Kommentar zu Dewarim 20:23

כי תצא למלחמה WHEN THOU GOEST OUT TO WAR — Scripture places the going out to war in juxtaposition to this section here (to עין בעין וכו׳) in order to tell you that no person lacking a limb goes out to war (cf. Sifrei Devarim 190:17). Another explanation of why these two sections are put in juxtaposition to each other: it is to tell you that if you execute just judgment you may be confident that if you go to war you will be victorious. Similarly does David say, (Psalms 119:121) “I have done judgement and justice; Thou wilt not leave me to my oppressors” (Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 15).

WHEN THOU GOEST FORTH TO BATTLE AGAINST THINE ENEMIES, AND SEEST HORSES, AND CHARIOTS etc. This is a new commandment which he now declared to them as they came into battles. The purport of the verse, For the Eternal your G-d is He that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you²⁹³Verse 4. is to admonish them against becoming faint-hearted and that they should not fear their enemies. He states that they are not to rely in this matter on their own strength, thinking in their hearts. We are mighty men, and valiant men for the war,²⁹⁴Jeremiah 48:14. but instead they are to turn their hearts only to G-d and rely on His help, thinking that He delighteth not in the strength of the horse, and He taketh no pleasure in the legs of a man,²⁹⁵Psalms 147:10. for The Eternal taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that wait for His mercy.²⁹⁶Ibid., Verse 11. He states to fight for you against your enemies²⁹³Verse 4. meaning that He will make them fall before you by the sword. He states to save you²⁹³Verse 4. meaning that they will be spared in battle and that not a man among them will be missing,²⁹⁷See Numbers 31:49. for it would be possible that they vanquish their enemies and that many of them, too, would die, as is the way of battles. Therefore Joshua cried out²⁹⁸Joshua 7:7. when about thirty and six men²⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 5. fell in [the battle of] Ai, for in His commandatory war not one hair of their heads should have fallen to the ground,³⁰⁰I Samuel 14:45. for the battle is the Eternal’s.³⁰¹Ibid., 17:47. Now the priest who serves G-d is to admonish [the warriors] to fear Him, and give them assurance [of His help]. The officers, however, speak in the customary way of the world, lest he die in the battle,³⁰²Verse 5. for in the normal course of events even some people of the group of the victors die. He commanded that these three categories [of people] return³⁰³Verses 5-7. because one’s heart is on his [new] house, vineyard, and wife and he will [be the first to] flee.

כי תצא למלחמה, outside the boundaries of the land of Israel. When a war is fought inside the boundaries of the Land of Israel, i.e. a defensive war, no one is allowed to be exempt from army service; even a bridegroom fresh from the wedding canopy is called up. (Sotah 44)

כי תצא למלחמה, When you go out into battle, etc." Perhaps the verse alludes to the battle man fights against his evil urge. It intends to remove fear and timidity from your heart. The Torah writes la-milchamah instead of le-milchamah, vocalising it thus to indicate that it refers to the well-known battle, the most crucial one, the fiercest one. In this battle man suffers from two elements both of which are apt to undermine him and to weaken his power to resist the attacker. 1) Man has never been trained to fight this particular adversary as he has been trained to fight external enemies. 2) the very composition of man is such that the enemy is constantly part of him urging him to steal, to lie, to murder, to eat whatever he desires, etc. These factors make it difficult for a human being to listen to the voice of the Torah which is "only" an external voice. These difficulties are multiplied once man has sinned repeatedly and his deeds have created forces which aid the evil urge in his fight against him, as I have explained on numerous occasions.

כי תצא למלחמה, ”When you engage in an expansionary war, etc.” Nachmanides writes that Moses reveals something totally new to the people in this paragraph, because the Israelites were approaching the day when they would have to engage in warfare..

כי תצא למלחמה על אויבך, “when you go out to war against your enemies;“ this verse speaks of what is known as מלחמת מצוה, an obligatory war, usually a defensive war against invaders. The paragraph follows one which demands from us not to display pity, detailing “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, or leg for leg.” The message of the Torah writing this sequence is that people who are minus a leg or eye, etc., do not go to war (compare Rashi). [In this instance the definition of מלחמת רשות would apply only to expansionary wars such as the ones conducted by David. Campaigns designed to forestall invasions threatened by enemies, even if waged outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael would come under the heading of מלחמת מצוה. The difference is who has to be mobilised. (Compare Malbim on our verse). Ed.] Another message implied by the sequence of what is written here is: “if you will practice righteousness and justice, then, if you have to go to war you will certainly be victorious.”

