What is the translation of "B'Shalach Pharaoh Es ha'Am"?
Targum Onkelos: "When Pharaoh sent the people away."
Targum Yonasan: "When Pharaoh set the people free." 1
Mechilta: "When Pharaoh accompanied the people [out]." 2
Implying completely - that they did not need to return. This explains why they would have been free to travel to Eretz Cana'an via the land of the Pelishtim, had Hashem so wished. It was following Pharaoh's change of heart, that he chased after them (as Hashem had planned - see 14:1-10).
Mechilta: As a reward, Hashem commanded Yisrael, "Lo Sesa'ev Mitzri" (do not abhor an Egyptian - Devarim 23:8). (But the Pasuk gives a different reason for this prohibition?) Also see Torah Temimah, note 67.
Why does the Torah say, "B'Shalach Pharaoh Es ha'Am," and not 'b'Tzeis ha'Am'?
Mechilta: Refer to 13:17:0.1.3 .
Oznayim la'Torah: In order to deride Pharaoh, who had said earlier, "v'Gam Es Yisrael Lo Ashale'ach" (Shemos 5:2).
The Torah gives the reason for not taking Yisrael via the land of the Pelishtim (the shortest route), as "Ki Karov Hu." What does this mean?
Rashi, Rashbam, and Ramban #1 (citing the Ibn Ezra): Hashem was afraid that, since it was close and easy to return to Egypt the way they had come; 1 at the slightest excuse, they would make their way back. 2
Ramban #2: It is not the reason why Hashem did not take them via the Pelishtim, but on the contrary, why He ought to have done so. 3
Hadar Zekenim #1, Da'as Zekenim #1 and Rosh: The Pelishtim were relatives of the Egyptians. 4 Consequently, since Yisrael had fled from the Egyptians - their relatives - the Pelishtim would be prone to fight Yisrael and return them.
Da'as Zekenim #2 and Hadar Zekenim #2: Hashem did this favor 5 for Yisrael, since they are His relatives - "Am Kerovo" (Tehilim 148:14).
Hadar Zekenim #3: The Shevu'ah that Avraham had made to Avimelech (Bereishis 21:23), not to harm his son or grandson, was close (i.e. recent; it had not yet expired). 6
Da'as Zekenim #3: The Kena'anim had only recently inhabited the land. Hashem told Avraham that "Dor Revi'i Yashuvu Henah" (Bereishis 15:16); so Hashem kept the Bnei Yisrael in the Midbar for 40 years (until it was time for them to return to Eretz Yisrael).
Da'as Zekenim #4: If Bnei Yisrael would enter Eretz Yisrael quickly, they would engage with their fields and neglect Torah. Rather, they must spend 40 years in the Midbar, with their food and water supplied for them, so that [Torah] will be settled in their bodies.
Da'as Zekenim #5: When the Kena'anim heard that Yisrael left Egypt, they said that Bnei Yisrael would take the land away from them; so they ruined it. Hashem promised Avraham that his offspring would inherit a land filled with goodness; so He detained them in the Midbar so the Kena'anim could fix what they ruined - "va'Ani Yisarti, Chizakti Zero'osam" (Hoshe'a 7:15).
Gur Aryeh: Rashi needs to add this, because we would have thought, that on the contrary -- let them travel the shortest route!
Rashi and Rashbam: Which (ultimately) they attempted to do, even now when He took them on a longer route (see Parshas Shelach, Bamidbar 14:3-4). But see Ramban's objection to this explanation. The Moshav Zekenim maintains that "Karov" cannot refer to "Derech," which is feminine. (However, the Gemara Kidushin 2b states that 'Derech' can be either feminine or masculine! - PF)
Ramban: Because it was the shortest and most convenient route. Hadar Zekenim and Da'as Zekenim - Because once they crossed the Nile, they would be in Eretz Pelishtim, which is part of Eretz Yisrael. Proof of this is the fact that Yitzchak went to Gerar, which is a town in Peleshes, and we know that he was forbidden to go to Chutz la'Aretz! According to R"M, Eretz Pelishtim is mainly in Chutz la'Aretz, but a strip enters Eretz Yisrael.
See Bereishis 10:13-14.
Da'as Zekenim: The favor was to conduct with them unlike Derech Eretz. The word Pelishtim in the middle of this Derashah has no meaning. (PF) Refer to 13:17:152:3 and note.
Oznayim la'Torah: It had expired for Yisrael, whose lives were curtailed due to their harsh conditions (see Oznayim la'Torah).
Which war is the Pasuk referring to?
Rashi (citing the Mechilta) and Ramban #2: The Pasuk is referring to any future war that they might be forced to enter into, such as that of the Amaleki and Kena'ani that is recorded in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 14:45).
