 |
|
|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
Introduction to Parashat Hashavua
This shiur is dedicated in memory of Parashat Shoftim
Waging War against the
Canaanites By Rav Michael INTRODUCTION With the people of Now Moshe turns his attention to national concerns, to
the instruments and to the institutions that will regulate THE ISSUE OF WARFARE There is of course another topic that is featured
prominently in our Parasha and in many other sections of Sefer Devarim, a matter
that is especially pertinent to a people about to enter a new land, and that
concerns the issue of warfare. In
fact, most of the second half of Parashat Shoftim is devoted to this subject
(Chapter 20), and the discussion continues into the next Parasha as well. And as Sefer Devarim progresses and the
people draw closer and closer to their destiny, the discussion takes on a
progressively more practical as well as more urgent quality. According to Torah law, warfare, like
every other facet of human endeavor, must be waged in accordance with
Divinely-delineated principles. The
Israelite combatants are expected to adhere to guidelines that govern their
conduct in conflict and that set limitations on their behavior. The passage opens with an injunction to be fearless even
in the face of overwhelming odds and to trust in God's deliverance, for He can
prevail just as surely as He liberated the Israelite slaves from their much more
powerful Egyptian overlords. The
text goes on to single out a number of individuals who are exempt from waging
wars of expansion, namely the builder of a new house, the planter of a new
vineyard, or one who betroths a new wife.
The final exemption pertains to the one who is "afraid and faint of
heart" (20:8), who is sent home in order to not undermine the morale of the
fighting troops. The next section in the passage addresses the treatment
of the enemy forces: When you draw near to a city to wage war against it,
then you shall first proclaim peace.
If they respond in kind and open the gates for you, then all of the
people that are in the city will pay tribute and serve you. If they do not surrender peacefully but
rather fight against you, then you shall besiege them. When God gives the city into your hands,
then you shall smite all of its men by the sword. But the women, the children, the animals
and all of the goods that are in the city you may take, for so shall you consume
the spoils of your enemy that God your Lord gives you. Thus shall you do to all of the cities
that are very far from you, that are not the cities of these nations here. But from the cities of these people that
God your Lord gives you as an inheritance, you shall not spare any soul. Rather, you shall completely destroy
them, the Chittite, the Emorite, the Canaanite, the Perizite, the Chivite, and
the Yevusite, just as God your Lord commands you. This is in order that they not teach you
to perform all of the abominations that they do in the service of their gods,
for then you shall transgress against God your Lord
(20:10-18). Finally, the concluding verses address the treatment of
the enemy's environs, and put forth the remarkable command to refrain from
cutting down the fruit trees of the besieged city. In so doing, the Torah effectively
outlaws a "scorched earth" policy of wanton and reckless destruction, even as
the enemy forces are besieged and conquered. TREATMENT OF THE ENEMY It is of course the middle section that concerns us
here, for it outlines how the Israelite army is to relate to their adversaries
on the battlefield and in its aftermath.
At the outset, the text asserts, an enemy city must be offered the option
of surrender. If the terms of
surrender – tribute and servitude – are accepted, then none of its inhabitants
are to be harmed. If, on the other
hand, the enemy city insists on warfare, it may be attacked and all of the
combatants may be killed. The women
and children civilians, though, may not be hurt but can be taken captive, and
the city's goods may be taken as spoils.
But concerning the cities of the Canaanites, the cities of "these
nations" that are comprised of six specific tribal groups, the passage draws a
sharp distinction. In the event of
warfare, none of the inhabitants of such cities are to be spared, lest they lead
the conquering Israelites astray by enticing them to worship their gods and to
perform the licentious rites associated with that worship, thus distancing them
from God. There is an inherent ambiguity in the text of the
relevant passage, and the commentaries are in sharp disagreement concerning the
most plausible reading. Recall that
in discussing the treatment of the "far-off" enemy city, the text outlines two
separate elements: firstly, an overture of peace must be extended. Secondly, in the event of warfare, only
the male combatants may be killed.
In sharp contrast, the passage then goes on to insist that a distinction
must be drawn between these "far-off cities" and the "close cities", between
non-Canaanite combatants and Canaanites.
What is clear from the text is that in the event of warfare,
non-Canaanite civilians are not to be harmed, whereas Canaanites are to be
wholly destroyed: "you shall not spare any soul". What is unclear, however, is whether the
peace overture that must be extended to non-Canaanites must also be proclaimed
to Canaanite cities, or whether in contrast, the Canaanites are not to be
offered any possibility of surrender at the outset. THE OFFER OF SURRENDER: ONLY FOR NON-CANAANITE
CITIES? Textually, the resolution of the matter is a function of
interpreting the phrase: "thus shall you do to all of the cities that are very
far from you, that are not the cities of these nations here", a directive that
follows immediately after the description of the peace overture, its refusal,
the ensuing battle and conquest, the killing of the male fighters, and the
preservation of the women and children.
