And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said: ’Lest the people regret when they see war, and they return to Egypt.’ But God led the people about, by the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt. (Exodus 13:17–18)
וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם, וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים – כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא. כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים: פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה – וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה. וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף, וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. (שמות י"ג, יז-יח)
What does the word “va-hamushim” mean, and how does it connect to the end of Beshalah?
In modern Hebrew, “hamush” means equipped with weapons. Rashi similarly explains here that “hamushim means nothing other than armed,” as does Ibn Ezra. Indeed, every biblical occurrence of “hamushim” concerns a fighting force.
Other classical commentators, following Onkelos’s translation “u-mezarzin,” understood “hamushim” as girded, or generally equipped. Here the Israelites departed equipped with weapons (Rabbi Joseph Kara, Rashbam) or food (Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor).
Ibn Ezra proposes that the term derives from the fifth rib, where the sword is girded, as in “and smote him there in the groin” (II Samuel 3:27). Yet the meaning of “ha-homesh” in Samuel, according to both its context and Aramaic, is “belly.”
Cassuto’s explanation, based on Arabic, seems right to me: “va-hamushim” means:
Arranged in a proper military formation … they were not walking like a band of slaves fleeing their masters, confused and disorderly, but in good order, in accordance with what was stated above, that they departed by their hosts.
מסודרים סידור צבאי כראוי … שלא היו מתהלכים ככנופיית עבדים בורחים מעם אדוניהם, בערבוביה ובלי סדר, אלא בסדר נכון, בהתאם למה שנאמר למעלה, שיצאו על צבאותם.
Ibn Ezra, followed by Nahmanides, mentioned something similar: “For they departed with a high hand, with weapons of war, unlike fleeing slaves.”
How does this relate to the end of the portion?
The portion ends with the war against Amalek. At its conclusion we read: “And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword” (Exodus 17:13). The word “va-yahalosh” echoes the description of Amalek’s deeds in Deuteronomy: “how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear” (Deuteronomy 25:18). Thus, “Joshua discomfited Amalek” answers Amalek’s attempt to harm “the enfeebled in thy rear.”
What does “neheshalim” mean? Some explain it as a transposition of letters in “nehelashim,” weakened. It seems better, however, to explain it through biblical Aramaic as crushed or scattered in every direction (Daniel 2:40). The verse would then mean that Amalek attacked those who, through fatigue and exhaustion – “when thou wast faint and weary” (Deuteronomy 25:18) – were outside the camp, no longer properly organized in a military formation as Israel had been when they left Egypt “hamushim,” arrayed and ordered like an army.
