כי תבוא

Return to Egypt: Promise, Command, and Curse[1]

The Tochacha concludes with the following ominous verse:

וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ ה' מִצְרַיִם בָּאֳנִיּוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא־תֹסִיף עוֹד לִרְאֹתָהּ וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְאֵין קֹנֶה׃ (דברים כח:סח)

The verse threatens a reversal of the redemptive process in which God took the Jews out of slavery from Egypt - the very foundation of the covenant as expressed in the first commandment. The apparent severance of the covenant is tragically reflected in the full circle return to slavery in Egypt.

Setting aside for the moment the shock of this prospect and its theological implications, the reference within the verse – בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא־תֹסִיף עוֹד לִרְאֹתָהּ  - requires explanation. Where did God previously say that they will never again see [the way to] Egypt?

There are two potential candidates as to the source of the reference in our verse:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָעָם אַל־תִּירָאוּ הִתְיַצְבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת־יְשׁוּעַת ה' אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה לָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אֲשֶׁר רְאִיתֶם אֶת־מִצְרַיִם הַיּוֹם לֹא תֹסִיפוּ לִרְאֹתָם עוֹד עַד־עוֹלָם׃ (שמות יד:יג)

רַק לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ סוּסִים וְלֹא־יָשִׁיב אֶת־הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס וַה' אָמַר לָכֶם לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד׃ (דברים יז:טז)

The first-mentioned verse in Parashat Beshalach implies a promise that the people will never again need to set sight on the Egyptians (following the miracle of the splitting of the sea), whereas the second verse in Parashat Shoftim appears to be an instruction that the people themselves should not return to Egypt. Note, however, that the verse in Shoftim itself seems to be referencing back to the verse in Beshalach when it says: ...וַה' אָמַר לָכֶם

The clear difference between these verses leads the Ibn Ezra to suggest that, despite appearance, the verse in Shoftim is not a reference to the Beshalach verse at all. Rather it is a reference to some other communication not recorded in the Torah. The Ramban alternatively suggests that the communication referred to in Shoftim is a self-reference (i.e. now God is saying...), and there was no separate communication.

Both these positions are difficult. The similarity between the verses seems too coincidental to ignore. In contrast, Chazal assumed it was indeed a reference back to Beshalach and reinterpreted the verse in Beshalach as an injunction:

כיוצא בו וה' אמר לכם לא תוסיפון, והיכן אמר? כי אשר ראיתם את מצרים (ילקוט שמעוני רז:א)

בשלשה מקומות הזהיר המקום לישראל שלא לחזור למצרים שנא' כי אשר ראיתם את מצרים היום לא תוסיפו לראותם עד עולם, ואומר וה' אמר לכם לא תוסיפון לשוב בדרך הזה עוד, ואומר והשיבך ה' מצרים באניות בדרך אשר אמרתי לך לא תוסיף עוד לראותה (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל יד:יד)

The Rambam accepted the position of the Mechilta in citing the verse in Beshalach as the source of the prohibition of returning to Egypt, though he was very aware that this ran counter to the plain meaning:

כי אשר ראיתם את מצרים היום לא תֹסִפו לראֹתם עוד עד עולם (שמות יד:יג). ואף על פי שפשט הלשון שהוא הודעה בא לנו בקבלה שהוא אזהרה (ספר המצוות לא תעשה מו, קאפח) 

עד שיבא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם

Chazal's approach - at least insofar as it connects the two earlier verses - seems to be supported by the composition of the third verse in Parashat Ki Tavoh. A careful study of our verse shows how it contains and blends components of both earlier verses:

וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ ה' מִצְרַיִם בָּאֳנִיּוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא־תֹסִיף עוֹד לִרְאֹתָהּ וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְאֵין קֹנֶה׃

The 'seeing' element (לראותה) is based on the verse in Beshalach whereas the words 'והשיבך' and 'דרך' are derived from the Shoftim verse. The result is a new verse which does not exactly match either of the earlier verses. This third verse speaks of not 'seeing' the 'route' to Egypt which seems to be an odd formulation as reflected in the difficulty in translation.[2] This further suggests that we are dealing with an artistic blend of the two earlier verses.

