.

The words: “perhaps the people will reconsider” are hard to understand; do we not believe that there is no such thing as the word “perhaps” in G’d’s vocabulary? Does He not know all in advance? Clearly G’d knew for certain how the Israelites would react when they saw they had to fight the Philistines!

The meaning of the words פן ינחם העם, therefore must be: “so that the people will not reconsider.” Indeed our sages (Eiruvin 96) are on record that wherever the expression פן or the word ואל, occurs in the Bible the meaning is “so that not.” Example: (Genesis 3,22) ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and now so that he will not also stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life, etc.” G’d meant it was not appropriate to give Adam an opportunity to take from the fruit of the tree of life and to nullify G’d’s decree that he had become mortal by eating from it. Similarly, here: G‘d led the people through the desert instead of through the land of the Philistines in order not to grant them an opportunity to regret having left Egypt.

בראותם מלחמה, “when they would see warfare.” Even though they experienced warfare in the desert such as when the Amalekites attacked them a few weeks after the Exodus, the fight against Amalek did not evoke a desire to return to Egypt. After all, Israel had not been called upon by G’d to invade (or traverse) a neighbouring country, something they would have found hard to justify. The Amalekites had attacked them in No-man’s land without provocation. The Amalekites by definition were attacking G’d through attacking His people; they had heard about all the miracles G’d had performed for the Israelites when He struck down the Egyptians. They were not willing to allow the G’d of Israel to have a monopoly of power on this earth. We have a comment by the Midrash (Mechilta Beshalach Petichata [introduction]) that if, seeing that after the Israelites had taken a devious and difficult route through the desert they nevertheless said (Numbers 14,4) in the second year of their journey: “let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt,” imagine what would have happened if they would have had to confront the Philistines at the beginning of their journey on the way to the land of the Canaanites.

Rabbeinu Chananel wrote that G’d had a different reason for leading the Israelites through the desert. He needed an excuse for demonstrating miracles for the people. Had G’d led the Jewish people by the most direct route and had influenced the Philistines to let them travel through their country unmolested, this would have been such a minor miracle that it would not have impressed the people with an appreciation of how G’d had exerted Himself on their behalf. G’d’s desire to demonstrate His power and ability to triumph over what appeared to be insurmountable difficulties made it necessary for Him to lead the people through an inhospitable desert. By leading the people through the desert G’d forced Himself to come up with the heavenly manna as the solution to their food problems, with the extraction of water from a rock and the traveling well as the solution to their water problems, with the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire as the solution to problems of an inhospitable climate, etc., etc. The further the Israelites traveled from civilization the greater were the miracles required to keep them alive and well...

This was characteristic of the way G’d dealt with the Israelites in the desert. They were to be raised gradually to a level of trust and faith in G’d so that they would be ready to receive the Torah. This is why G’d parted the waters of the Sea of Reeds only a little at a time. This is why even at Marah where G’d had showed Moses how to make sweet water which had become bitter sweet again, G’d went to the trouble of first miraculously making that water bitter and then performing a second miracle all in order to teach the Israelites a lesson in faith (compare Mechilta Parshah 1 on Exodus 15,22, opinion of Rabbi Joshua). G’d followed the same principle when making a daily miracle in raining down manna from the heaven when He could have contented Himself with the performance of such a miracle once a week or even once a month. When the Israelites had still questioned G’d’s providence even after the miracle at Marah, the attack by Amalek which followed promptly was also a miracle designed to teach the Israelites the lesson that faith was needed to survive. The lesson at that time was that failure to study Torah when one has the time leads to all kinds of disasters...

.וחמושים עלו בני ישראל , “the Israelites were armed when they came out of Egypt.” The plain meaning of the words is that when the Israelites left Egypt they were like the vanguard of an army preparing for battle. This was contrary to the rule that the Jewish people are not like the Gentile nations in that they have to make only the first motions of doing things in a regular manner before miraculous forces intervene to help them. (Compare Nachmanides on Numbers 13,2). For instance, we find that although G’d commanded Joshua (Joshua 8,2) to prepare an ambush against the people of Ai, we could ask that if the people of Israel, and especially their leader Joshua, were such experts in invoking miracles to help them, why did they need to lay an ambush, something perfectly natural? The answer is that G’d wants us to do whatever is possible in a natural way, following accepted norms. Anything beyond that we have to leave to celestial forces. Solomon confirms this principle in Proverbs 21,31: “the horse is readied for the day of battle; but victory comes from the Lord.” In other words, men have to do their share before G’d will do His share. This is why it was essential that the Israelites take weapons with them when they left Egypt.

