Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6

Sugya Map

The present sugya in Rambam's Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6, meticulously delineates the halakhot pertaining to warfare, emphasizing the profound principle of kriat shalom (offering peace) prior to engaging in combat.

• Core Issue: The universal obligation to offer peace to any city (excluding certain exceptions) before waging war, specifying the terms of such peace, its refusal, and the ensuing wartime conduct.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Distinguishing between milchemet mitzvah and milchemet hareshut in the context of kriat shalom.
  • The precise conditions for accepting peace: acceptance of the Seven Noahide Laws, subjugation (kabbalat ol), and tribute (mas).
  • Exceptions to kriat shalom: Ammon and Moav.
  • Unique application of kriat shalom to the Seven Nations of Canaan and Amalek, where refusal leads to total destruction.
  • Ethical guidelines during war: siege tactics (three sides), bal tashchit (prohibition of wanton destruction, especially fruit trees), camp hygiene, and permissibility of fighting on Shabbat.
• Primary Sources:
  • Devarim 20:10-17: The foundational command to offer peace and its implications for both general nations and the Seven Nations.
  • Devarim 25:19: The command concerning Amalek.
  • Yehoshua 11:19-20: The historical precedent for offering peace to the Canaanites.
  • Yehoshua 9:3-15: The Gibeonite deception and its consequences.
  • Devarim 23:7-8: The exclusion of Ammon and Moav from offers of peace.
  • Bamidbar 31:7: The siege of Midian.
  • Devarim 20:19-20: Prohibition of bal tashchit.
  • Devarim 23:13-15: Camp hygiene.
  • Melachim I 9:15-22: Solomon's use of tribute/bondservice.
  • Sanhedrin 20a: The primary Talmudic discussion underlying these halakhot.

Text Snapshot

The Rambam opens Kings and Wars 6 with a striking universal principle:

"War, neither a milchemet hareshut or a milchemet mitzvah, should not be waged against anyone until they are offered the opportunity of peace as Deuteronomy 20:10 states: 'When you approach a city to wage war against it, you should propose a peaceful settlement.'" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:1)

This establishes the baseline. The dikduk here is subtle: the lo nilchamim applies to milchemet hareshut and milchemet mitzvah, indicating the breadth of this mitzvah. The conditions for accepting peace are then laid out with precision:

"If the enemy accepts the offer of peace and commits itself to the fulfillment of the seven mitzvot that were commanded to Noah's descendents, none of them should be killed. Rather, they should be subjugated as ibid.:11 states: 'They shall be your subjects and serve you.' If they agree to tribute, but do not accept subjugation or if they accept subjugation, but do not agree to tribute, their offer should not be heeded. They must accept both." (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:2-3)

The requirement for accepting the Seven Noahide Laws (שבע מצוות שנתצוו בני נח עליהן) is paramount. Steinsaltz notes this refers to the laws obligatory upon gentiles, detailed further in Chapter 8. (Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:1:2) The Rambam is emphatic: both subjugation (kabbalat ol) and tribute (mas) are non-negotiable. Steinsaltz clarifies that ein shom'in lahen (אין שומעין להן) means "we fight them" (ונלחמים אתם) if they refuse either. (Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:1:3)

The Rambam then elaborates on the nature of this subjugation and tribute:

"The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever." (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:4) "The tribute they must accept consists of being prepared to support the king's service with their money and with their persons; for example, the building of walls, strengthening the fortresses, building the king's palace, and the like..." (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:5)

The language "נבזים ושפלים למטה ולא ירימו ראש בישראל" (scorned and humble, never raise their heads against Israel) underscores a complete submission, not mere political alliance. Steinsaltz clarifies this means they must be subservient to Israel and lower in status. (Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:1:4) The tribute is not just monetary but also corporeal, a readiness for forced labor. Steinsaltz explains the king can use them and their money as he wishes. (Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:1:5)

A critical distinction arises for the Seven Nations and Amalek:

"The above applies to a milchemet hareshut fought with other nations. However, if either the seven nations or Amalek refuse to accept a peaceful settlement, not one soul of them may be left alive as ibid. 20:15-16 states: 'Do this to all the cities that ... are not the cities of these nations. However, from the cities of these nations,... do not leave a soul alive.' Similarly, in regard to Amalek, Deuteronomy 25:19 states: 'Obliterate the memory of Amalek.'" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:7)

The Rambam then explicitly states how we know an offer was made to the Seven Nations, citing Yehoshua 11:19-20 and the three letters Joshua sent. This resolves a significant tension between the command to offer peace and the command to utterly destroy (לא תחיה כל נשמה).