What seems to be happening is that there are two stages of progression. In the first stage, the verse in Shoftim reframes the earlier promise from God as a responsibility of the people. In the second stage, in our verse, the earlier promise and the later injunction are merged and the distinction between them is dissolved. 

It would seem that the purpose is to highlight the mutuality of God's promise on the one hand and the people's responsibility on the other. God threatens to take the people back to Egypt in breach of his ‘promise’ that they should not see Egypt again. Why? Because the people have abrogated their commitment not to return to the way of Egypt (the significance of which will be discussed below).

This in turn reflects a wider point underpinning the blessings and curses, namely that the Torah's ‘promises’ - positive and negative - are in fact conditional and intertwined with the behavior of man. This correspondence is particularly apparent from the refrain of the Mt Sinai Tochacha:

וַהֲלַכְתֶּם עִמִּי קֶרִי... וְהָלַכְתִּי אַף־אֲנִי עִמָּכֶם בְּקֶרִי

The return to Egypt therefore acts as a paradigm for the system of providence policing the covenant as a whole. From the perspective of both God (the promise that the people will not again set sight on Egypt) and the people (their responsibility not to return), the prospect of returning to Egypt is the ultimate symbol of the collapse of the covenant.

Return to Egypt as the antithesis to faith in God 

It is noteworthy that the notion of returning to Egypt in the broader sense is associated with a lack of faith in God as the following examples illustrate.

1. The reason provided for not travelling via the land of the Philistines is due to the fear that their immature faith will cause them to return to Egypt:

וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת־הָעָם וְלֹא־נָחָם אלקים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא כִּי אָמַר אלקים פֶּן־יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה׃ (שמות יג:יז)

2. At the splitting of the sea, not setting sight ever again on the Egyptians is a prelude to ‘seeing’ the hand of God. This suggests that the connection with Egypt is somehow antithetical to faith in God.

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָעָם אַל־תִּירָאוּ הִתְיַצְבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת־יְשׁוּעַת ה' אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה לָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אֲשֶׁר רְאִיתֶם אֶת־מִצְרַיִם הַיּוֹם לֹא תֹסִיפוּ לִרְאֹתָם עוֹד עַד־עוֹלָם׃ (שמות יד:יג)

וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה' בְּמִצְרַיִם וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת־ה' וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה' וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ׃ (שמות יד:לא)

3. In the episode of the spies, the desire to return Egypt reflects their lack of faith in God's ability to lead them into the land:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל־אָחִיו נִתְּנָה רֹאשׁ וְנָשׁוּבָה מִצְרָיְמָה׃ (במדבר יד:ד)

4. In dealing with the laws of the monarchy, the prohibition of returning to Egypt is stated in connection with the acquisition of horses reflecting an obsession with military might and dependency on Egypt, substituting faith in God:

רַק לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ סוּסִים וְלֹא־יָשִׁיב אֶת־הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס וַה' אָמַר לָכֶם לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד׃ (דברים יז:טז

5. Chizkiyahu is heavily rebuked by Yeshayahu for forging an alliance with Egypt which may reflect a similar point:

הוֹי הַיֹּרְדִים מִצְרַיִם לְעֶזְרָה עַל־סוּסִים יִשָּׁעֵנוּ וַיִּבְטְחוּ עַל־רֶכֶב כִּי רָב וְעַל פָּרָשִׁים כִּי־עָצְמוּ מְאֹד וְלֹא שָׁעוּ עַל־קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־ה' לֹא דָרָשׁוּ׃ (ישעיה לא:א)

In summary, returning to or reliance on Egypt is synonymous with lack of faith and betrayal of the covenant. If the people back out of the covenant through a physical or spiritual return to Egypt then God will reciprocate and actively return the people to Egypt. The initial promise that the people will never again set sight on Egypt is made at the climax of the redemption from Egypt at the splitting of the sea. The climax of the Tochacha which threatens a return to Egypt is an effective reversal of the earlier promise. Bridging the promise and curse, and reconciling them, is the middle verse - the responsibility of the people themselves not to turn towards Egypt.[3]

The novelty of Teshuva

The most disturbing aspect of the verse is the apparent finality. The verse implies that the covenant may be permanently severed when Israel does not fulfil its obligations.

This ought be not so surprising in light of the fact that the God-Israel covenant was heavily modelled on the suzerain-vassal covenants which were common in the ancient Near East.[4] These covenants which were generally political in nature, invoked heavy retribution upon the party that violated their commitments and did not allow for second chances. The God-Israel covenant was revolutionary (so as far as we know today) in appropriating the format and protocol for use between a deity and a nation, whereby fear of the suzerain is replaced with fear of God.

Yet this is not the whole story. There is of course the possibility of Teshuva which is mentioned in a separate speech in next week’s Parashah. Despite being a separate speech, from a literary standpoint, the passage of Teshuva reads as a natural continuation of the verses preceding the final verse about returning to Egypt. The reversal of the key aspects of punishment and exile within the Teshuva passage can be seen from a quick comparison of the two passages:

Tochacha:

וְנִשְׁאַרְתֶּם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֱיִיתֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם לָרֹב כִּי־לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל ה' אלקיךָ׃ וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׂשׂ ה' עֲלֵיכֶם לְהֵיטִיב אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַרְבּוֹת אֶתְכֶם כֵּן יָשִׂישׂ ה' עֲלֵיכֶם לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם וְנִסַּחְתֶּם מֵעַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה בָא־שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃ וֶהֱפִיצְךָ ה' בְּכָל־הָעַמִּים מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד־קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אלקים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ עֵץ וָאָבֶן׃ (דברים כח:סב-סד)

Teshuva:

וְהָיָה כִי־יָבֹאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ בְּכָל־הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הִדִּיחֲךָ ה' אלקיךָ שָׁמָּה׃ וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד־ה' אלקיךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְקֹלוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשֶׁךָ׃ וְשָׁב ה' אלקיךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ וְרִחֲמֶךָ וְשָׁב וְקִבֶּצְךָ מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר הֱפִיצְךָ ה' אלקיךָ שָׁמָּה׃ אִם־יִהְיֶה נִדַּחֲךָ בִּקְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם מִשָּׁם יְקַבֶּצְךָ ה' אלקיךָ וּמִשָּׁם יִקָּחֶךָ׃ וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ ה' אלקיךָ אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יָרְשׁוּ אֲבֹתֶיךָ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְהֵיטִבְךָ וְהִרְבְּךָ מֵאֲבֹתֶיךָ׃ ... וְהוֹתִירְךָ ה' אלקיךָ בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶךָ בִּפְרִי בִטְנְךָ וּבִפְרִי בְהֶמְתְּךָ וּבִפְרִי אַדְמָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה כִּי יָשׁוּב ה' לָשׂוּשׂ עָלֶיךָ לְטוֹב כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׂשׂ עַל־אֲבֹתֶיךָ׃ כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה' אלקיךָ לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו הַכְּתוּבָה בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה כִּי תָשׁוּב אֶל־ה' אלקיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשֶׁךָ׃ (דברים ל:א-י)

This begs the question - if the Teshuva process is indeed so foundational, why was it not included at the end of the curses? Why does the verse threatening a return to Egypt close out the epic Tochacha, suggestive of total severance of the covenant? To make matters worse, the final verse even with the words והשיבך ה' creating a false impression that we are about to hear a comforting message about return and Teshuvah. The alert reader of the Torah may be induced to recall Devarim Ch. 4 which unmistakably resembles the final passages of the Tochacha, yet there the threat of exile is immediately followed by the prospect of Teshuva and return.[5]. In a painful twist, however, the verse instead directs the action of return towards Egypt.

The explanation relates to the point already mentioned. The Tochacha sets out the consequences for the nation based on conventional covenant. Under this model, if the nation defaults, the covenant is voided. Teshuva, on the other hand, belongs to a different world entirely (and hence a different speech) based on a relationship of love which transcends the technical legalities of the covenant. The world of Teshuva assumes that fundamentally the two sides of the relationship wish to stay together such that any separation is only temporary.

