נושאים לשולחן שבת – פרשת מסעי

במדבר ל"ג is one of several sources which speak of killing off the inhabitants of Canaan. Was there really no possibility for peaceful co-existence? Medieval commentators debate the issue. While רש"יסוטה ל"ה:אודות ר' שלמה יצחקי maintains that it was prohibited to call for peace and war was inevitable, רמב"םהלכות מלכים ו':א', ד'-ה'אודות ר' משה בן מיימון טוען that the Israelites were obligated to offer terms of peace before waging war against the Canaanites.

How does each side of the debate read the verses of דברים כ' (where the main directive is found)? What other verses could support each position? How does the story of the Gibeonites' deceit in יהושע ט' shed light on the issue?
לפי רש"יסוטה ל"ה:אודות ר' שלמה יצחקי, the reason for the decree of obliteration is religious in nature, lest the nations sway Israel towards idolatry. Sometimes a zero-tolerance policy is necessary. Do you agree? In what circumstances are compromises not an option?
לפי רמב"םהלכות מלכים ו':א', ד'-ה'אודות ר' משה בן מיימון, what would have happened had the nations actually accepted the terms of peace and surrendered to Israel? Could the land have sustained both populations? How might the course of our history have changed? להרחבה, ראו קריאה לשלום בכיבוש הארץ.

במדבר ל"ה speaks of the creation of ערי מקלט (cities of refuge) as places to which an inadvertent killer might flee from a גואל הדם (blood avenger).

What does this law suggest about the Torah's view of blood avengers? On one hand, the very existence of such cities attests to the fact that the Torah does not want the unintentional killer to die. On the other hand, this institution simultaneously attests to the fact that the Torah did not outlaw avenging of blood. If the גואל הדם is a negative institution, why allow it at all? If it is legitimate, why protect the unintentional murderer from them?
The flip side of the question relates to the Torah's evaluation of the unintentional murderer. How culpable does the Torah hold him? Is he totally innocent, and sent to the cities only for his own good? If so, though, why is he allowed to leave the city only at the death of the high priest and not at his own discretion? Does this suggest that perhaps he, too, is somewhat deserving of punishment, and that the cities are a form of mandatory exile rather than a safe haven?

Shabbat Table Topics – Parashat Masei/0/he