Ramban #1: It is referring to the battle with the Pelishtim, which they would have had to enter into had they traveled along that route. 1
Rashbam: It is referring to the battles pertaining to the conquest of Cana'an.
Seforno: Since the route via Pelishtim was close to Egypt and was used by many travelers, Pharaoh was bound to receive a report about Yisrael's whereabouts, as a result of which he would gather an army to attack Yisrael, who would take fright and return to Egypt. 2 So Hashem took them on a roundabout route via uninhabited terrain. 3
Targum Yonasan: This refers to the two hundred thousand 4 men of Efrayim, who had left Egypt early and went to Cana'an by way of the Pelishtim, were they began to plunder the herds of cattle belonging to the men of Gas, who annihilated them. 5 Hashem knew that, if Yisrael would travel the same route and come across the remains of the Bnei Efrayim, they would take fright and return to Egypt. 6
Ramban: Now that they traveled via the desert, they were not destined to encounter any wars until they reached the land of Sichon and Og. As for the battle with Amalek (later in the Parshah, 17:8-16), that was no reason to return to Egypt, seeing as it was not they (Yisrael) who arrived in their land, but rather Amalek who attacked them, and they had no option but to fight in self-defense. Moreover, they were already too far away from Egypt to make their way back on their own.
Just as some of them wanted to do at the Yam-Suf (See Targum Yonasan 14:13).
Seforno (to 13:18): Indeed, when Pharaoh suddenly caught up with them at the Yam-Suf (see below 14:10), they wanted to return, but were unable to, since Pharaoh would not have accepted them.
Presumably, this ought to read two hundred and forty thousand (compare to the number in 12:38:2:1). (EC)
Targum Yonasan: This was a Divine punishment for leaving Egypt thirty years before the allotted time. And the reason that they were so severely punished for a mistake - counting the decree of four hundred years from Bris Bein ha'Besarim (See Targum Yonasan to Bereishis 50:25) - is because Yosef made them swear not to leave Egypt until two redeemers would come and say to them "Pakod Yifkod."
Targum Yonasan adds that these were the dry bones that Yechezkel would bring back to life in the time of Nevuchadnetzar (See Na'ar Yonasan).
"Lest the nation reconsider... and return to Egypt." Does the Pasuk imply Hashem being unsure what would happen?
Gur Aryeh: Hashem knew 1 that Bnei Yisrael had the Midah of being "Keshei-Oref" (32:9); and that were they to travel directly, they would turn back. The Pasuk discusses the journey itself - taking the direct route would have an uncertain outcome. (On the one hand, it was liable to cause them to turn back; yet should the Bnei Yisrael prove to be righteous, they would not reconsider having left Egypt. 2 )
Gur Aryeh seems to be addressing the famous question of Hashem's being all-knowing, and man's free will. He explains that the Pasuk puts the outcome as uncertain, as the Bnei Yisrael might choose to follow Hashem, and not sin; while he associates Hashem's knowledge of the future with His knowledge of their Midos (at present). This seems to line up with Ra'avad's view (gloss to Rambam Hilchos Teshuvah 5:5) - Hashem's knowledge does not constitute a decree that something must occur (which would negate the possibility of a person's choice). His knowledge of all the contributing factors (such as pre-existing character traits) does not preclude the possibility of man choosing otherwise by utilizing his Sechel. Merely to illustrate, a stargazer predicts future events via the external medium of the stars, yet a person can overcome his fate. The Rambam (loc. cit.) writes - Man cannot comprehend what it means for Hashem to "know;" such that we cannot pose the question whether that knowledge is at odds with our ability of choice. The Maharal elsewhere cites Rambam's view (see Derech Chayim to Avos 3:15; Gur Aryeh to Vayikra 10:2). (EK)
Gur Aryeh wrote above (refer to 13:17:2.2:1*) that on the direct route, they perhaps might consider returning, yet upon considering that option, they would certainly do so. Perhaps that is what Gur Aryeh means here as well. (EK)
How could Hashem even contemplate taking Yisrael via the land of Pelishtim, bearing in mind that He intended to first take them to Har Sinai to receive the Torah, as He told Moshe by the Burning Bush (see Shemos 3:12)?
Seforno: The quickest way to Har Sinai was, in fact, via the land of Peleshes. Nevertheless, Hashem deliberately took Yisrael on a longer route via the Yam-Suf, in order to drown the Egyptians there.
Seeing as "va'Yehi" always denotes something sad (see Megilah 10b), who was distressed at the fact that Pharaoh sent Yisrael away?
