Difference between revisions of "Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan/2"
(7 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<h1>Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan</h1> | <h1>Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan</h1> | ||
<div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | <div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | ||
− | + | <div class="overview"> | |
+ | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
+ | <p>Commentators debate whether it is obligated, prohibited, or simply permitted to negotiate for peace with the Canaanites.  Rashi takes a zero tolerance policy against the Seven Nations, claiming that it is prohibited to call for peace before embarking on the Wars of Conquest and that no overtures on the Canaanites' part will suffice to override the decree of annihilation.  They present too much of a religious threat to allow them to remain as neighbors.</p> | ||
+ | <p>Other exegetes are less comfortable with such a blanket statement of destruction, and allow for varying levels of negotiations.  Thus, Raavad claims that Israel is obligated to seek out peace, but only until they cross the Jordan, while Radak maintains that the obligation persists even after the Wars of Conquest have begun.  Rashbam takes a middle approach, claiming that Israel may not initiate a call for peace, but that they are allowed to accept a Canaanite surrender, if they, on their own, submit themselves to Israelite rule.</p></div> | ||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
<category>Prohibited | <category>Prohibited | ||
<p>It is prohibited to call for peace to the Seven Nations and any overtures for peace on their part are rejected.</p> | <p>It is prohibited to call for peace to the Seven Nations and any overtures for peace on their part are rejected.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot>Perhaps <multilink><a href="SifreDevarim20" data-aht="source">Sifre Devarim</a><a href="SifreDevarim20" data-aht="source">20</a><a href="Sifre Devarim" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Devarim</a></multilink>,<fn>Sifre 199 states that the verses in Devarim which speak of negotiating for peace relate only to "optional wars".  Nonetheless, on Devarim 20:8, the Sifre says that if the Canaanites repent they are not killed. It is possible that the Midrash is speaking only of individuals who repent and assumes that the nation as a whole is not given that option. Ramban, however, attempts to explain that the Sifre really thinks that there is a call to peace in all wars, and is only saying that in cases where an enemy decides to fight, it is only in "optional wars" that the women and children are left alive.</fn> <multilink><a href="PesiktaDeRavKahana13-5" data-aht="source">Pesikta DeRav Kahana</a><a href="PesiktaDeRavKahana13-5" data-aht="source">13:5</a><a href="Pesikta DeRav Kahana" data-aht="parshan">About Pesikta DeRav Kahana</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiSotah35b" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar21-22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 21:22</a><a href="RashiDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:10-18</a><a href="RashiSotah35b" data-aht="source">Sotah 35b</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>,<fn>This is Rashi's opinion in his comments on Bavli Sotah 35b. However, in his commentary to Devarim 20:18 he says that Canaanites who repent and convert will be accepted.  It is possible that there he is speaking about individuals which might be exempted and only in cases where they not only reject idolatry but accept all of the Torah's laws | + | <mekorot>Perhaps <multilink><a href="SifreDevarim20" data-aht="source">Sifre Devarim</a><a href="SifreDevarim20" data-aht="source">20</a><a href="Sifre Devarim" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Devarim</a></multilink>,<fn>Sifre 199 states that the verses in Devarim which speak of negotiating for peace relate only to "optional wars".  Nonetheless, on Devarim 20:8, the Sifre says that if the Canaanites repent they are not killed. It is possible that the Midrash is speaking only of individuals who repent and assumes that the nation as a whole is not given that option. Ramban, however, attempts to explain that the Sifre really thinks that there is a call to peace in all wars, and is only saying that in cases where an enemy decides to fight, it is only in "optional wars" that the women and children are left alive.</fn> <multilink><a href="PesiktaDeRavKahana13-5" data-aht="source">Pesikta DeRav Kahana</a><a href="PesiktaDeRavKahana13-5" data-aht="source">13:5</a><a href="Pesikta DeRav Kahana" data-aht="parshan">About Pesikta DeRav Kahana</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiSotah35b" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar21-22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 21:22</a><a href="RashiDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:10-18</a><a href="RashiSotah35b" data-aht="source">Sotah 35b</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>,<fn>This is Rashi's opinion in his comments on Bavli Sotah 35b. However, in his commentary to Devarim 20:18 he says that Canaanites who repent and convert will be accepted.  