Readings

Ramban on Devarim 20:10 – The Nuance of "Peace" for Canaanites

Rambam's assertion that kriat shalom applies even to the Seven Nations of Canaan, as evidenced by Joshua's actions, presents a fascinating point of contention among Rishonim. The Ramban, in his commentary on Devarim 20:10, offers a nuanced, and in some respects, contrasting perspective to the Rambam.

The Ramban begins by acknowledging the derasha in Sifrei (Devarim 199) that the mitzvah of offering peace applies to all nations. However, for the Seven Nations specifically, the Ramban argues that the "peace" offered was not one of continued habitation within Eretz Yisrael under subjugation, but rather an offer for them to flee the land. He states, "ודרשו בספרי כי שלום זה לכל אומות העולם, ואפילו לשבע אומות אם ירצו לצאת מן הארץ" (Sifrei derived that this peace applies to all nations, and even to the Seven Nations if they wish to leave the land). (Ramban on Devarim 20:10, s.v. כי תקרב אל עיר)

This reading profoundly impacts the understanding of Rambam's psak. While Rambam asserts that if the Seven Nations accept peace, which entails accepting the Noahide Laws and subjugation, they are spared, the Ramban suggests that for them, "peace" within the land was not an option at all. The mitzvah of "לא תחיה כל נשמה" (Devarim 20:16) was absolute regarding their presence in Eretz Yisrael. If they accepted "peace" by fleeing, they would live, but not in situ. If they refused to flee, then destruction was mandatory.

The Ramban further bolsters his position by referencing the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 64b, which discusses the Chivites (Gibeonites). The Gemara states that when the Chivites heard that the Israelites were destroying all Canaanites, they feared for their lives and concocted their ruse. This, Ramban suggests, implies that they understood there was no offer of peace for them to remain in the land. Had there been such an offer, why the elaborate deception? The kushya of the Gibeonites is precisely because they knew the law of "לא תחיה כל נשמה" applied to them in the land.

Thus, while both Rambam and Ramban agree that Joshua made an "offer," their interpretation of the content of that offer for the Seven Nations differs significantly. Rambam views it as an offer of subjugation and Noahide Laws within the land, leading to their survival as subjects. Ramban views it as an offer to leave the land, and only then would they be spared. This is a critical chiddush of the Ramban, emphasizing the territorial mitzvah of "כיבוש הארץ" (conquering the land) and the unique status of the Seven Nations within it.

Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:1 – Clarifying Rambam's Sources

The Kessef Mishneh (Rabbi Yosef Karo) on our Rambam is indispensable for understanding the Talmudic bedrock of these halakhot. He meticulously points to the primary sources that inform Rambam's rulings, particularly regarding the universal kriat shalom and its application to the Seven Nations.

Regarding the initial universal command to offer peace, the Kessef Mishneh cites the Gemara in Sanhedrin 20a: "אמר רבי יוחנן: אין כופין אותם עד שיקבלו עליהם שבע מצוות בני נח" (Rabbi Yochanan said: We do not coerce them until they accept upon themselves the Seven Noahide Laws). (Sanhedrin 20a) This directly supports Rambam's requirement for accepting the Seven Noahide Laws as a condition for peace. He also references Sifrei Devarim 199, which states, "כי תקרב אל עיר להלחם עליה - אין לך עיר שאתה צריך להלחם עליה עד שתקרא לה שלום" (When you approach a city to wage war against it - there is no city you need to wage war against until you call out peace to it). This Sifrei clearly establishes the universal nature of kriat shalom. (Kessef Mishneh on Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:1, s.v. מלחמת הרשות)

Crucially, the Kessef Mishneh addresses the apparent contradiction between offering peace to the Seven Nations and the command "לא תחיה כל נשמה." He explains that Rambam's position is squarely based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 20a, which states, "שלש איגרות שלח יהושע לארץ ישראל" (Joshua sent three letters to the land of Israel). These letters offered the Canaanites three options: to flee, to make peace, or to wage war. (Sanhedrin 20a) This Gemara is the direct source for Rambam's narrative of Joshua's three letters.

The Kessef Mishneh further clarifies that the "peace" offered to the Seven Nations, as understood by Rambam, was indeed conditional upon their acceptance of the Noahide Laws and subjugation, allowing them to remain in Eretz Yisrael as subjects. He highlights that the Gemara implies that if the Gibeonites had not used deception but had genuinely sought peace on these terms, they would have been accepted. The issue for the princes was not the concept of peace but the forbidden covenant ("לא תכרות להם ברית" - Devarim 7:2), which implies an equal treaty, not subjugation. This is a chiddush from the Kessef Mishneh, demonstrating that Rambam's view of kriat shalom for the Seven Nations is fully rooted in the Gemara, even if it appears to contradict a literal reading of "לא תחיה." The core distinction lies in the nature of the "peace" agreement: not a brit (covenant of equality) but kabbalat ol (acceptance of subjugation).

