Bar-Ilan University
Parshat Hashavua Study Center
Parshat Hukat 5774/June 28, 2014
This series of faculty lectures on the weekly Parsha is made possible by the Department of Basic Jewish
Studies, the Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, the Office of the Campus Rabbi,
Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity and the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan
University. For inquiries, please contact Avi Woolf at: opdycke1861@yahoo.com.
1021
"Let me pass through your country"
By Alexander Klein*
This week's reading tells us that Moses requested Sihon king of the Amorites to permit the
Israelites to pass through his country and promised that they would cause no damage. Sihon
responded not only by refusing Moses' request but even by going to war against Israel, a war
in which Sihon was defeated, his people totally wiped out, and the tribe of Reuben settled in
his territory.
Now in Deuteronomy we are told that the Amorites must be wiped out: "You shall not let a
soul remain alive.
No, you must proscribe them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the
Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—as the Lord your G-d has
commanded you" (Deut. 20:16-17). The question arises: how could Moses have given in
when it came to destroying Sihon and his people? The Amorites, after all, were one of the
seven nations which, according to the quote above, must be wiped out. This is also implied
*
Dr. Alexander Klein lectures in statistics in the Department of Mathematics and the High School for
Technology, Jerusalem.
1
by the remarks in Sifre on making overtures of peace: "When you approach a town [to
attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace]—Scripture speaks here of optional wars."1 In
other words, the option of offering terms of peace prior to going to war against a town
applied only to more distant peoples. This halakhic approach is in line with the plain sense
of the text in the story of the Gibeonites:2 the inhabitants of Gibeon deceived the Israelites,
presenting themselves as people who had come from a distant land, since if the Israelites
knew they were among the peoples inhabiting the land of Israel then they would have to
wipe them out in accordance with the command, "You shall not let a soul remain alive."
However, from this week's reading and elsewhere in Scripture, it appears that leave was
given to let the seven peoples survive, too; for it says in the book of Joshua (11:19), "Apart
from the Hivites who dwelt in Gibeon, not a single city made terms with the Israelites." It
follows from this verse that if the seven nations were prepared to come to terms with the
Israelites, the Israelites would have been permitted to let them live. This is what the Sages
had to say on the matter:3
Rabbi Samuel said: Three proclamations were sent by Joshua to the land of
Israel prior to their entering the land. Whoever wished to leave, should
leave; whoever wished to come to terms, should come to terms; and
whoever wished to make war, let him go to battle. The Girgasites left and
went to Africa, and the Holy One, blessed to He, gave them credence…the
Gibeonites came to terms…and thirty-one kings went to war and fell.
Accordingly, the story of the Gibeonites raises a grave question regarding the attitude of the
Sages: why did the inhabitants of Gibeon have to practice deceit and present themselves as
coming from a distant land? Even if they had presented themselves as inhabitants of the
land who wished to conclude a peace treaty with the Israelites, they would have been
accepted.
1
Sifre Deuteronomy 20:10, par. 199.
2
See Josh. 9:3-27.
3
Jerusalem Talmud, Shevi`it 6.1.
2
The early rabbinic authorities (rishonim) were divided on this matter, as follows:
Maimonides4 held that it was permissible to allow the inhabitants of the land to remain alive
and even considered an offer of peace obligatory. Aware of the difficulties raised above, he
reasoned as follows:5
Since the Gibeonites had not accepted Joshua's first overtures toward peace, they
mistakenly thought that they had missed the moment and had no chance of coming to terms
with Israel and consequently feared the Israelites would kill them. Therefore they turned to
deceit and presented themselves as coming from afar. Maimonides' explanation of the
people's complaints and the chieftains' response is that the chieftains made a treaty with
them even though they should have enslaved them and made them pay tribute.
There are two difficulties in Maimonides' approach:
 He does not distinguish between distant nations and the seven nations [living in the
land of Israel]. In both cases the terms of peace include acceptance of the seven
Noachian laws, bondage and tribute. Therefore it is perplexing that Joshua did not
see to imposing these obligations on the Gibeonites.