Does this phrase modify everything that precedes it, including the
opening statement that spells out the necessity of offering peace terms? If so, then the implication is that such
overtures are to be denied to the Canaanites – thus shall you do, to extend
offers of peace and protection of civilians, to all nations far from you, but
not to the Canaanites who constitute "these nations here". On the other hand, perhaps the phrase modifies ONLY the
action to be taken in the event of actual warfare, thus implying that the
offering of peace terms is to be applied equally to the Canaanites as well, that
they too are accorded the opportunity to surrender and to thereby spare their
populations from the harsh consequences of defeat. In this case, the opening passage of
"when you draw near to a city to wage war against it, then you shall first
proclaim peace. If they respond in
kind and open the gates for you, then all of the people that are in the city
will pay tribute and serve you" applies to ALL enemy cities, including those of
the Canaanites. According to this
reading, a difference between non-Canaanite and Canaanite cities would only be
enjoined in the event of actual combat that follows a spurned offer of peace:
non-Canaanite civilians may be spared, but all Canaanite civilians are to be
killed! RASHI'S EXPLANATION AND THE
GIV’ONITES Significantly, Rashi (11th century, France)
adopts the more straightforward but also more severe first reading, and
understands that in fact the overture of peace had be extended only towards
those cities that did not lie within Canaan's borders. According to Rashi, the nations that
inhabited The inhabitants of Giv'on heard about all that Yehoshu’a
had done to Yericho and to the A'i.
They also employed clever strategy, and disguised themselves as
emissaries. They took faded sacks
for their donkeys, and worn-out wineskins that were cracked and mended. They donned old and patched footwear and
worn-out clothing, and took bread and provisions that were dried out and
decayed. They approached Yehoshu’a
at the encampment at Gilgal and they said to him and to the people of Israel:
“We have come from a far-off land to conclude a pact with you…we are your
servants…who hail from a very distant land and come to honor God your Lord, for
we have heard of His exploits and all that He did in Egypt, and to the two
Amorite kings east of the Yarden, Sichon king of Cheshbon and 'Og king of the
Bashan who dwelt in Ashtarot. Our
elders and the people of our land told us to take provisions for the journey and
approach you, saying that we are your servants and wish to now conclude a pact
with you" (9:3-11). In the end,
of course, the ruse was discovered.
To their dismay, Yehoshu’a and the people of As for the Rabbinic sources (see Jerusalem Talmud
Tractate Shevi’it 6:1 and Midrash Devarim Rabbah 5:14) that indicate that on the
eve of the Israelite invasion Yehoshu’a sent a vanguard of messengers to the
nations inhabiting Canaan bearing triple proclamations of retreat, surrender, or
war, we must submit that according to Rashi the possibility of surrender was
only extended to the Canaanites BEFORE Israel crossed the Yarden. Once they crossed over, however, the
option of surrender was no longer offered, thus prompting the Giv’onites to
implement their desperate plan. THE COMMENTARY OF THE RAMBAN In contrast to Rashi's explanation, the Ramban
(13th century, Spain) avers that the overture of peace spoken of in
Deuteronomy 20 was in fact extended to all enemy cities, including those of the
Canaanites: …indeed, the passage from Deuteronomy distinguishes
between both types [of enemy, but only insofar as combat is concerned]. The injunction to extend an offer of
peace, however, applies even to obligatory wars such as those waged against the
"Seven Nations" of Concerning the ruse of the Giv'onites, now made more
incomprehensible since surrender was apparently a viable option from the start,
the Ramban goes on to explain: Realize that the duplicitous plan of the Giv'onites was
precipitated by the fact that they were unfamiliar with the Israelite convention
to offer peace. They dispatched
their messengers even before the peace overture from Yehoshu’a had been
received. Thus they said: "We were
very afraid for our lives…" (Yehoshu’a 9:24). Alternatively, perhaps they first
spurned the overtures of Yehoshu’a but then became afraid and had to therefore
make themselves disguised [in order to secure a peaceful surrender]. The text therefore says that "the people
of Giv'on heard of all that Yehoshu’a had done to Yericho and to the A'i, and
they then acted craftily…" (Yehoshu’a 9:3-4). Additionally, their ruse was effective
in securing the Israelites as their allies bound by treaty rather than simply
their overlords. This explains the
ire of the people of RAMBAN AND THE LARGER CONTEXT In all, Ramban offers three possible explanations for
the conduct of the Giv'onites, who could have seemingly surrendered without a
fight: 1) they were unaware that the policy of the Israelite forces was to
accept surrender, 2) they initially rejected the Israelite offer but then
reconsidered. While these first two
explanations are mutually exclusive, the third explanation, that they sought
ally status, could accord with either of them. The first possibility seems unlikely in
light of the abundant publicity that the text indicates attended the news of the
Israelite conquest of Yericho and A'i.
