Difference between revisions of "Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<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..</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,</fn></mekorot> | <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,</fn></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Contrast between Canaanite and distant cities</b> – 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.<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>  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.<fn>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.</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>"לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית... וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם"</b> – The prohibition in Devarim 7<fn>See also  <a href="Shemot23-23-33" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:32</a> and <a href="Shemot34-11-16" data-aht="source">Shemot 34:12</a>.</fn> 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:<br/> | <point><b>"לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית... וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם"</b> – The prohibition in Devarim 7<fn>See also  <a href="Shemot23-23-33" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:32</a> and <a href="Shemot34-11-16" data-aht="source">Shemot 34:12</a>.</fn> 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:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li>Hashem is simply saying that there is a need to destroy everyone so that no treaty or marriages will be made.<fn>In other words, the prohibition against marriage/covenants provides the reasoning for the decree to destroy all.</fn> Since such connections will inevitably lead to idolatry, they need to be prevented | + | <li>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.<fn>In other words, the prohibition against marriage/covenants provides the reasoning for the decree to destroy all.</fn> Since such connections will inevitably lead to idolatry, they need to be prevented. </li> |
<li>Alternatively, as<multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotShortCommentary23-32" data-aht="source"> Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShortCommentary23-32" data-aht="source">Shemot Short Commentary 23:32</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> 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.<fn>See <a href="Shemot23-23-33" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:29-30</a>.</fn></li> | <li>Alternatively, as<multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotShortCommentary23-32" data-aht="source"> Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotShortCommentary23-32" data-aht="source">Shemot Short Commentary 23:32</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> 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.<fn>See <a href="Shemot23-23-33" data-aht="source">Shemot 23:29-30</a>.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Reason for prohibition</b></point> | + | <point><b>Reason for prohibition</b> – 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".‎<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>Trickery of Gibeonites</b> – Both the trickery of the Gibeonites and the nation's fear<fn>See the words of the princes, "זֹאת נַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם וְהַחֲיֵה אוֹתָם <b>וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עָלֵינוּ קֶצֶף</b> עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְנוּ לָהֶם".</fn> regarding the consequences of having made an alliance are totally understandable | + | <point><b>Trickery of Gibeonites</b> – Both the trickery of the Gibeonites and the nation's fear<fn>See the words of the princes, "זֹאת נַעֲשֶׂה לָהֶם וְהַחֲיֵה אוֹתָם <b>וְלֹא יִהְיֶה עָלֵינוּ קֶצֶף</b> עַל הַשְּׁבוּעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְנוּ לָהֶם".</fn> regarding the consequences of having made an alliance are totally understandable:<br/> |
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>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.<fn>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".</fn></li> | ||
+ | <li>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,<fn><multilink><a href="TosafotGittin46a" data-aht="source">Tosafot</a><a href="TosafotGittin46a" data-aht="source">Gittin 46a</a><a href="Ba'alei HaTosafot" data-aht="parshan">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</a></multilink> 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.</fn> is logical only if one assumes that peace negotiations were not an option.<fn>Otherwise, even if the nation was upset at being duped, there would seem to be no reason to kill the Gbeonites as they would have allowed them to negotiate peace regardless.</fn></li> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Calling to Sichon: "וָאֶשְׁלַח... דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם"</b> – These sources must explain why Moshe called for peace to Sichon, if he was from the Emorites, one of the Seven Nations:<br/> | <point><b>Calling to Sichon: "וָאֶשְׁלַח... דִּבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם"</b> – These sources must explain why Moshe called for peace to Sichon, if he was from the Emorites, one of the Seven Nations:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 29: | Line 33: | ||
<li><b>Divine decree</b> – Alternatively, these sources could suggest that Rachav's salvation was an exception, sanctioned by Divine decree.<fn>See <multilink><a href="TosafotSotah35b" data-aht="source">Tosafot</a><a href="TosafotSotah35b" data-aht="source">Sotah 35b</a><a href="Ba'alei HaTosafot" data-aht="parshan">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</a></multilink> who raises this possibility: "שמא על פי הדיבור היה".</fn></li> | <li><b>Divine decree</b> – Alternatively, these sources could suggest that Rachav's salvation was an exception, sanctioned by Divine decree.<fn>See <multilink><a href="TosafotSotah35b" data-aht="source">Tosafot</a><a href="TosafotSotah35b" data-aht="source">Sotah 35b</a><a href="Ba'alei HaTosafot" data-aht="parshan">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</a></multilink> who raises this possibility: "שמא על פי הדיבור היה".</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Remaining pockets of Canaanites</b> – These sources would explain that the nation's incomplete conquest and the presence of tribute-paying | + | <point><b>Remaining pockets of Canaanites</b> – These sources would explain that the nation's incomplete conquest and the presence of tribute-paying Canaanites (as described in <a href="Shofetim1-27-36" data-aht="source">Shofetim</a> and the under the reign of <a href="MelakhimI9-20-21" data-aht="source">Shelomo</a>) 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.<fn>See <a href="Shofetim2-1-5" data-aht="source">Shofetim 2:1-5</a>.</fn></point> |
+ | <point><b>Yehoshua 11:19-20</b> – <a href="Yehoshua11-19-20" data-aht="source">Yehoshua 11:19-20</a> 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.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Obligated | <category>Obligated | ||
− | <p>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 | + | <p>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 avaiable:</p> |
+ | <opinion>Only before Crossing the Jordan | ||
+ | <mekorot><multilink><a href="YerushalmiSheviit6-1" data-aht="source">Yerushalmi Sheviit</a><a href="YerushalmiSheviit6-1" data-aht="source">Sheviit 6:1</a><a href="Talmud Yerushalmi" data-aht="parshan">About the Yerushalmi</a></multilink>,<fn>The Yerushalmi speaks of sending offers of peace to the Canaanites, "עד שלא יכנסו לארץ" (before entering the land).  See, though, the versions in  Vayikra Rabbah and Devarim Rabbah which omit this limitation.  In two manuscripts of Vayikra Rabbah (Yalkut HaMechiri and MS Oxford 2634/8) the Midrash reads, "בכניסתן לארץ" and "בשעה שנכנסו לארץ".</fn> <multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotMelakhim6-145" data-aht="source">Raavad</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>,</mekorot> | ||
+ | </opinion> | ||
+ | <opinion>Even After Crossing the Jordan | ||
+ | </opinion> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Accepted | <category>Accepted |
Version as of 05:14, 15 July 2016
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.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 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 11:19-20 – 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 avaiable: