Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6

Hook

The initial offering of peace before war seems straightforward, but Maimonides immediately complicates it. What does "peace" truly mean when the terms are set by one side?

Context

Maimonides (Rambam) meticulously codified Jewish law in his 12th-century Mishneh Torah, bringing order to the vast Talmudic discussions. His treatment of warfare, often a sensitive topic, reflects both biblical mandates and a pragmatic legal approach to national existence.

Text Snapshot

"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.' 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.'" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:1, https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Kings_and_Wars_6)

Close Reading

Insight 1: Conditional Structure of "Peace"

Rambam's definition of peace is highly conditional. It's not a negotiation between equals but an ultimatum: accept the Seven Noahide Laws, subjugation, and tribute, or face war. This structure reveals "peace" less as mutual agreement and more as a prescribed outcome to avoid bloodshed.

Insight 2: "Subjugation" as a Key Term

The text defines subjugation starkly: "being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel." (MT 6:4). As Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz notes on this passage, this means "subservient to Israel and lower than them in status." This isn't just about paying taxes; it's about a complete societal demotion, underscoring the hierarchical nature of this "peace."

Insight 3: Tension Between Offer and Terms

There's a palpable tension between the command to offer peace and the harshness of its terms. The initial "opportunity of peace" sounds benevolent, yet the subsequent requirements of subservience and tribute redefine "peace" as a state of controlled existence under foreign rule, rather than true coexistence.

Two Angles

Rambam's detailed halakhic framework for peace emphasizes its pragmatic function: preventing war while establishing Israel's dominion and ensuring adherence to basic ethical laws (Noahide laws). This reading prioritizes the legal outcome of security and control. However, one could also view the initial command to offer peace as a profound ethical imperative, highlighting a desire to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and offering a path to life, even if on Israel's terms. This latter angle sees the "peace offer" as a testament to the value of human life, even for enemies, rather than solely a strategic maneuver.

Practice Implication

This passage challenges simplistic notions of "peace." It suggests that genuine peace, even in a daily context, often requires a clear understanding of boundaries, responsibilities, and sometimes, uncomfortable concessions from all parties, rather than just a vague desire for harmony.

Chevruta Mini

1. Is a "peace" that demands subjugation truly peace, or just a more humane form of conquest? What are the tradeoffs?
2. How does the command to offer peace, despite its harsh terms, inform our approach to conflict resolution in personal or communal life today?

Takeaway

Rambam's "peace offer" is a highly conditional, pragmatic path to avoid war, demanding submission rather than mutual equality.