Scripture positioned going to war, ... to teach, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have juxtapositioned over here the judiciary laws of parshas Ki Seitzei (below 21:22), “If a man is guilty of a capital offense, etc.,” and the other capital offenses mentioned there. He answers, “To teach, etc.”

Kap. 20. V. 1. Mit dem letzten Abschnitt über die Zeugeninstitution, dieser Basis aller Gesetzeshandhabung, sind die Gesetze über die innere Staatsverwaltung geschlossen. Ihnen folgen nunmehr Bestimmungen über die Staatsaktion gegen außen. Zuerst Verse 1 — 9 über die Militärpflicht und das Aufgebot im Kriegsfall, wie sich das Volk in Waffen für die Kriegsaktion zu konstituieren habe, sodann Verse 10 — 20 über das Verfahren im Kriege selber.

כי ה' אלוקיך עמך, “for the Lord your G-d is with you.” The Torah refers to the Holy Ark, and the trumpets, both of which are instruments representing the presence of the Lord among the Jewish people which will give them courage when fighting a war.

על איבך AGAINST THINE ENEMIES — Let them be in thine eyes as enemies: have no pity upon them, for they will have no pity upon thee (Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 15).

לא תירא מהם כי ה' אלו-היך עמך, “do not be afraid of them for the Lord your G’d is with you.” It is important that the fear of G’d should be stronger than the fear of the enemy nation. The Torah elaborates on this fear of opposing nations in verse 3 when we read: ‘do not be afraid and do not panic.’ Anyone fearing creatures of flesh and blood is considered as having forgotten the Almighty. This is what the prophet Isaiah 51,12-13 had in mind when he said: “what ails you that you fear man who must die, mortals who fare like grass? You have forgotten the Lord your Maker, etc.” Solomon is also on record on this subject when he says in Proverbs 29,25: “a man’s fears become a trap for him, but he who trusts in the Lord will be safeguarded.”

Another interpretation. To teach that if you judge righteously, etc. According to the first interpretation you might ask that “eye for eye” mentioned here is referring to money and not the lacking of a body part. Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation, etc.” And according to the other interpretation on its own you might ask that it should have juxtapositioned this to the beginning of the parsha where it is written (above 16:18), “And they shall judge the people righteous justice, etc.”

This is why G'd tells you here that "when you go out to do battle and you see horses and riders more numerous than yourself etc." The word סוס, "horse," is a simile for the readiness of the evil urge to do battle and the word רכב is a simile for the fact that man is composed of a variety of materials, drawn to the profane as well as to the sacred, instead of a single element as is his attacker the evil urge. The words עם רב, "numerous people," are a hyperbole for the multitude of evil forces created by man's sins all of which are arraigned against him in this battle. The Torah reassures us לא תירא מהם, "you must not be afraid of them for the Lord your G'd is with you." The Torah agrees that if you were on your own, unassisted by G'd, you would be justified in being afraid of this battle; however, seeing that the Lord your G'd is on your side you need not fear; you may rest assured that G'd will save you provided you want to rehabilitate yourself morally and ethically.

כי תצא למלחמה על אויבך. Sota 44 b wird zwischen מלחמת מצוה und מלחמת רשות unterschieden und zwar wird unter מלחמת מצוה nur der durch ausdrückliches Gottesgebot befohlene Krieg zur Besitznahme des verheißenen Landes oder zur Abwehr eines geschehenen Angriffs (רמב׳׳ם מלכים ה׳ א׳ siehe ירושלמי z. St. und מראה פנים daselbst) verstanden. Alle anderen Kriege, und selbst diejenigen, die nicht zur Verteidigung gegen einen bereits geschehenen feindlichen Angriff geschehen, sondern למעוטי נכרים דלא ליתי עלייהו, einem feindlichen Angriffe durch Schwächung des Feindes vorbeugen wollen, werden als מלחמת רשות begriffen, zu welchem das Aufgebot nach Sanhedrin 2 a und 20 b nur durch Beschluss und Zustimmung des obersten Gerichtshofes von einundsiebzig geschehen konnte, ומוציא (המלך) למלחמת דשות ע׳׳פ ב׳׳ד של ע׳׳א אין מוציאין למלחמת רשות אלא על פי ב׳׳ד של ע׳׳א.

