“And G-d did not lead them via the road to the land of the P’lishtim, for it was close, for G-d said, ‘lest the nation become regretful when they see war and return to Egypt” (Sh’mos 13:17). The wording of this verse, with two clauses explaining why G-d took the Children of Israel through the desert rather than along the Mediterranean Coast (“because it was close” and “because they might become regretful”) has generated much discussion.
Some (quoted by Ibn Ezra; see Ramban and Chizkuni) explain the first clause not as a reason why G-d avoided the coastal road, but a reason why it would have been preferable to take it (it’s a much shorter route), with the verse reading “G-d did not lead them via the road to the land of the P’lishtim even though it was closer, because G-d said, ‘lest the nation become regretful when they are faced with war and return to Egypt.” However, since the Torah used the same term (“ki”) for both clauses, it would seem that both are meant to explain why G-d chose the route He did.
Rashi combines the two clauses into one, with facing war likely causing the nation to turn around and go back because they were still so close to Egypt (making it easy to return). However, as Ramban points out, if it was meant as one long clause it shouldn’t have been interrupted by “for G-d said.” Either that part is superfluous, or it should have preceded both parts of the clause (with only one “ki“ being necessary).
Chazal give various explanation for both clauses. Among the explanations offered by the Mechilta (and other Midrashim) as to what was meant by “too close” are: that it was a short distance from Egypt, making it easy to return; that it was too soon after Avraham had sworn that his children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren wouldn’t harm Avimelech’s children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren (see B’reishis 21:23), i.e. the P’lishtim; that it was too early to drive out the Canaanites; that it was too soon after the Canaanites had destroyed their own property (thinking that the Children of Israel were coming to inherit the land from them) so more time was needed for everything to grow back/be rebuilt; and that entering the Promised Land so soon after the exodus would mean having to work the land (plowing/planting/harvesting, etc.) instead of spending their time learning Torah and absorbing it properly. The explanation for the second clause is rather straightforward; the nation might regret leaving Egypt when they are faced with the prospect of fighting a war, a war that they could have avoided by taking another route (had they not sinned).
The fact that each clause is explained independently, as a separate reason why G-d didn’t lead the nation along the Mediterranean coast, indicates that they are two separate reasons. This would explain why the word “ki” (“for” or “because”) is used twice, with each introducing a different reason for G-d not choosing the coastal road. However, it would not explain why the words “for G-d said” are inserted between the two reasons.
The expression “for he said” (or “for He said”) is used throughout the Torah as a means of expressing why a certain choice was made. Taking a closer look at one example (which appears twice) may shed light upon why the word “said” is included when giving the reason, even though the word “because” (“ki”) should be enough of an introduction to let us know that what follows is the reason this choice was made.
After escaping Pharaoh’s death sentence (Sh’mos 2:15), Moshe ends up in Midyan, where he marries Yisro’s daughter, Tzippora (2:21). They have a son, whom Moshe names Gershom, “for he (Moshe) would say ‘I was a sojourner in a foreign land” (2:22, see also 18:3). Later (18:3-4), we learn that Moshe and Tzippora had a second son, Eliezer, “for the G-d of my father helped me, saving me from Pharaoh’s sword.” Since Gershom was born while Moshe was still in in Midyan, why did Moshe use the past tense (“I was a sojourner”) rather than the present tense (“for I am a sojourner”)? Additionally, the order of the names should have been reversed, as first Moshe was first saved from Pharaoh and then he fled to Midyan. Yet Moshe names his firstborn by referencing his living in a strange land and his second son for G-d having saved him.
The Ba’al Haturim (18:4) asks why, when referring to Gershom (both in 2:22 and in 18:3), the Torah says “ki amar” (for he said), yet for Eliezer it just states why he was given that name, without prefacing it with “for he said.” In order to explain this, the Ba’al Haturim brings a Midrash (Mechilta, Yisro 1:3) that says that before Yisro let Moshe marry his daughter, he made him promise that their first son would worship idols, while any others born could worship G-d. Therefore, Gershom, the firstborn, was not circumcised until the angel tried to kill him (4:24-26). [When Tzippora circumcised him, she relinquished Moshe from this oath.] Moshe wanted it known that he was forced to accept Yisro’s condition, so he not only named his son appropriately (“for I was a stranger in a foreign land”), but also explained why he gave him that name (“ki amar”). On the other hand, Moshe didn’t want it known that he had killed someone and was sentenced to death because of it, and therefore didn’t publicize the reason for Eliezer’s name. [Moshav Zekainim (a compilation of the commentary of the Ba’alei Tosfos) says (4:24) that the reason the Torah doesn’t call Gershom his “first” son and Eliezer his “second” son (18:3-4), instead referring to each as “one son,” is precisely because Eliezer was his first son designated to serve G-d.]
Even though Moshe was saved from Pharaoh before fleeing to Midyan, since it was specifically the first son that had been promised to Yisro, this son had to be named Gershom. Moshav Zekainim (18:3-4; see also Panayach Razah on 18:4) adds that this son could not have been named Eliezer, as it was inappropriate to include G-d’s name when referencing a son who was designated to be an idol worshipper. [This is not the place to discuss what Moshe, or Yisro, was thinking when this condition was made/accepted. Suffice it to say (for now) that some suggest Yisro wanted his grandson to find G-d by first experiencing other forms of worship, as he did, thereby (eventually) having a greater appreciation of the One True G-d.] While he was still living in Midyan, there was no need for Moshe to explain why he had accepted Yisro’s prerequisite. It was only when rejoining his brethren, who were fellow monotheists, that he would want the reason for Gershom’s name publicized. Therefore he used the past tense, “for I was a stranger in a foreign land.”
The take-away (for our purposes) is that the expression “for he said” refers to when the reason is “said” to others, whether the information is shared with a small audience or a large one. Moshe wanted others to know why he gave his first child the name Gershom (or, more precisely, why he agreed to Yisro’s condition), so publicized it (“for he said”). He didn’t want to publicize why his second son was named Eliezer, so the expression “for he said” is not used in connection with his name.
Applying this to our verse, there are two clauses stating why G-d didn’t lead the Children of Israel along the coastal road. The first one, “because it was too close,” was not shared with anyone (at least not until the text of the Torah was given). Whether because most wouldn’t understand why they had to take the long way (even if the reasons, stated above, had been shared too) or because G-d didn’t want to share those reasons yet, we are told why G-d chose the route he did, but those who left Egypt were not privy to this information (at least not right away), so “for G-d said” is not used to introduce this clause. That the nation would be afraid of war, on the other hand, was shared; knowing that taking the coastal road meant going to war was important enough to be explained as soon as they started traveling. Therefore, before stating the second clause the Torah adds “for G-d said,” telling us that this reason was shared right away, when they started their trip.