...Some commentators understand the words כי קרוב הוא as not describing something spatial, but as referring to timing. G’d meant that an immediate arrival at the borders of the land of Canaan would then occur before the fourth generation of Canaanites had forfeited the patience of G’d, so that He could legally deprive them of their land and give it to the Israelites. [the word קרוב בימינו, “soon in our days,” and many other such uses of the word קרוב for relating to something that would occur soon are too numerous to need to be quoted. Ed.] Yet another interpretation of the words כי קרוב הוא understands it as describing the political common interests of the Philistines and the Egyptians that would cause the former to help the Egyptians recapture their slaves. Still another approach to the words כי קרוב הוא, sees in them a reference to the devastating defeat suffered by 200,000 members of the tribe of Ephrayim, who thirty years earlier had decided that the 400 years that G’d had spoken about to Avraham were at an end, and who had decided on their own, to escape from Egypt and when approaching the land of the Philistines were annihilated by them. G’d did not want to risk re-awakening such memories by making the people travel that route. The very word כי with its numerical value of 30 is a veiled reminder to the reader what it is all about. Moreover, G’d feared that if the Israelites would get involved in war before the three days travel into the desert that they had been given permission for were up, and on account of their fear they would return to Egypt, the Egyptians would be willing to let them return, whereas once the three days had passed, even if for some reason other than war, they would decide to return to Egypt, the Egyptians would not welcome them, but treat them as traitors who had broken their word. Therefore, G’d wanted a situation to develop which would make a return to Egypt even more dangerous an undertaking for the people than facing uncertain dangers by moving ahead.

Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed...

There occurs in the Law a passage which contains exactly the same idea; it is the following: "God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt; but God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea," etc. (Exod. 13:17). Here God led the people about, away from the direct road which He originally intended, because He feared they might meet on that way with hardships too great for their ordinary strength; He took them by another road in order to obtain thereby His original object...

It is contrary to man's nature that he should suddenly abandon all the different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were considered as a matter of course; it would be just as if a person trained to work as a slave with mortar and bricks, or similar things, should interrupt his work, clean his hands, and at once fight with real giants.

It was the result of God's wisdom that the Israelites were led about in the wilderness till they acquired courage. For it is a well-known fact that travelling in the wilderness, and privation of bodily enjoyments, such as bathing, produce courage, whilst the reverse is the source of faint-heartedness: besides, another generation rose during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to degradation and slavery. All the travelling in the wilderness was regulated by Divine commands through Moses; comp. "At the commandment of the Lord they rested, and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed; they kept the charge of the Lord and the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses" (Num. 9:23)...

You ask,... What prevented God from leading the Israelites through the way of the land of the Philistines, and endowing them with strength for fighting? The leading about by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night would then not have been necessary. A third question would then be asked in reference to the good promised as reward for the keeping of the commandments, and the evil foretold as a punishment for sins. It is the following question: As it is the chief object and purpose of God that we should believe in the Law, and act according to that which is written therein, why has He not given us the capacity of continually believing in it, and following its guidance, instead of holding out to us reward for obedience, and punishment for disobedience, or of actually giving all the predicted reward and punishment? For [the promises and the threats] are but the means of leading to this chief object. What prevented Him from giving us, as part of our nature, the will to do that which He desires us to do, and to abandon the kind of worship which He rejects?

There is one general answer to these three questions, and to all questions of the same character: it is this: Although in every one of the signs [related in Scripture] the natural property of some individual being is changed, the nature of man is never changed by God by way of miracle. It is in accordance with this important principle that God said, "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me," etc. (Deut. 5:26). It is also for this reason that He distinctly stated the commandments and the prohibitions, the reward and the punishment. This principle as regards miracles has been frequently explained by us in our works: I do not say this because I believe that it is difficult for God to change the nature of every individual person; on the contrary, it is possible, and it is in His power, according to the principles taught in Scripture; but it has never been His will to do it, and it never will be. If it were part of His will to change [at His desire] the nature of any person, the mission of prophets and the giving of the Law would have been altogether superfluous.