סוס ורכב [WHEN THOU GOEST TO WAR ... AND SEEST] HORSES AND CHARIOTS (lit., horse and chariot) — in Mine eyes they are all as only one horse (i.e. they do not count). Similarly it states, (Judges 6:16) “[Surely “I” will be with thee,] and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man”. And similarly it states, (Exodus 15:19) “For the horse (not the horses) of Pharaoh came [into the sea]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 16; cf. Sifrei Devarim 190:21).

Consider them enemies. Otherwise, why does Scripture write “against your enemy”? Obviously, if they go out to war they are not going out against friends!

The Torah continues with המעלך מארץ מצרים, "the G'd who has brought you out of Egypt." The miracle of what happened at the Exodus demonstrated to you that G'd has the power to free you from the spiritually negative forces, קליפות, which had held you captive prior to the Exodus and had prevented the sanctity within you from being freed. The memory of the Exodus must always serve as a sign for you that you can overcome the forces of evil in the war in which you are engaged. We find confirmation of this thought in Psalms 37,32: "The wicked watches for the righteous, seeking to put him to death." The Psalmist assures us in the verse following "G'd will not abandon him to his power; He will not let him be condemned in judgment." Our sages in Kidushin 30 explain that these verses refer to the assault on man by the evil urge and to the assistance G'd extends to man in that fight.

Die hier folgenden Bestimmungen (Verse 5 — 8) gelten nach Sota 44 b nur für מלחמת רשות. Es dürfte dies vielleicht bereits in den einleitenden Worten כי תצא למלחמה על איבך liegen. Es ist ein Angriffskrieg, kein Verteidigungskrieg zur Abwehr eines bereits geschehenen Einfalls. Der Feind wird außer Landes aufgesucht, im Gegensatz zu וכי תבאו מלחמה בארצכם על הצר הצרר אתכם (Bamidbar 10. 9; siehe daselbst). und dass nicht der Krieg zur Besitznahme des Landes gemeint sei, ergibt sich schon aus den Bestimmungen (Verse 5 —7), die Haus- und Ackerbesitz voraussetzen.

עם רב ממך [WHEN THOU GOEST OUT TO WAR … AND SEEST] PEOPLE MORE THAN THOU (or, as it may be translated: PEOPLE, NUMEROUS FROM THY POINT OF VIEW) — in thine eyes they may appear to be numerous but in Mine eyes they are not numerous (Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 16).

Do not pity them, etc. One may ask: This is already explicitly written below (v. 13) “And you shall smite all its males by the sword”! Furthermore, why is it written afterwards (v. 14) “However, the women and the children, etc.” yet here Scripture implies that they should not pity them at all! The answer is: Below Scripture is dealing with a war that does not involve direct combat, rather [it is dealing] with the conquest of a city. The proof is that it is written [there] (v. 13) “Adonoy, your God, will deliver it into your hand, and therefore it written “However, the women and the children etc.” But here we are dealing with a war that involves direct combat, so you are not to pity them at all.

וראית סום ורכב עם רב ממך וגו׳ du sollst nicht glauben, dass der Sieg durch die möglichst große Anzahl der Streiter bedingt sei und daher ein möglichst umfassendes Kontingent zum Kriege entbieten, Verse 5 — 7, entlassen ganz bestimmte Kategorien wehrfähiger Männer aus dem Heere.

It says, “When Pharaoh’s horse approached.” Why does Rashi not cite the verse (Shmos 14:23) “כל סוס פרעה (lit. every horse of Pharaoh’s)” which precedes it? The answer is that he does not cite this previous verse because it is written,כל סוס , “every horse,” and כל comes to cite something additional, so that it is as if it had written “each and every horse of Pharaoh.” Therefore he cites the verse “when Pharaoh’s horse approached” which cannot be explained in this manner. It seems to me that this [verse cited by Rashi] is a textual error; Sifrei cites the verse (ibid. 15:1), סוס ורוכבו רמה בים" (horse and its rider He threw into the sea).” (Nachalas Yaakov)

In your eyes they are numerous, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: It is written “horse and chariot” which implies that in the eyes of the Holy One Blessed Is He they are all like one horse, yet afterwards Scripture writes “עם רב (people more numerous than you)”! And he answers, “In your eyes, etc.”