It is possible that there he is speaking about individuals which might be exempted and only in cases where they not only reject idolatry but accept all of the Torah's laws.</fn> <multilink><a href="RYosefKaraYehoshua9-48" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kara</a><a href="RYosefKaraYehoshua9-48" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 9:4, 8</a><a href="R. Yosef Kara" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kara</a></multilink>,<fn>This is the position he takes in his comments to Yehoshua 9.  However, his explanation of Yehoshua 11:20 does not agree.</fn> <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorDevarim20-16" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorDevarim2-29" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:29</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorDevarim20-16" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:16</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, perhaps <multilink><a href="RambamSeferHaMitzvotPositiveCommandments190" data-aht="source">Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot</a><a href="RambamSeferHaMitzvotPositiveCommandments190" data-aht="source">Positive Commandments 190</a><a href="Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot</a></multilink><fn>In his Sefer HaMitzvot, Rambam only speaks of the obligation to call for peace in optional wars, suggesting that there is no such obligation in the Wars of Conquest.  See, however, his opinion below in his Mishneh Torah where he claims that in both types of wars there is an obligation to negotiate for peace before fighting. See R"Y Zoldan, <a href="http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/shoftim/zol1.html">"רשות במלחמת מצווה ומצווה במלחמת רשות"</a> who attempts to resolve the contradiction.</fn></mekorot> |
− | <point><b>Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities</b> – Canaanite cities differ from | + | <point><b>Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities</b> – Canaanite cities differ from distant cities in two aspects: when embarking on the Wars of Conquest it is prohibited to negotiate for peace, and, in addition, all women and children are to be killed.<fn>In contrast, it is mandatory to seek peace before engaging in war with distant cities.  In addition, if the peace offer is not accepted, only males of distant cities are to be killed while their women and children are to be saved.</fn> This reading assumes that Devarim 20:16-18 ("...רַק מֵעָרֵי הָעַמִּים הָאֵלֶּה") stands in contrast to all of verses 10-15, and not just to the immediately preceding verses which deal with the scenario in which peace is rejected.<fn>Cf. the opinion below which assumes that they serve as a contrast only to verses 12-14 and thus the laws of the two city types only differ regarding whether or not women and children must be killed if peace is rejected.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִים אֹתָם"</b> – This position is supported by the many verses throughout Torah<fn>See, for instance <a href="Shemot23-23-33" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:32-33</a>, <a href="Shemot34-11-16" data-aht="source">Shemot 34:11-16</a>, <a href="Bemidbar33-51-56" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 33:51-53</a>,  and <a href="Devarim7-1-6" data-aht="source">Devarim 7:1-2</a>.</fn> which speak of annihilating the Seven Nations and do not mention any alternative peace option.</point> | <point><b>"הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִים אֹתָם"</b> – This position is supported by the many verses throughout Torah<fn>See, for instance <a href="Shemot23-23-33" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:32-33</a>, <a href="Shemot34-11-16" data-aht="source">Shemot 34:11-16</a>, <a href="Bemidbar33-51-56" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 33:51-53</a>,  and <a href="Devarim7-1-6" data-aht="source">Devarim 7:1-2</a>.</fn> which speak of annihilating the Seven Nations and do not mention any alternative peace option.</point> | ||
<point><b>Reason for decree of annihilation</b> – According to this approach the reason for the decree of annihilation is religious in nature, as expressed in Devarim 20:18, "לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְלַמְּדוּ אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל תּוֹעֲבֹתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם".‎<fn>"So that they not teach you to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods."</fn>  Rashi asserts that even if the Canaanites had rejected idolatry, thereby eliminating the religious threat, it would not suffice.  Since their repentance would be motivated by fear it would not be sincere, and, thus, the Canaanite presence would still be problematic.</point> | <point><b>Reason for decree of annihilation</b> – According to this approach the reason for the decree of annihilation is religious in nature, as expressed in Devarim 20:18, "לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְלַמְּדוּ אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל תּוֹעֲבֹתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם".‎<fn>"So that they not teach you to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods."</fn>  Rashi asserts that even if the Canaanites had rejected idolatry, thereby eliminating the religious threat, it would not suffice.  Since their repentance would be motivated by fear it would not be sincere, and, thus, the Canaanite presence would still be problematic.</point> | ||
