Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan
Exegetical Approaches
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 Devarim,1 Pesikta DeRav Kahana, Rashi,2 R. Yosef Kara,3 R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, perhaps Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot,4
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 which deal with cases of war.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 killed. These sources could respond in either of the following ways:
- 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. Since such connections inevitably lead to idolatry, they need to be prevented.
- 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.9
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".10 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 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 otherwise the Israelite were obligated to destroy them.12 The Israelites, for their part, were upset as they had unknowingly violated Hashem's commandment.
Desire to kill the Gibeonites – The Israelite desire to kill the Gibeonites, were it not for their oath, is logical only if one assumes that peace negotiations were not an option.13 However, Tosafot 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.
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 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.16
Yehoshua 11:19-20 – Yehoshua 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, the unit of 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,17 but does not come to negate the obligation to offer peace also to the Seven Nations.
Conditions of peace – In addition to the two conditions of tax and submission (מס ועבדות)18 mentioned in the verses, all these sources agree that the Canaanites must also reject idolatry and accept the seven Noachide laws.19 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 Shemot 23:33 and Devarim 20:18 regarding the dangers of idolatry and the need to rid the country of it and its worshipers.
Yehoshua 11:19-20 – These sources point to Yehoshua 11:19-20 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.20
"לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית... וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם" – These two prohibitions assume that there might be Canaanites remaining in the land, supporting the idea that peaceful surrender was possible.
Making peace versus not making covenants – These commentators differ in how they understand how the prohibition to make a covenant relates to the call for peace:
- 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".21 If Canaanites reject idolatry, as is expected of those who accept the terms of peace, then covenants are allowed. 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.
Calling to Sichon: "וָאֶשְׁלַח... דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם" – Ramban points to Moshe's offer not to wage war against Sichon as proof that making peace with Canaanites must be allowed.22
"וַיַּעֲלֵם שְׁלֹמֹה לְמַס עֹבֵד" – 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".23
How could the nation save Rachav? These sources could either say that Rachav accepted the terms of peace or that she totally converted.
The trickery of the Gibeonites – It is not clear why, according to this approach, the Gibeonites needed to resort to trickery rather than simply accept the Israelites' call to peace. They offer several possible explanations:
- 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 this assumption was in fact correct, and since the Gibeonites had originally rejected the 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 did not trust the Israelites and thought that the call for peace was just a deceitful tactic aimed at putting them off their guard so the Israelites could more easily defeat them.24
- 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 (taxes and submission).
Desire to kill the Gibeonites – If the Israelites were allowed to keep the Canaanites alive, it is not clear why they wanted to kill the Gibeonites after their deception was discovered.
- 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..
What would have happened had everyone accepted peace?
Moral motivation
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.
