Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan/2

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.

Sources:Perhaps Sifre Devarim20About Sifre Devarim,¹ Pesikta DeRav Kahana13:5About Pesikta DeRav Kahana, RashiBemidbar 21:22Devarim 20:10-18Sotah 35bAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki,² R. Yosef KaraYehoshua 9:4, 8About R. Yosef Kara,³ R. Yosef Bekhor ShorDevarim 2:29Devarim 20:16About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, perhaps Rambam Sefer HaMitzvotPositive Commandments 190About Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot,⁴

"רַק מֵעָרֵי הָעַמִּים הָאֵלֶּה" – According to these sources, this phrase serves to contrast Devarim 20:16-18 with the entire preceding unit (verses 10-15).⁵  As such, the verses teach that Canaanite cities ("הָעַמִּים הָאֵלֶּה") 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:

• 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. As such, these are not distinct prohibitions but rather two sides of a coin.
• 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

Trickery of Gibeonites – Both the trickery of the Gibeonites and the nation's fear¹¹ 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 the Israelite were obligated to destroy them.¹² The Israelites, for their part, were upset as they had unknowingly violated Hashem's commandment.  In addition, the fact that, were it not for their oath,¹³ they would have killed the Gibeonites only makes sense if one assumes that peace negotiations were not an option.

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.¹⁴
• 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.¹⁵

Remaining pockets of Canaanites – These sources would explain that the nation's incomplete conquest and the presence of tribute-paying Cannanites (as described in Shofetim and the under the reign of Shelomo) was problematic.  Though Shelomo is not chastised, a messenger of Hashem rebukes the people in the time of Judges for having made alliances with the Canaanites.

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 the extent of the call and ensuing peace:

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.

Sources:RashbamDevarim 20:16About R. Shemuel b. Meir, ChizkuniDevarim 20:11-17About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach,

¹ 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.

² 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..

³ This is the position he takes in his comments to Yehoshua 9.  However, his explanation of Yehoshua 11:20 does not agree.

⁴ In his Sefer HaMitzvot,

⁵ Cf. the opinion below which assumes that they serve as a contrast only to the immediately preceding verses (12-14) and relate only to whether or not women and children must be killed if peace is rejected.

⁶ While it is mandatory to seek peace before engaging in war with distant cities, this is prohibited with regards to the Canaanite 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.  In contrast, all members of Canaanite cities are to be destroyed.

⁷ See, for instance Shemot 23:32-33, Shemot 34:11-16, Bemidbar 33:51-53,  and Devarim 7:1-2.

⁸ See also  Shemot 23:32 and Shemot 34:12.

⁹ In other words, the prohibition against marriage/covenants provides the reasoning for the decree to destroy all.

¹⁰ See Shemot 23:29-30.

¹¹ See the words of the princes, "זֹאת נַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם וְהַחֲיֵה אוֹתָם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עָלֵינוּ קֶצֶף עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְנוּ לָהֶם".

¹² The verses emphasize that the matter at hand was life and death.  See the phrases, "וַיִּכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית לְחַיּוֹתָם", "זֹאת נַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם וְהַחֲיֵה אוֹתָם", "וַנִּירָא מְאֹד לְנַפְשֹׁתֵינוּ", and "וַיַּצֵּל אוֹתָם מִיַּד בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא הֲרָגוּם".

¹³ TosafotGittin 46aAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot questions why the Israelites' vow had any standing if there is a principle that one can not make a vow to transgress a commandment.  This position might answer that even if from a halakhic perspective there was no covenant, the nation feared that going against their word would cause a desecration of Hashem's name.

¹⁴ He points out that Moshe did not do the same for Og, since his land was considered part of Canaan, and even within Sichon's territory, the call for peace related only to those areas which belonged to Amon and Moav.

¹⁵ See TosafotSotah 35bAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot who raises this possibility: "שמא על פי הדיבור היה".