Line 38: | Line 41: | ||
<opinion>Even in Later Stages | <opinion>Even in Later Stages | ||
<p>Peace negotiations were allowed even after the Wars of Conquest had begun.</p> | <p>Peace negotiations were allowed even after the Wars of Conquest had begun.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim6-145" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim6-145" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Melakhim 6:1, 4, 5,</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RadakYehoshua9-7" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakYehoshua9-7" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 9:7</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot23-32" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:32</a><a href="RambanBemidbar21-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 21:21</a><a href="RambanDevarim2-24-34" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:24-34</a><a href="RambanDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:10-18</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:10-18</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua9-6-15" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 9:6-15</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua11-18" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 11:18</a><a href="RalbagShemotBeurHaParashah23-32-33" data-aht="source">Shemot Beur HaParashah 23:32-33</a><a href="RalbagShemotToalot23-32" data-aht="source">Shemot Toalot 23:32</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, Abarbanel | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim6-145" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim6-145" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Melakhim 6:1, 4, 5,</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>,<fn>See above that in his Sefer HaMitzvot, in contrast, Rambam appears to limit the obligation to call for peace to cases of optional wars.</fn> <multilink><a href="RadakYehoshua9-7" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakYehoshua9-7" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 9:7</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot23-32" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:32</a><a href="RambanBemidbar21-21" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 21:21</a><a href="RambanDevarim2-24-34" data-aht="source">Devarim 2:24-34</a><a href="RambanDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:10-18</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagDevarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:10-18</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua9-6-15" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 9:6-15</a><a href="RalbagYehoshua11-18" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 11:18</a><a href="RalbagShemotBeurHaParashah23-32-33" data-aht="source">Shemot Beur HaParashah 23:32-33</a><a href="RalbagShemotToalot23-32" data-aht="source">Shemot Toalot 23:32</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, Abarbanel</mekorot> |
<point><b>Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities</b> – According to these sources, the directives of Devarim 20:16-18 stand in contrast only to those in the immediately preceding verses (12-14) regarding what to do to a city who has rejected peace,<fn>When waging war with cities that are far from Israel, women and children are not to be killed, while when fighting against the Canaanites, they are to be destroyed.</fn> but do not come to negate the obligation to offer peace also to the Seven Nations.</point> | <point><b>Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities</b> – According to these sources, the directives of Devarim 20:16-18 stand in contrast only to those in the immediately preceding verses (12-14) regarding what to do to a city who has rejected peace,<fn>When waging war with cities that are far from Israel, women and children are not to be killed, while when fighting against the Canaanites, they are to be destroyed.</fn> but do not come to negate the obligation to offer peace also to the Seven Nations.</point> | ||
<point><b>Conditions of peace</b> – In addition to the two conditions of tribute and servitude (מס ועבדות)<fn>They do not all agree what form the "servitude" takes, with Rambam suggesting that it means submission and lower status, and Ralbag claiming that it refers to a labor tax.</fn> mentioned in the verses, all these sources agree that the Canaanites must also reject idolatry and accept the seven Noachide laws.<fn>While Rambam assumes that these conditions are identical for all cities (near and far), Ramban claims that the rejection of idolatry was only required of the Canaanites.  He adds that it is even possible that the Israelites did not need to tell the Canaanites of this requirement beforehand.  The Canaanites might only learn of it after they agree to peace, when they see that under Israelite law, idolatry is a capital crime and all worship is forbidden and destroyed.