Friction

The Grand Kushya: Kriat Shalom vs. "לא תחיה כל נשמה"

The most significant kushya arising from the Rambam's psak in Kings and Wars 6 is the apparent contradiction between the universal obligation of kriat shalom (offering peace), even to the Seven Nations, and the explicit biblical command concerning these nations: "However, from the cities of these nations,... do not leave a soul alive" (Devarim 20:16, "לא תחיה כל נשמה"). How can one offer peace if the ultimate command is total annihilation? This seems to be a fundamental clash between a mitzvah of mercy and a mitzvah of destruction.

The kushya is intensified by the language in Devarim 20:15-16, which distinguishes between "all the cities that... are not the cities of these nations" (where peace is offered) and "the cities of these nations" (where "do not leave a soul alive" applies). This juxtaposition suggests a categorical difference, not a conditional one. Moreover, the mitzvah concerning Amalek ("מחה תמחה את זכר עמלק" - Devarim 25:19) is understood as an unconditional command for destruction, seemingly precluding any offer of peace.

The Best Terutz: Rambam's Harmonization through Conditional Peace

Rambam, with his characteristic precision, resolves this kushya by harmonizing the seemingly disparate commands. His terutz rests on two pillars: the unique terms of peace offered to the Seven Nations (and by extension, Amalek), and the historical precedent set by Joshua.

1. Conditional Peace, Not Coexistence: For general nations, peace entails accepting the Seven Noahide Laws, subjugation, and tribute, allowing them to remain in their land as vassals. For the Seven Nations, the "peace" offered was of a different nature. As derived from Sanhedrin 20a and Rambam's interpretation of Joshua's three letters, the offer was either: a. Flee the land: "Whoever desires to flee, should flee." This is the Ramban's primary interpretation of the offer of peace for them – survival at the cost of abandoning Eretz Yisrael. b. Accept the Seven Noahide Laws and complete subjugation: "Whoever desires to accept a peaceful settlement, should make peace." This means not merely political subjugation, but a fundamental change in their religious and societal status, living under Jewish rule and adhering to Noahide principles. Crucially, if they refused these specific conditions – either to flee or to accept profound religious and political subservience – then the command "לא תחיה כל נשמה" would apply. The offer of peace was not an offer for them to continue their previous way of life or to remain as independent entities within Eretz Yisrael. It was an ultimatum: change or be destroyed.

2. Joshua's Precedent: Rambam cites Yehoshua 11:19-20 and Joshua's three letters as definitive proof that an offer was made. "There was no city which accepted a peaceful settlement with the children of Israel except the Chivites who lived in Gibeon. All the rest, they conquered in battle. This was inspired by God, Who strengthened their hearts to engage in battle against Israel so that they would be destroyed." The Gemara in Sanhedrin 20a details these letters: fleeing, making peace (on the stipulated terms), or war. The very fact that the Gibeonites resorted to a ruse, as Rambam explains, was because they initially did not accept the offer, and feared they wouldn't get a second chance. This demonstrates that an offer was on the table, even for the Canaanites. The "לא תחיה" comes into effect only after the refusal of this specific, restrictive offer of peace.

In essence, Rambam argues that the mitzvah of kriat shalom is universal, but its terms are fluid and depend on the identity of the target nation. For the Seven Nations and Amalek, the terms of "peace" are so stringent (complete transformation or expulsion) that their refusal is almost predetermined, thus leading to the fulfillment of "לא תחיה." This maintains the universality of the mitzvah of kriat shalom while upholding the unique and severe commands regarding the nations destined for destruction.

Intertext

Sanhedrin 20a – The Gemara's Foundation

The primary Talmudic source for Rambam's framework on kriat shalom and its application to the Seven Nations is a pivotal discussion in Sanhedrin 20a. The Gemara states:

"תניא: שלש איגרות שלח יהושע לארץ ישראל: 'מאן דבעי למפלט - ליפלט', 'מאן דבעי למשלם - לישלם', 'מאן דבעי למעבד קרבא - ליעבד קרבא'." (Sanhedrin 20a) (It was taught in a baraita: Joshua sent three letters to the Land of Israel: 'Whoever wishes to flee, let him flee'; 'Whoever wishes to make peace, let him make peace'; 'Whoever wishes to wage war, let him wage war'.)

