Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan/2

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Prohibited

It is prohibited to call for peace to the Seven Nations and any overtures for peace on their part are rejected.

Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities – According to these sources, 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.5  As such, Canaanite cities differ from "distant cities" on two points, both with regards to whether there is an obligation to call for peace and what to do if that peace is rejected.6
"הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִים אֹתָם" – This position is supported by the many verses throughout Torah7 which speak of annihilating the Seven Nations and do not mention any alternative peace option.
"לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית... וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם" – The prohibition in Devarim 78 against making a treaty with or marrying Canaanites seems to presuppose that some Canaanites are not be killed.  These sources could respond in either of the following ways:
  • The various commandments are not distinct prohibitions but rather two sides of a coin. Hashem is simply saying that there is a need to destroy everyone so that no treaty or marriages will be made.9 Since such connections will inevitably lead to idolatry, they need to be prevented.
  • Alternatively, as Ibn EzraShemot Short Commentary 23:32About R. Avraham 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.10
Reason for prohibition – According to this approach the reason for the decree of annihilation is religious in nature, as expressed in Devarim, "לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְלַמְּדוּ אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל תּוֹעֲבֹתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם".‎11  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.
Trickery of Gibeonites – Both the trickery of the Gibeonites and the nation's fear12 regarding the consequences of having made an alliance are totally understandable:
  • The Gibeonites correctly understood that their only chance for survival was to convince the Israelites that they were from a distant city, since otherwise the Israelite were obligated to destroy them.13
  • The Israelites, for their part, were upset as they had unknowingly violated Hashem's commandment.  Moreover, their desire to kill the Gibeonites, were it not for their oath,14 is logical only if one assumes that peace negotiations were not an option.15
Calling to Sichon: "וָאֶשְׁלַח... דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם" – These sources must explain why Moshe called for peace to Sichon, if he was from the Emorites, one of the Seven Nations:
  • R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that since most of Sichon's land belonged to Amon and Moav, and was not part of Eretz Yisrael, Moshe could call for peace.16
  • 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.
How could the nation save Rachav?
  • 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.17
Remaining pockets of Canaanites – These sources would explain that the nation's incomplete conquest and the presence of tribute-paying Canaanites (as described in Shofetim and the under the reign of Shelomo) was problematic.  Though Shelomo is not chastised, the people in the time of Judges are in fact rebuked for having made alliances with the Canaanites.18
Yehoshua 11:19-20Yehoshua 11:19-20 is problematic for this approach as it suggests that the only reason that cities did not make peace was because Hashem hardened their hearts, implying that otherwise peace would have been an option.

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.

Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities – According to these sources, Devarim 20:16-18 stands in contrast only to the immediately preceding verses (12-14) regarding what to do to a city who has rejected peace, but doe snot come to negate the obligation to offer peace also to the Seven Nations.

Only in Early Stages

Peace negotiations were allowed only until entry into the land, or perhaps even 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.