Parashat BiShalach

In the first pasuk of Parashat BiShalach, we are told of Hashem’s plans to lead the Bnei Yisrael through the midbar in a circuitous manner in order to distance them from Mitzrayim. Hashem realized that if the nation was ever given the option between going to war or returning to Mitzrayim, they would abandon their dreams of freedom to pursue their hopes of survival. Hashem’s reasoning seems to make perfect sense, yet at the end of the parasha, when the Jews go to battle with Amaleik, they never consider returning although they aren’t very far from Mitzrayim. Why is Hashem so concerned about the Bnei Yisrael reconsidering their journey to Eretz Yisrael if we clearly see from the end of this parasha that they would rather fight a battle than return to Mitzrayim?

Perhaps Hashem was more concerned with the path the Bnei Yisrael took to get to Eretz Yisrael and not the particular geographical point – and its distance from Mitzrayim – they enter the land. When Rashi gives an example of a war Hashem worried the Bnei Yisrael would fight, namely the fight against the Amaleiki and Kina’ani nations after Moshe told them they could not enter Eretz Yisrael, Rashi notes that the Bnei Yisrael, after this crushing loss, did not think about going back to Mitzrayim. Rashi then adds an assumption of his own: had the nation traveled to this point in a more direct fashion, they would have certainly gone back. Rashi clearly proposes that the path taken towards Eretz Yisrael was much more significant than how far they actually were from Mitzrayim.

Rashi’s proposal, however, remains unsubstantiated, and so he offers a proof. After the report of the Meraglim, the Bnei Yisrael considered turning around and living in Mitzrayim even though they had reached their point in a roundabout fashion. Therefore, kal vichomer, they would certainly have decided to go home at that point had they taken a straight path right to Eretz Yisrael. How does this prove anything?! The fact is that the Bnei Yisrael considered turning around after the Meraglim’s report but didn’t after their fight against the Amaleikim and Kina’anim. So even if a direct path to Eretz Yisrael would make them were more likely to retreat, no proof could be derived from the story of the Meraglim. How then does Rashi know that the Bnei Yisrael would’ve turned around had they traveled the straighter path? If anything, a kal vichomer from their battle against Amaleik in this week’s parasha should suggest exactly the opposite?! What then does Rashi hope to accomplish by bringing this kal vichomeir?

When referring to the story of the Miraglim, Rashi quotes the nations suggestion “Nitinah Rosh ViNashuva Mitzrayima,” let’s appoint a leader and return to Mitzrayim. Why did Rashi have to mention anything about appointing a leader; just mention their consideration to turn around? The Gur Aryeh explains that Rashi’s kal vichomeir is in fact based on these two words, Nitinah Rosh. When the Bnei Yisrael went in a roundabout fashion towards Eretz Yisrael, the only condition under which they would have turned around was if they had a leader; had they taken a direct route, they would have just individually retreated home and not first established a new head.

By traveling in a big circle, the Bnei Yisrael experienced many things: they split the Yam Suf and traveled through it; they received their food directly from Hashem; they experienced Mattan Torah; they kept the mitzvos. The Bnei Yisrael devoted so much time and effort in their journey to Eretz Yisrael that it was impossible for them to just pick themselves up and turn around, even after losing to the Amaleikim and Kina’anim. The only way they could actually imagine giving up after the Miraglim’s report was if they established a new goal; their trip back to Mitzrayim would not just be the forfeiture of months and months of investment but rather the embarkation of a new journey with a new leader and a new goal.

We can now understand why Rashi was so sure the Bnei Yisrael would have turned around had they traveled straight to Eretz Yisrael and lost in battle. Without a substantial investment in their journey, there was no reason they couldn’t just turn around and leave, even without appointing a leader. Had Bnei Yisrael traveled straight to Eretz Yisrael just to lose to Amaleik and Kina’an, they would consider their mission a failure and give up; their journey would be complete, though failed, and they would turn around and settle in Mitzrayim instead. This is what Hashem feared about the direct path through the land of the Plishtim, and this is why Klal Yisrael spent that first year traversing the midbar, even before the Cheit HaMiraglim. Ultimately, the nation invested too much effort in their journey to ever consider the trek to be for naught simply because the Amaleikim and Kina’anim could beat them in battle.

At first, it seemed strange that Bnei Yisrael didn’t retreat back to Mitzrayim when Amaleik attacked, but now it’s perfectly understandable why they never would have even considered turning around. Amaleik objected to Klal Yisrael’s investment in the mitzvos and their devotion to Hashem, so there never would have been a battle had the Jews not been so devoted. Amaleik only attacked after the Jews were given mitzvos like Shabbos and showed a real investment in their Avodas Hashem. And the Jews’ response was an inspired retaliation, their defense of all their investment and devotion, and not their reconsideration of it.

The parasha’s ending can be read as a sad story, how the Jews question Hashem’s presence in their midst and were nearly annihilated just weeks after celebrating their freedom. But it can also be read from the more upbeat perspective, their accomplishment in the battle, not just their success in war but also their willingness to fight and to stand up for their beliefs and devotions. As much as the Bnei Yisrael ever doubted in Hashem, they never faltered in their devotion to Him and to His mitzvos, and so even after “HaYeish Hashem BiKirbeinu Im Ayin,” Mattan Torah was only a few short weeks away.

Good Shabbos.