כקרבכם אל המלחמה [IT SHALL BE] WHEN YE COME NIGH UNTO THE BATTLE, [THAT THE PRIEST … SHALL SPEAK] — i.e. when ye are on the point of leaving the ספר — the boundary of your land (Sifrei Devarim 191).

ונגש הכהן, “the priest shall approach;” this is the משוח מלחמה, the priest anointed for this task in war. ודבר אל העם, “and he shall address the people,” in Hebrew (Sotah 42).

Near your departure, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: Scripture should have written, “And as you go out to battle”! Therefore he explains, “Near, etc.” You might ask, how does Rashi know it means near the border? Perhaps it means actually drawing near to the battle? The answer is since it is written in the next verse, “Hear, Yisroel, [you are setting out today to battle], etc.,” this indicates that [the Torah] already mentions it [drawing near to battle]. [If so], why does the verse say “as you near etc”? This must mean that when they are near the border the kohein makes these conditions. See Sotah (42a).

V. 2. והיה כקרבכם וגו׳. Nach Sota 42 a u. b geschehen die hier folgenden Anreden in zwei verschiedenen Zeiten, die Verse 5 - 8 ergehenden Aufforderungen zur Rückkehr bei Überschreiten der Landesgrenze, die Ermunterung zu furchtlosem Mute (Verse 3 und 4) vor Beginn des Kampfes. פעמים מדבר עמם אחת בסְפַר ואחת במלחמה בספר מה הוא אומר שמעו דברי מערכי המלחמה וחזרו במלחמה מה הוא אומר אל ידך לבבכם. Demgemäss hätte die Anrede Verse 3 und 4 nach den Aufforderungen Verse 5 - 8 stattgefunden, und stände sie dann nur als unmittelbare Konsequenz des vorhergehenden לא תירא מהם voran. Wenn die jüdische Staatsleitung glaubte, zum Kriege schreiten zu müssen, sollte sie von vornherein in den Beistand Gottes, dessen sie sich bei dem ernsten Schritte bewusst sein durfte, und nicht in die Zahlengröße der Heeresmacht den Schwerpunkt legen und dieselbe Gesinnung auch im Momente der Schlacht durch die Diener des göttlichen Gesetzes als den einzigen Geist, der zum Siege führt, in der Brust ihrer Streiter wecken lassen. רמב׳׳ם hat eine andere Auffassung (siehe הל׳ מלכים 2 , 7 ל׳׳מ daselbst).

והיה כקרבכם אל המלחמה, “and it will be when you will be close to the battle, etc.” once the soldiers have approached the borders of the enemy, before actually engaging him in battle, Moses informs them of all the conditions which must be observed during active warfare. They are, of course, reserved for the men actually engaged in the fighting. This is clear from the wording in verse three, where only those men are being addressed. Seeing that the Torah speaks not of a defensive war, but of a war designed to enlarge the borders of Israel, with the approval of G-d of course.

ונגש הכהן AND “THE” PRIEST SHALL STEP NIGH [AND SPEAK] “the” priest means, he who has been anointed for that purpose; it is the one who is termed in the Talmud משוח מלחמה, “the priest anointed for war” (Sotah 42a).

He was entitled “The one annointed for warfare.” Because it is written afterwards, “ודברו השוטרים (the officers will address, etc.)” כהן is juxtaposed to שוטרים, to teach that just as the officers have someone appointed over them, namely judges, so too, the kohein has someone appointed over him, namely the high priest, because the high priest is more important than him.

ונגש הכהן. Es wurde zu dieser Funktion ein Priester ausdrücklich ernannt und durch משיחה geweiht, er führt den Namen משוח מלחמה. Nach Horioth 12 b nimmt dieser Priester im Volksleben eine ganz hohepriesterliche Stellung ein. Die חמשה דברים, welche Wajikra 21, 10 — 14 den כהן גדול im Volke kennzeichnen: לא פורע ולא פורם ואין מטמא לקרובים ומוזהר על הבתולה ואסור באלמנה (siehe daselbst), sind auch für ihn verpflichtend. Welche Stellung er im מקדש einnimmt, ist nach Joma 73 a nicht ganz entschieden. רמב׳׳ם rezipiert die Ansicht als Halacha, dass er im Heiligtum nur als כהן הדיוט in den vier Dienstgewändern des כהן הדיוט fungiert, משמש בארבעה בגדים. Dagegen scheint er (daselbst) im Kriege als משוח מלחמה mit den acht hohenpriesterlichen Gewändern bekleidet gewesen zu sein. בגדים שהכהן הגדול משמש בהן משוח מלחמה נשאל בהן (siehe Raschi daselbst).