Like the Tochacha, the Teshuva passage contains a similar interedependency between Man's responsbility and God's action.Each step of return initiated by man is met with a corresponding step of God: 

וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד־ה' אלקיךָ... וְשָׁב ה' אלקיךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ וְרִחֲמֶךָ

Reversing the mutual distancing of the Tochacha epitomised by the return to Egypt, the steps to bring the sides together become increasingly intense as the Teshuva process unfolds and the two sides move ever closer.[6]

Two alternative forms of return

To the list of parallels between the Tochacha and the Teshuva passage we may now add one more. As just discussed, the Hebrew word for return representing the Teshuvah process is the same word which describes the return to Egypt:

וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ ה' מִצְרַיִם

וְשָׁב ה' אלקיךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ

This establishes the two forms of return as two alternatives. The Teshuva process provides an alternative to the return to Egypt. Not just as an alternative ending, but as a perpetual opportunity to restore the relationship. This too may be hinted in the last verse:

וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְאֵין קֹנֶה

On the face of it, the prospect of not being acquired even as a slave represents a state of hopelessness and complete rejection. Within this state of despair, however, also lies the consolation. If no one will acquire them as slaves this is because they have been eternally redeemed and forever acquired by God as His chosen people:

כי לי בני ישראל עבדים, עבדַי הם אשר הוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים (ויקרא כה:נה)

This is the silver lining in the curses which hints that the door remains open for Teshuva. The return to Egypt can forever be replaced with a return to God.[7]

 

 

---

[1] Inspired by R. (Prof.) Mordechai Sabato's article: פרשת כי תבוא - והשיבך ה' מצרים באוניות

[2] The Lord will send you back to Egypt in galleys, by a route which I told you you should not see again (JPS)

The Lord will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. (NIV)

Hashem will return you to Egypt in ships, on the way of which I said to you, "You shall never again see it!" (Artscroll)

[3] It is worth noting that the episode of the splitting of the sea in which the 'promise' appears, highlights the passivity of the people in relation to God:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָעָם אַל־תִּירָאוּ הִתְיַצְבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת־יְשׁוּעַת ה' אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה לָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אֲשֶׁר רְאִיתֶם אֶת־מִצְרַיִם הַיּוֹם לֹא תֹסִיפוּ לִרְאֹתָם עוֹד עַד־עוֹלָם׃ ה' יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם וְאַתֶּם תַּחֲרִישׁוּן׃

The unilateral nature of a promise is well suited to this context where God acts alone and the people are bystanders. The reframing of the promise as an injunction reflects the greater independence and responsibility of the more mature nation which is a hallmark of Sefer Devarim.

[4] For discussion of the comparisons, see for example, R. Moshe Shamah, Recalling the Covenant, p.886-890. The general point is well founded and accepted across the spectrum of modern scholars. The debates centre around the specific covenant model adopted by the Torah.

[5] Devarim 4:27-31

וְהֵפִיץ ה' אֶתְכֶם בָּעַמִּים וְנִשְׁאַרְתֶּם מְתֵי מִסְפָּר בַּגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר יְנַהֵג ה' אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה׃ וַעֲבַדְתֶּם־שָׁם אֱלֹהִים מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי אָדָם עֵץ וָאֶבֶן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִרְאוּן וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּן וְלֹא יֹאכְלוּן וְלֹא יְרִיחֻן׃ וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּם מִשָּׁם אֶת־ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּמָצָאתָ כִּי תִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשֶׁךָ׃ בַּצַּר לְךָ וּמְצָאוּךָ כֹּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד־ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלוֹ׃ כִּי אֵל רַחוּם ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יַרְפְּךָ וְלֹא יַשְׁחִיתֶךָ וְלֹא יִשְׁכַּח אֶת־בְּרִית אֲבֹתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לָהֶם׃

[6] See R. (Prof.) Yonatan Grossman, פרשת נצבים - תשובת ישראל ותשובת ה'.

[7] See Sabato, ibid