Hadar Zekenim #1: Initially, Pharaoh did not hold Yisrael in high esteem. But when he saw them by the Yam-Suf encamped as an army according to the four Degalim, he regretted having sent them away. 1
Hadar Zekenim #2: Pharaoh was distressed at having suffered the ten plagues and because Egypt was emptied [of its wealth], and because he sent Yisrael away. 2
Hadar Zekenim #3: The Kena'anim bemoaned that Yisrael would receive their land. A parable for this - a king had a small son. He gave the land to a servant, to return it to the son when he would mature. When the son matured, the servant bemoaned the loss of the land.
Hadar Zekenim #4: Egypt bemoaned sending Yisrael. Until now, when there was a Makah, Moshe prayed for us. Now, if Hashem brings a Makah on us, who will pray for us?!
Hadar Zekenim #5: Hashem bemoaned the fact that Pharaoh sent them, and did not keep them longer, so He could bring on them more Makos and show His strong hand. 3
It seems that this Pasuk applies to when he sent them away, at which point he was desperate for them to leave and to bless (pray for) him. See Parshas Bo, 12:31. (PF)
Hadar Zekenim: This can be compared to a king who ordered a servant to purchase fish for him. When the servant bought back a putrid fish, the king gave him the choice of either eating it, receiving a hundred lashes, or paying a large fine. After opting to eat the fish, he realized that he would not be able to finish it, so he switched to the lashes. However, before even receiving fifty lashes, he realized that he would not be able to bear the full amount, so he agreed to pay. It transpires that he suffered all three punishments - eating, lashes and paying. Likewise, when Pharaoh enslaved Yisrael excessively. Hashem gave him three options - either send them out, or be stricken, or pay for their labor. He denied Hashem and refused, so Hashem decreed that he suffer all three.
This requires investigation. Hashem hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to bring ten plagues. Had He wanted to bring more, He could have hardened his heart more! (PF)
What is the meaning of "v'Lo Nacham Elokim"?
Rashi: It means, "and He did not lead them."
Hadar Zekenim: It means that Pharaoh had no consolation for sending Yisrael away; it was a great loss. 1
Pesikta d'Rav Kahana 11 (partially cited in Hadar Zekenim): [Hashem] did not behave with Yisrael] with Derech Eretz (in the normal manner). Normally, water comes from above, and food from below. But in the desert, food came from above and water from below! Normally, the Talmid goes in front and holds a lamp on behalf of the Rebbi. Here, Hashem went in front, and lit up the night on behalf of Yisrael! 2
Hadar Zekenim: He will have consolation, however, when he falls into Gehinom, and sees the other nations there. See Yechezkel 32:31.
Other deviations from the norm are cited there as well. I heard that the Vilna Gaon proved from here that one may expound words of a Pasuk even if, according to the Derashah, the remaining words (such as "Pelishtim Ki Karov") make no sense. This justifies the Hadar Zekenim's Derashah as well (see 13:17:152:2). (PF)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Because it is close' - and it would be easy to return." Ramban asks - If this is part of Hashem's reasoning, let the verse introduce it as such - 'G-d did not lead them via the land of Pelishtim, for G-d said, 'it is [too] close; lest the nation reconsider...'' ?
Gur Aryeh #1: a. Had the verse written, 'G-d did not lead them via the land of Pelishtim, the short [route], for He said, lest the nation reconsider, etc.,' we would miss the reason that it would have been easy to return to Egypt via that route. It would mean, 'G-d did not lead them via... despite it being the shortest route; and why not? Lest they return [to Egypt] upon encountering war.' In the end, Bnei Yisrael did encounter many battles; yet they did not return to Egypt! b. The verse also does not write, ''G-d did not lead them via... for G-d said, 'it is [too] close, and lest the nation reconsider....'' The fact that it would have been the shortest route is obvious; Hashem would not have to cite it as a reason. 1 c. Nor does the Pasuk state, '... because it is a short distance; and G-d said, lest they reconsider, etc.' Such a wording would imply two independent reasons - that it would be the easiest route to allow their return; and (also) lest they turn back to Egypt at first sight of battle. But even when they travelled via the wilderness, they saw battle! 2 d. Rather, the Pasuk is giving but one reason - If they were to encounter battle along the shortest route, they would turn back to Egypt. 3 Explain the Pasuk as follows - "G-d did not lead them via... because it was the shortest route," and therefore not the right route by which to lead them. [To the implied question, 'and why not?,' the Torah answers, "... lest the nation reconsider, etc."
Gur Aryeh #2: Indeed, Rashi was bothered by this question as well; that is why he subsequently points to the Midrashim. (The Midrash understands "for it was [too] close" as an independent reason why they did not go that route - namely, that the oath Avraham had made to Avimelech (Bereishis 21:22-32) was too recent.)
Rather, "... because it is a short distance" is presented as fact; about which Hashem then says, "... lest the nation reconsider, etc."
... only that they did not turn back; because they had come via a circuitous route through the wilderness.