This baraita is the direct source for Rambam's account of Joshua's pre-conquest offers to the Canaanites. It provides the halakhic and historical basis for extending kriat shalom even to the Seven Nations, albeit with specific, stringent conditions. The Gemara continues to explain that the Gibeonites, having initially refused the general offer, later came with their deception. This underscores that an offer was universally made, and the Gibeonites' ruse was a second-attempt to secure peace after their initial refusal. This aligns perfectly with Rambam's explanation for their actions.

Devarim Rabba, Parsha Shoftim 5:11 – Expanding on Joshua's Letters

Another significant parallel appears in Devarim Rabba, Parsha Shoftim 5:11, which elaborates on Joshua's proactive approach:

"וכיון שבא יהושע, שלח להם שלש איגרות... האחת כתב: מי שהוא רוצה לצאת - יצא. השניה כתב: מי שהוא רוצה לעשות שלום - יעשה. השלישית כתב: מי שהוא רוצה לעשות מלחמה - יעשה." (Devarim Rabba, Parsha Shoftim 5:11) (And when Joshua came, he sent them three letters... The first he wrote: 'Whoever wishes to leave, let him leave.' The second he wrote: 'Whoever wishes to make peace, let him make peace.' The third he wrote: 'Whoever wishes to wage war, let him wage war.')

This Midrashic source reinforces the Talmudic account, providing further support for the notion that kriat shalom was not merely a theoretical concept but a practical policy implemented by Joshua. It confirms the three options, solidifying the idea that even the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael were given an opportunity to avoid destruction. The Midrash further suggests that only the Gibeonites accepted (albeit deceptively), highlighting the general refusal of the other nations, which then justified their subsequent conquest and destruction. Both the Gemara and Midrash are crucial for understanding Rambam's unique reconciliation of the universal peace offer with the specific commands of destruction.

Psak/Practice

The principles laid out in this chapter of Rambam, though framed in the context of ancient warfare and monarchical rule, carry significant weight in meta-psak heuristics and in deriving enduring ethical guidelines.

1. Universal Kriat Shalom: The fundamental halakha that war should not be waged without first offering peace is a profound ethical statement. While the specific milchamot of conquering Eretz Yisrael or fighting Amalek are not currently applicable in their full, literal sense, the principle of seeking peaceful resolution before conflict remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought regarding inter-national relations. It serves as a limmud that even in a milchemet mitzvah, an initial overture of peace is preferable. This influences diplomatic approaches and the emphasis on negotiation.
2. Conditional Peace and Noahide Laws: The requirement for accepting the Seven Noahide Laws as a condition for peace with goyim who wish to reside under Jewish rule is a foundational aspect of halakhic interaction with non-Jews. It delineates the minimal ethical framework required for coexistence and informs the concept of a ger toshav (resident alien). This principle underscores the Jewish conviction that there is a universal moral code incumbent upon all humanity.
3. Bal Tashchit (Wanton Destruction): The prohibition of bal tashchit (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:10), even in wartime, is a timeless ethical imperative. The Rambam details the specific halakha of not cutting down fruit trees and extends the principle to all forms of wanton destruction (breaking utensils, tearing garments, etc.). The distinction between malkot for fruit trees and makat mardut (rabbinic lashes for rebellious conduct) for other forms of bal tashchit (Steinsaltz on Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:10:2, citing Minchat Chinuch Mitzvah 529 and Aruch HaShulchan Orech Chaim 75:15) is a practical nafka mina. This halakha deeply influences Jewish environmental ethics and resource management, promoting a responsible relationship with creation, even when under duress.
4. Camp Purity and Ethics: The detailed laws regarding army camp hygiene (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:14-15) and conduct on Shabbat (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:11) speak to the overarching demand for holiness and ethical behavior even in war. It teaches that warfare, however necessary, does not suspend the soldier's moral obligations or the sanctity of the Jewish presence. This translates into meta-halakhic principles about maintaining moral standards in all walks of life, especially in contexts of power and potential violence.

Takeaway

Rambam meticulously demonstrates that even in the gravest of conflicts, Jewish law prioritizes kriat shalom, weaving a complex tapestry where universal ethical principles of peace and preservation are balanced with specific, sometimes harsh, divine commands, all rooted in meticulous Talmudic and Scriptural interpretation. The sugya underscores that even war has its halakhic and ethical bounds, reflecting a profound commitment to human dignity and environmental responsibility.