הֲלֹא־זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁר֩ דִּבַּ֨רְנוּ אֵלֶ֤יךָ בְמִצְרַ֙יִם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר חֲדַ֥ל מִמֶּ֖נּוּ וְנַֽעַבְדָ֣ה אֶת־מִצְרָ֑יִם כִּ֣י ט֥וֹב לָ֙נוּ֙ עֲבֹ֣ד אֶת־מִצְרַ֔יִם מִמֻּתֵ֖נוּ בַּמִּדְבָּֽר׃
Bukankah ini yang telah kami katakan kepadamu di Mesir: ‘Biarkanlah kami, supaya kami bekerja bagi orang Mesir’? Sebab lebih baik bagi kami bekerja bagi orang Mesir daripada kami mati di padang gurun.”
Sifrei Devarim
Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a mitzvah on which the covenant hinges (i.e., to go to Eretz Yisrael and not to return to Egypt [viz. Shemoth 14:12]) — a transgression (in this instance, returning there for horses,) returns them to Egypt, (this, the thrust of "that he not return the people to Egypt in order to add a horse"), then (returning them to the) other lands, on which the covenant does not hinge, how much more so (will a transgression return them there)!