To summarize - We now have two overlapping factors as to why Bnei Yisrael did not travel via the land of Pelishtim. It was the shortest route via which to return; and therefore, they were liable to turn back upon seeing battle. Had the Pasuk listed these off with the word "and," we might have thought that either reason could stand independently. Had the verse introduced Hashem's statement before stating the proximity, it would be giving simple fact as Hashem's reasoning. Yet had the verse given it as a fact, we would see only one reason - lest they turn back upon seeing battle. Thus, the Pasuk sets up two overlapping reasons - for it was close; for G-d said, lest they [therefore] turn back. Also see Mizrachi, and Gur Aryeh's response. (EK)
Rashi writes: "'Upon seeing battle' - Such as that of the Amalekim and Kena'anim (Bamidbar 14:45); had they travelled on the direct route, they would have turned back."(On that occasion, when the Ma'apilim attempted to conquer the Land in the aftermath of the Meraglim, they were repelled by the Amalekim and Kena'anim, who dealt us a crushing defeat.) Why does Rashi point to that particular battle?
Gur Aryeh: Bnei Yisrael faced battle early on; at the end of this Parshah, Amalek attacked in Refidim (17:8-13) - yet they did not turn back to Egypt. This Pasuk must be to referring to a battle such as the one in Bamidbar, aimed at conquering the Land. 1
Mizrachi: Indeed, when the Meraglim reported that "Amalek dwells in the Negev... and the Kena'ani on the coast" (Bamidbar 13:29), the Bnei Yisrael responded in panic, "Let us appoint a leader, and return to Egypt!" (Bamidbar 14:4). Later, when the Ma'apilim ascended towards the Land without Hashem's consent, the very thing they dreaded came true - "The Amalekim and Kena'anim descended... and smote and crushed them" (14:45). Thus, Hashem is saying here, "... lest the nation reconsider and return to Egypt" as they later did in Sefer Bamidbar. (It would seem that Gur Aryeh had this in mind as well - EK).
Rashi writes: "... If, when Hashem led them on a circuitous route, they said, 'Let us appoint a leader, and return to Egypt' (Bamidbar 14:4); how much more so had He led them on the direct route!" What is Rashi adding with this logic?
Gur Aryeh: We might interpret the term "lest [the nation reconsider]," as a possible outcome - i.e., a chance that they might turn back upon seeing battle. But if so, ultimately nothing was gained by the change in route, as they attempted to return even after going via the wilderness! Rather, it means had they travelled the direct route, they certainly would have turned back. 1
Gur Aryeh: "Lest they reconsider" then would mean, '... lest they think about the possibility of returning.' Had they been on the direct route, any thought along those lines would certainly have developed into an actual return. But now that they travelled through the wilderness, although they contemplated returning, in the end they did not return. Also refer to 13:17:2.5:1 and its notes.
Rashi writes: "If we find that when Hashem led them on a circuitous route, they said, 'Let us appoint a leader, and return to Egypt' (Bamidbar 14:4), how much more so had He led them on the direct route!" But this is not a valid Kal va'Chomer; for ultimately, they did not return to Egypt (they merely threatened to do so)?
Gur Aryeh #1: In fact, the Pasuk makes it clear that [on the direct route] they would have returned; and this does not need to be proven. 1 Rashi here is backing up his previous statement - that the battle Hashem was concerned about, was the one against the Kena'ani and Amaleki (at the time of the Meraglim) - for indeed, Bnei Yisrael threatened returning to Egypt on that occasion.
Gur Aryeh #2: On that occasion, Bnei Yisrael realized they would need "a leader," to guide them back to Egypt along the circuitous route they had taken through the wilderness. Indeed, that problem was the very reason they did not turn back in the end. Had they travelled the direct route, a new leader would not have been necessary; they could easily have found the way back to Egypt on their own.
Rashi writes: "'Pen Yinachem' - Lest they think [second] thoughts about their departure, and decide to go back." Why does Rashi place this comment after "bi'Re'osam Milchamah" - seemingly out of order?
Gur Aryeh: In the Pasuk, the phrase "Pen Yinachem" stands unmodified, leaving it unclear what exactly the Bnei Yisrael would reconsider. Rashi therefore clarifies, 'Upon seeing battle, they would reconsider having left Egypt, and decide to return.'
Rashi writes: "... 'v'Lo Nacham' - 'He did not lead them,' as in [the verse] 'Lech Nechei (go lead [the nation] - 32:34)." How else might I have translated?
Gur Aryeh: I might have put the root of "Nacham" as Nun-Ches-Mem (to reconsider, to console). 1 Rashi tells us that no; the root is Nun-Ches-Hei (to lead, to guide), and the suffix Mem stands for "them."
Especially as the root Nun-Ches-Mem appears later in this very Pasuk - "Pen Yinachem ha'Am." (CS)