</fn> Ramban explains that despite the fact that this is not explicit in the verses, it can be assumed that this was necessary from the statements in <a href="Shemot23-23-33" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:33</a> and <a href="Devarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:18</a> regarding the dangers of idolatry and the need to rid the country of it and its worshipers.</point> | <point><b>Conditions of peace</b> – In addition to the two conditions of tribute and servitude (מס ועבדות)<fn>They do not all agree what form the "servitude" takes, with Rambam suggesting that it means submission and lower status, and Ralbag claiming that it refers to a labor tax.</fn> mentioned in the verses, all these sources agree that the Canaanites must also reject idolatry and accept the seven Noachide laws.<fn>While Rambam assumes that these conditions are identical for all cities (near and far), Ramban claims that the rejection of idolatry was only required of the Canaanites.  He adds that it is even possible that the Israelites did not need to tell the Canaanites of this requirement beforehand.  The Canaanites might only learn of it after they agree to peace, when they see that under Israelite law, idolatry is a capital crime and all worship is forbidden and destroyed.</fn> Ramban explains that despite the fact that this is not explicit in the verses, it can be assumed that this was necessary from the statements in <a href="Shemot23-23-33" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:33</a> and <a href="Devarim20-10-18" data-aht="source">Devarim 20:18</a> regarding the dangers of idolatry and the need to rid the country of it and its worshipers.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Reason for decree of annihilation</b> – These sources agree that need to obliterate the Canaanites stems from the religious threat that they present.  Therefore, if that threat is eliminated via their rejection of idolatry and submissive position, there is no longer a need to destroy them.</point> | + | <point><b>Reason for decree of annihilation</b> – These sources agree that the need to obliterate the Canaanites stems from the religious threat that they present.  Therefore, if that threat is eliminated via their rejection of idolatry and submissive position, there is no longer a need to destroy them.</point> |
<point><b>Yehoshua 11:19-20</b> – These sources point to <a href="Yehoshua11-19-20" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 11:19-20</a> as proof that the Israelites were supposed to negotiate for peace even with the Canaanites.  The verses state that had it not been for Hashem hardening their hearts, some of the cities might have made peace with Israel, implying that peace was an option. This position does not explain, however, what was the point of commanding the nation to call for peace if Hashem was to ensure that the call was going to be rejected regardless.  For a discussion of other cases where Hashem similarly hardens hearts and nonetheless has people go through motions that will therefore be irrelevant, see <a href="Hardened Hearts" data-aht="page">Hardened Hearts</a>.</point> | <point><b>Yehoshua 11:19-20</b> – These sources point to <a href="Yehoshua11-19-20" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 11:19-20</a> as proof that the Israelites were supposed to negotiate for peace even with the Canaanites.  The verses state that had it not been for Hashem hardening their hearts, some of the cities might have made peace with Israel, implying that peace was an option. This position does not explain, however, what was the point of commanding the nation to call for peace if Hashem was to ensure that the call was going to be rejected regardless.  For a discussion of other cases where Hashem similarly hardens hearts and nonetheless has people go through motions that will therefore be irrelevant, see <a href="Hardened Hearts" data-aht="page">Hardened Hearts</a>.</point> | ||
<point><b>"לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית... וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם"</b> – These two prohibitions assume that there might be Canaanites remaining in the land, supporting the idea that peaceful surrender was possible.</point> | <point><b>"לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית... וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם"</b> – These two prohibitions assume that there might be Canaanites remaining in the land, supporting the idea that peaceful surrender was possible.</point> | ||
Line 47: | Line 50: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Prohibited</b> – Rambam claims that despite the possibility of making peace, there is still no permission to make a covenant.</li> | <li><b>Prohibited</b> – Rambam claims that despite the possibility of making peace, there is still no permission to make a covenant.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Permitted if repent</b> – Ramban, on the other hand, assumes that making a covenant is only prohibited with idolaters, as the verse says, "לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם <b>וְלֵאלֹהֵיהֶם</b> בְּרִית".‎<fn>In each place that the prohibition is mentioned it is linked to the fear that the Canaanites will lead the nation to idolatry (See Shemot 23:32: פֶּן יַחֲטִיאוּ אֹתְךָ לִי כִּי" ,תַעֲבֹד אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם" Shemot 34:15: "וְזָנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם" and Devarim 7:4, "כִּי יָסִיר אֶת בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי וְעָבְדוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים".)  