ונגש הכהן ודבר אל העם, “the priest shall approach and address the people. The soldiers are being addressed separately by the priest, representing the spiritual voice of the people, and the mundane authorities, officers, charged with ensuring success in battle, According to the Talmud, what is written from the words: ונגש in verse three, until verse five, when the secular authorities the commander continues. [There are different opinions about these sequences. Seeing that we cannot prove which is correct, it does not pay to go into further details. Ed.]

ודבר אל העם AND HE SHALL SPEAK UNTO THE PEOPLE — in the Holy Language (Sotah 42a).

In the sacred Hebrew tongue. Because it is written here, “And speak to the people,” and elsewhere in parshas Vayishma Yisro (Shmos 19:19) it is written, “Moshe spoke and Hashem responded with [His] voice.” Just as there it was in the sacred Hebrew tongue, i.e., the Ten Commandments, so too, “and speak to the people” is in the sacred Hebrew tongue (Sotah ibid). Alternatively, it is written regarding Yosef (Bereishis 45:12), “That I speak to you with my own mouth.” Just as there it was in the sacred Hebrew tongue, so here too it is in the sacred Hebrew tongue.

Es ist daher ein Diener des jüdischen Gesetzesheiligtums, und zwar in der Repräsentanz des höchsten sittlichen Nationalideals, der die Nation im Kriege zu begleiten und die Worte der Siegesgewissheit zu sprechen hatte. Nicht in der Kriegestüchtigkeit und der Schlachtenkunde, in demselben Gesetze wohnt die Zuversicht des Krieges, dem die Künste des Friedens gelten, dem die inneren sittlichen Kämpfe des Einzeln- und Gesamtlebens die Siege des Friedens erstreiten, und dessen Herrschaft und ungestörter Entfaltung den Boden der Verwirklichung zu sichern Zweck und Palme des Krieges bildet. Als Volk des Gottesgesetzes zieht die Nation in den Streit, und ein, in den Farben und den Gewändern der sittlichen Vollkommenheiten gekleideter Diener des göttlichen Gesetzesheiligtums, der auch in den Lebenskreisen des Friedens mit den das Sittenideal des Einzel- und Familienlebens vergegenwärtigenden טומאה- und איסורי כהונהVerpflichtungen hohenpriesterlich voranleuchtet, spricht die Worte des Krieges.

(והנה הרמב׳׳ם השמיט הלכה זו דמשוח מלחמה אינו מטמא לקרובים ואינו פורע ואינו פורם ולא הביאה לא בהל׳ כלי מקדש ולא בהל׳ אבל ולא הביא אלא שהוא מוזהר על הבתולה ואסור באלמנה ככ׳׳ג בהל׳ איסורי ביאה פ׳ י׳׳ז א. וכבר תמה על זה משנה למלך פ׳׳ה מהל׳ כלי מקדש הל׳ ה׳ והניחו בצ׳׳ע.

והנה מנזיר מו ב׳ משמע קצת דאין במשוח מלחמה מעלה דאינו מטמא לקרובים ככ׳׳ג. דאיבעיא להו התם משוח מלחמה וסגן הי מינייהו עדיף משוח מלחמה עדיף דחזי למלחמה או דלמא סגן עדיף דחזי לעבודה [ע׳׳ש תוספ׳] ופשיט ת׳׳ש דתניא אין בין משוח מלחמה לסגן אלא שאם היו מהלכין בדרך ומצאו מת מצוה יטמא משוח מלחמה ואל יטמא הסגן ע׳׳כ ואם משוח מלחמה אין מטמא לקרובים ככה׳׳ג תמוה׳ ההלכה שיטמא משוח שהוא בענין טומאת מת ככה׳׳ג ואל יטמא ללל הסגן שאינו אלא ככהן הדיוט לענין טומאה, ויותר תמוה הצעת האיבעיא דשבקא מעלת טומאה שהיא מאותו ענין דאיירי ביה ומביאה מעלת מלחמה, והכי הוי ליה למימר משות מלחמה עדיף דאינו מטמא לקרובים או דלמא וגו׳ וגם היה לו להש׳׳ס שם להורות דין כהג׳ או לפחות דין משוח שעבר ומשוח מלחמה הי מינייהו עדיף לענין מת מצוה [ובמסכת שמחות ד׳ לב׳ איתא] מסוגיא זו היה נלע׳׳ד קצת ראיה להרמב׳׳ם מ׳׳מ אין בכל זה כדאי לדחות ש׳׳ם מפורש בהוריות י׳׳ב ב׳ וביומא עג׳׳א בלי חולק וצ׳׳ע ופלא הוא שגם נזיר מ׳׳ז ב׳ ד׳׳ה ת׳׳ש השמיטו תוספו׳ הא דאין מטמא לקרובים מחמשה דברים ששוה משוח מלחמה . לכה׳׳ג ע׳׳ש וצ׳׳ע)