After all, the Giv'onites only launched their plan in the aftermath of
the overthrow of those cities (Yehoshu’a 9:3), astonishing events that must have
been widely (and wildly!) recounted.
How could the proclamations of Yehoshu’a's messengers have been
completely overlooked or disregarded? It is therefore the Ramban's second explanation that
seems most plausible. When we in
fact consider the broader context of the Giv'onite episode, we discover that it
takes place against the backdrop of a widespread Canaanite hostility to any
consideration of peaceful surrender.
The Canaanite city-states were completely united in their resolve to
repel the Israelite invaders and to prevent them from acquiring a foothold in
the land. Obviously, the Giv'onites
were also buffeted by these prevailing winds blowing across the Canaanite
countryside, and in all probability they too initially embraced the belligerent
posture of their brethren. Thus,
Ramban can claim with justification that the Giv'onites, like the rest of the
"Seven Nations", may have rejected Yehoshu’a's messengers and spurned their
generous offer.
After a time though, especially in light of the fall of
Yericho and the A'i (see Sefer Yehoshu’a Chapters 6 and 8 respectively), the
people of Giv'on came to the sobering realization that they could not best the
Israelites in battle, and would do better to sue for peace rather than to
perish. The Canaanite confederacy,
however, could not be opposed openly, for to break ranks with it would be
correctly interpreted as an act of treachery that would invite its immediate and
overwhelming retribution. Thus, the
Giv'onites were forced to adopt disingenuous methods to seal their treaty with
Yehoshu’a and ANOTHER DISAGREEMENT – THE SEVEN NOACHIDE
LAWS Significantly, there is a further disagreement between
Rashi and the Ramban, and it concerns the contents of the said peace overture
discussed above. Ramban maintains,
based upon the conclusion of the above passage – "This is in order that they not
teach you to perform all of the abominations that they do in the service of
their gods, for then you shall transgress against God your Lord" (20:18) – that
the harsh decree of obliteration only applies when the Canaanites persist in
their corrupt practices, for then the acute danger exists that Israel will learn
from their ways. However, in
accordance with the Rabbinic tradition preserved in the Halakhic Midrash of the
Sifre (Shoftim 202) that "if they do teshuva, then they are not to be killed",
the Ramban maintains that if they "abandon their gods" and adopt the other
Noachide principals, then they may be permitted to continue dwelling in the land
of Canaan in the very midst of the Jewish state. Rashi, in contrast, insists that such grace is only to
be extended to non-Canaanite cities, but concerning the Canaanites, "even if
they repent, we do not accept them, for they do so out of fear". Since, according to Rashi, when
Canaanite repentance takes place it is insincere and only motivated by dread,
the presumption remains that they will return to their depraved ways when the
imminent danger of conquest subsides, and then the people of Israel will become
corrupted by following their example. Thus, there are two points of disagreement between Rashi
and Ramban. Rashi explains that
Canaanite cities are not to be offered any terms of peace, whereas besieged
cities beyond The straightforward reading of the relevant Scriptural
and Rabbinic texts (including the passage from Tractate Sotah 35b) is in
accordance with the Ramban, and such appears to be the view of Maimonides as
well (see Hilchot Melachim Umilchimoteihem/Laws of Kings and Warfare, Chapter
6:4). What emerges from the
discussion then, is that Canaanite towns that abandoned idolatry and its
associated moral deficiencies and instead adopt the Seven Noachide Principals,
could continue to dwell in the land unmolested! These seven principals, of course, are
the basic tenets of civilized behavior and can be succinctly listed as follows:
1) not to worship idols, 2) not to blaspheme God, 3) not to kill, 4) not to
commit adultery, 5) not to steal, 6) not to eat the limb of a living creature,
7) to establish a functional judiciary.
We must therefore conclude from this dual line of evidence that THE WAR
AGAINST THE CANAANITES SPOKEN OF IN OUR PARASHA WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A WAR
AGAINST A RACE OR A PEOPLE, BUT RATHER AGAINST A NOXIOUS MORAL SYSTEM THAT
REFUSED TO EMBRACE EVEN THE MOST ELEMENTARY EXPRESSIONS OF HUMANE CONDUCT AND
CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR. After all, what
functioning society could object to at least the final five of those seven
ideas? And as for the first two
commands that pertain to our relationship with God, in the Torah's worldview
they are the necessary basis for the other five, for otherwise even these five
would tend to be observed superficially and then jettisoned when convenient.
CONCLUSION From the above analysis, it emerges that the
sensationalist readings of the Israelite conquest of The nation of Israel was the only people of antiquity to
proclaim the existence of an absolute moral code, a revolutionary idea that was
the direct consequence of their championing the existence of an Absolute, single
and incorporeal Deity. These were
ideas that transformed history, and that continue to guide humanity,
incrementally it seems, towards the good.
But they are ideas that could not have survived at all had they not first
been firmly planted in Shabbat Shalom
|