Thus, Ramban concludes that if that concern is eliminated so is the prohibition.</fn>  If Canaanites reject idolatry, as is expected of those who accept the terms of peace, then covenants are allowed.<fn>He points out that the Gibeonites did reject idolatry, saying, "בָּאוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ לְשֵׁם י"י | + | <li><b>Permitted if repent</b> – Ramban, on the other hand, assumes that making a covenant is only prohibited with idolaters, as the verse says, "לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם <b>וְלֵאלֹהֵיהֶם</b> בְּרִית".‎<fn>In each place that the prohibition is mentioned it is linked to the fear that the Canaanites will lead the nation to idolatry (See Shemot 23:32: פֶּן יַחֲטִיאוּ אֹתְךָ לִי כִּי" ,תַעֲבֹד אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם" Shemot 34:15: "וְזָנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם" and Devarim 7:4, "כִּי יָסִיר אֶת בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי וְעָבְדוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים".)  Thus, Ramban concludes that if that concern is eliminated so is the prohibition.</fn>  If Canaanites reject idolatry, as is expected of those who accept the terms of peace, then covenants are allowed.<fn>He points out that the Gibeonites did reject idolatry, saying, "בָּאוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ לְשֵׁם י"י אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ".  As such, making a covenant with them was not problematic.</fn>  Radak similarly explains that the prohibition refers to making a covenant of equals.  If, however, the Canaanites are subservient and accept Israelite laws (as they would if they made peace) it would not be problematic.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Calling to Sichon: "וָאֶשְׁלַח... דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם"</b> – Ramban points to Moshe's offer not to wage war against Sichon as proof that making peace with Canaanites must be allowed.<fn>He points out that it is not fathomable that Moshe was acting against an explicit command to destroy the Seven Nations!</fn></point> | <point><b>Calling to Sichon: "וָאֶשְׁלַח... דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם"</b> – Ramban points to Moshe's offer not to wage war against Sichon as proof that making peace with Canaanites must be allowed.<fn>He points out that it is not fathomable that Moshe was acting against an explicit command to destroy the Seven Nations!</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Saving Rachav</b> – These sources could say that Rachav accepted the terms of peace, as her aid to the Israelites and recognition of God<fn>See her | + | <point><b>Saving Rachav</b> – These sources could say that Rachav accepted the terms of peace, as her aid to the Israelites and recognition of God<fn>See her declaration,"כִּי י"י אֱ-לֹהֵיכֶם הוּא אֱ-לֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל הָאָרֶץ" (because the Lord your God is the God of the heavens above and the earth).</fn> might imply.</point> |
<point><b>"וַיַּעֲלֵם שְׁלֹמֹה לְמַס עֹבֵד"</b> – Shelomo's actions are also viewed as being in accord with Torah law.  He allowed remaining Canaanites to stay in the land as long as they were "לְמַס עֹבֵד".‎<fn>Ramban asserts that, even though it is not mentioned, it can be assumed thathey also accepted the Noachide laws.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַיַּעֲלֵם שְׁלֹמֹה לְמַס עֹבֵד"</b> – Shelomo's actions are also viewed as being in accord with Torah law.  He allowed remaining Canaanites to stay in the land as long as they were "לְמַס עֹבֵד".‎<fn>Ramban asserts that, even though it is not mentioned, it can be assumed thathey also accepted the Noachide laws.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Canaanite pockets in time of Judges</b> – According to this approach, it is not clear why the people should have been chastised in Sefer Shofetim for taxing the Canaanites rather than destroying them, if this was allowed. <br/> | <point><b>Canaanite pockets in time of Judges</b> – According to this approach, it is not clear why the people should have been chastised in Sefer Shofetim for taxing the Canaanites rather than destroying them, if this was allowed. <br/> | ||
Line 69: | Line 72: | ||
<li>In contrast, according to Ramban and Ralbag's possibility that the Gibeonites had already rejected Yehoshua's offer, and it was no longer open, the desire to kill the Gibeonites stemmed from the original command to obliterate those who do not make peace.</li> | <li>In contrast, according to Ramban and Ralbag's possibility that the Gibeonites had already rejected Yehoshua's offer, and it was no longer open, the desire to kill the Gibeonites stemmed from the original command to obliterate those who do not make peace.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>What would have happened had everyone accepted peace?</b> According to this position it is unclear what would have happened if all the nations had agreed to surrender.  | + | <point><b>What would have happened had everyone accepted peace?</b> According to this position it is unclear what would have happened if all the nations had agreed to surrender.  Where would the Israelites have lived? Could the land have sustained everyone living together?  How would having such a large enslaved population have affected the nation?</point> |
<point><b>Moral motivation</b> – It is likely that this position is motivated, at least in part, by the discomfort with a blanket decree to annihilate all Canaanites.</point> | <point><b>Moral motivation</b> – It is likely that this position is motivated, at least in part, by the discomfort with a blanket decree to annihilate all Canaanites.</point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
Line 77: | Line 80: | ||
<point><b>Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities</b> – According to this approach, the verses in Devarim contrast the two types of cities only with regards to whether or not to leave alive women and children when peace is rejected.  However, there is an obligation to call for peace to all.<fn>According to this approach, the protocol laid out in verses 15-18 stands in contrast only to that in verses 12-14, while the directives of verses 10-11 refer to all cities.</fn></point> | <point><b>Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities</b> – According to this approach, the verses in Devarim contrast the two types of cities only with regards to whether or not to leave alive women and children when peace is rejected.  However, there is an obligation to call for peace to all.<fn>According to this approach, the protocol laid out in verses 15-18 stands in contrast only to that in verses 12-14, while the directives of verses 10-11 refer to all cities.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Terms of Peace</b> – According to Tosafot the terms of peace require a rejection of idolatry in addition to the conditions discussed in the Torah explicitly.</point> | <point><b>Terms of Peace</b> – According to Tosafot the terms of peace require a rejection of idolatry in addition to the conditions discussed in the Torah explicitly.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Why differentiate before and after entry | + | <point><b>Why differentiate between before and after entry?</b> If making peace is prohibited in order to prevent the Canaanites from negatively influencing the beliefs and deeds of Israel, it is not clear why there should be a distinction between pre/post entry.</point> |
<point><b>Yehoshua 11:19-21</b> – This position, too, is supported by these verses which suggest that had Hashem not hardened their hearts, the Canaanites would have made peace.</point> | <point><b>Yehoshua 11:19-21</b> – This position, too, is supported by these verses which suggest that had Hashem not hardened their hearts, the Canaanites would have made peace.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית... וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם"</b> – Since there is the possibility of making peace before entry/the | + | <point><b>"לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית... וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם"</b> – Since there is the possibility of making peace before entry/the conquest began, there could be surviving Canaanites who might be a harmful influence, as these prohibitions suggest.  Thus, even though peace is allowed, covenants are not.</point> |
<point><b>Calling to Sichon: "וָאֶשְׁלַח... דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם"</b> – As war with Sichon took place before crossing the Jordan, Moshe was obligated to negotiate for peace before fighting.</point> | <point><b>Calling to Sichon: "וָאֶשְׁלַח... דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם"</b> – As war with Sichon took place before crossing the Jordan, Moshe was obligated to negotiate for peace before fighting.</point> | ||
<point><b>Saving of Rachav</b> – According to Tosafot, surrender was allowed until the wars of conquest began, so there was no problem with saving Rachav.  The other commentators might suggest that she was uniquely exempted by Hashem for having aided the Israelites.</point> | <point><b>Saving of Rachav</b> – According to Tosafot, surrender was allowed until the wars of conquest began, so there was no problem with saving Rachav.  The other commentators might suggest that she was uniquely exempted by Hashem for having aided the Israelites.</point> |
Latest revision as of 13:42, 24 July 2019
Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators debate whether it is obligated, prohibited, or simply permitted to negotiate for peace with the Canaanites. Rashi takes a zero tolerance policy against the Seven Nations, claiming that it is prohibited to call for peace before embarking on the Wars of Conquest and that no overtures on the Canaanites' part will suffice to override the decree of annihilation. They present too much of a religious threat to allow them to remain as neighbors.
Other exegetes are less comfortable with such a blanket statement of destruction, and allow for varying levels of negotiations. Thus, Raavad claims that Israel is obligated to seek out peace, but only until they cross the Jordan, while Radak maintains that the obligation persists even after the Wars of Conquest have begun. Rashbam takes a middle approach, claiming that Israel may not initiate a call for peace, but that they are allowed to accept a Canaanite surrender, if they, on their own, submit themselves to Israelite rule.