 How is one to understand the complaint lodged by the people against the chieftains,
that the Gibeonites were local residents? According to Maimonides' approach no
distinction had to be made between the peoples who were inhabitants of the land
and peoples who were not.
According to the Tosafists, letting the seven nations survive is not allowed, even if they
accept the seven Noachian laws, pay tribute, and are enslaved.6 However, the obligation to
wipe out these peoples became valid only after crossing the Jordan River, and the
Gibeonites' request was made after the Israelites had entered the land. This follows also
from the remarks of Ibn Daud: "Joshua did not send them an offer of terms until after they
had crossed the Jordan River, but after they had crossed, [these peoples] are not to be
accepted."7
4
Hilkhot Melakhim 6.1.
5
Ibid., 6.6.
6
Sotah 35b, s.v. "le-rabot"; Gittin 46a, s.v. "keivan."
7
Hilkhot Melakhim 6.6.
3
Nahmanides8 distinguishes three levels:
 The seven nations: entering a treaty with them is conditional upon their abandoning
idolatry, paying tribute, and being enslaved.
 Distant nations, e.g., nations that are geographically beyond the borders of the land
of Israel, although the Israelites might consider conquering them at some point:
tribute and enslavement are required, but not abandoning idolatry.
 Distant nations that the Israelites have no intention of conquering: there are no
preconditions to making peace with them.
According to Nahmanides, the episode with the Gibeonites should be understood as follows:
they practiced deceit against the Israelites when they maintained that they were inhabitants
of a distant land, and thereby were accorded the status of a distant nation with whom a
treaty might be made with no preconditions.
Even though there may be no overriding obligation to destroy the seven nations,
Nahmanides points out the following difficulty: even if by the laws of the Torah one may
make overtures of peace to the seven nations, as well, if they submit they are to be required
to observe the seven Noahide laws, according to Maimonides, or to abjure idolatry,
according to Nahmanides, and be enslaved. Yet it follows from the plain sense of the text
that no such demand was made regarding Sihon and his people: Moses intended to pass
through his land on the way to the land of Israel, and nothing more.
Nahmanides resolves this difficulty as follows:9 Moses made an ad hoc decision not to make
any demands of the peoples living in Transjordan for the time being, especially since the
main effort was focused on first conquering the peoples living with the borders of the land
of Israel.
In the final analysis, Sihon refused to cooperate. Moses' strategy was not carried out, since
the Lord made Sihon king of the Amorites defiant, thus spoiling Moses' plan so that in the
end the land of the Amorites was conquered and given as an inheritance to the tribe of
Reuben. According to Maimonides, this is one of the punishments given sinners; namely,
not affording them the opportunity of repentance:
A person may commit a great sin or many sins causing the judgment
rendered before the True Judge to be that the retribution [administered to]
8
Nahmanides, Deut. 20:10.
9
Nahmanides, Num. 21:21.
4
this transgressor for these sins which he willfully and consciously committed
is that his repentance will be held back. He will not be allowed the chance
to repent from his wickedness so that he will die and be wiped out because
of the sin he committed…Similarly, Sihon was held liable for repentance to
be withheld from him, because of the sins he committed, as [Deut. 2:30]
states: "because the Lord had stiffened his will and hardened his heart." In
conclusion, the Almighty did not decree that…Sihon should sin in his
land…They all sinned on their own initiative and they were obligated to have
repentance held back from them.10
Maimonides does not specify Sihon's sins since they are not mentioned in Scripture. Be that
as it may, an interesting conclusion follows from this discussion: according to Maimonides,
Sihon and his people were wiped out because of Sihon's earlier sins, whatever these may
have been, and the result was that Transjordan became available to be colonized by the
Reubenites. Had Sihon not sinned of his own free will, the Holy One, blessed be He, would
not have prevented him from surrendering and thus he and his people might have survived.
This would undoubtedly have changed the fate of Transjordan in subsequent Israelite
history.
Translated by Rachel Rowen
10
Hilkhot Teshuvah 6.3. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/911905/jewish/Teshuvah-
Chapter-Six.htm
5