Prohibited
It is prohibited to call for peace to the Seven Nations and any overtures for peace on their part are rejected.
- The commandment regarding annihilation and the prohibitions against alliances are not distinct commands but rather two sides of a coin. Hashem is simply explaining why there is a need to destroy everyone: in order to ensure that no treaty or marriages will be made.10
- Alternatively, as Ibn Ezra explains, the prohibitions against making alliances were needed for the period of the conquest itself, as Hashem had promised that the nations would not be destroyed at once, but rather over a long period.11
- R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that since most of Sichon's land belonged to Amon and Moav, and was not part of Canaan, Moshe could call for peace.15
- Similarly, it is possible that none of the land on the Eastern side of the Yarden was considered part of the "promised land of Canaan" and thus the prohibition might not have applied, despite Sichon being an Emorite.
- These sources might further argue that Moshe was not negotiating a peaceful surrender at all, but simply asking leave to pass through Sichon's land.
- Blameworthy action – Pesikta DeRav Kahana blames the nation for saving Rachav, claiming that their actions transgressed Hashem's commandment to destroy all of the Canaanite inhabitants.
- Divine decree – Alternatively, these sources could suggest that Rachav's salvation was an exception, sanctioned by Divine decree.16
Obligated
There is an obligation to offer peace terms before waging war against the Seven Nations, similar to the obligation before fighting an "optional war" against other enemies. This position subdivides regarding when the offer was available:
Even in Later Stages
Peace negotiations were allowed even after the Wars of Conquest had begun.
- Prohibited – Rambam claims that despite the possibility of making peace, there is still no permission to make a covenant.
- Permitted if repent – Ramban, on the other hand, assumes that making a covenant is only prohibited with idolaters, as the verse says, "לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם וְלֵאלֹהֵיהֶם בְּרִית".22 If Canaanites reject idolatry, as is expected of those who accept the terms of peace, then covenants are allowed.23 Radak similarly explains that the prohibition refers to making a covenant of equals. If, however, the Canaanites are subservient and accept Israelite laws (as they would if they made peace) it would not be problematic.
- Ramban suggests these Canaanites had not accepted all of the terms of peace, paying tribute but not laboring for the State.27
- The Rambam might answer that the tribes were only chastised for making a covenant, not for leaving the Canaanites alive.
- Misunderstood offer – Rambam posits that they had originally rejected Yehoshua's call and did not realize that the offer was still open.
- Already rejected the offer – Ramban and Ralbag, however, raise the possibility that the Gibeonites' assumption was in fact correct, and once they had rejected the original call for peace, Yehoshua would no longer have been open to surrender.
- Distrusted offer – Radak claims that, after seeing the destruction of Yericho and Ai, the Gibeonites simply did not trust the Israelite offer and thought that the call for peace was a deceitful tactic aimed at putting them off their guard so the Israelites could more easily defeat them.28
- Did not want terms of offer – Ramban also raises the possibility that the Gibeonites were hoping to make a covenant of equals, without having to acquiesce to the Israelite terms of peace (tribute and servitude).
- Rambam, Radak and Ramban answer that the princes so desired not because of the commandment of "הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִימֵם" but since the Gibeonites tricked them into making a covenant that was not allowed.
- In contrast, according to Ramban and Ralbag's possibility that the Gibeonites had already rejected Yehoshua's offer, and it was no longer open, the desire to kill the Gibeonites stemmed from the original command to obliterate those who do not make peace.
Only in Early Stages
Peace negotiations were allowed only until entry into the land, or perhaps until the first battle against the Canaanites began.
Accepted
Although the Israelites are not commanded to seek out peace, if, before hostilities commence, the Canaanites take the initiative to submit themselves to Israel, their surrender is accepted.
- They could suggest that it was only the laymen who so desired, and they simply erred in thinking that the alliance was problematic.
- Alternatively, it is possible that although peace was an option, the covenant made was problematic since it was one of equals and did not originally include the necessary terms of submission and taxation.34