שמע ישראל [AND HE SHALL SAY UNTO THEM] HEAR O ISRAEL — Even though you have no other merit than the fulfilment of the command of “Reading the Shema” you would deserve that He should help you (Sotah 42a).

אל תיראו, “do not be afraid” in your heart;

שמע ישראל, אתם קרבים היום למלחמה, “Hear o Israel! Today you are approaching battle.” The priest implies that the intoning of the Keriyat Shema will be a major factor in securing victory as this paragraph deals with the Oneness, Uniqueness, and Unity of Hashem. אל תיראו, “do not be afraid,” in your heart. ואל תחפזו, “and do not panic.” This is an expression describing an accelerated heartbeat due to fear. The word appears as meaning speed in Samuel I 23,26 נחפזת ללכת, “you were in too much of hurry to go.” ואל תערצו, “and do not become broken,” i.e. physically.

Other than the reading of the Shema, etc. Otherwise, why do I need [the verse to say] “Hear Yisroel etc”? Scripture [already] writes, “The kohein shall approach and speak to the people, etc.”

V. 3. ודבר אל העם ואמר אלהם .ואמר אליהם, der כהן משוח מלחמה spricht wörtlich בלשון הקדש die Worte des Textes (Sota 32 a u. 42 a), damit sind es eben nicht seine Gedanken und seine Versicherungen, sondern Gottes in seinem Gesetze niedergelegten und für alle Zeiten gegebenen Verheißungen. Ebenso wie die ברכת הכהנים wörtlich בלשון הקדש von den Priestern zu sprechen ist. Der משוח מלחמה spricht es aus und ein anderer כהן wiederholt und erläutert es dem Volke, כהן מדבר וכהן משמיע (daselbst 43 a). Daher wohl ודבר אל העם und .ואמר אליהם

אל תיראו, “do not be afraid;” these words address the heart.

על איבכם [YE APPROACH THIS DAY UNTO WAR] AGAINST YOUR ENEMIES — By these apparently redundant words the priest says, as it were: Remember that these are not your brethren, and if you will fall into their hands they will have no pity on you; — it is not like the war of Judah against Israel of which it states, (II Chronicles 28:15) “And the men which were expressed by name rose up, and took the captives, and with the spoil clothed all that were naked among them, and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them upon asses, and brought them to Jericho, the city of the palm trees, to their brethren: they returned to Samaria” — it is your enemies against whom you march, therefore show yourselves strong for the battle (Sifrei Devarim 192:2; Sotah 42a).

Do not let your heart falter - to do on them what's wrong, once they fell in your hands.

ואל תחפזו, “and do not panic;” causing you to flee.

They will be merciless towards you, etc. Otherwise, it is already written “When you go to war against your enemy.”

שמע ישראל, wie mit diesen Worten jeder Jude sich täglich früh und spät die Huldigung des einzig Einen mit allen ihren Konsequenzen in die Seele ruft, so ist es auch derselbe Gedanke und dieselbe Huldigung des einzig Einen, vor dem im Momente der Schlacht alle sonstige Größe und Macht jede Bedeutung verliert, und mit dem Bewusstsein, Seinem Willen zu dienen und Seines Beistands sicher zu sein, der schwächsten Menschenbrust Kraft und Mut, Ruhe und Stärke wächst (siehe Sota 42 a). Ebendaselbst werden diese vier Ermahnungen אל ידך לבבכם usw. zunächst darauf bezogen, dem Schreck und Betäubung bezweckenden Kriegeslärm und Getöse der Feinde keine Wirkung auf sich einzuräumen, durch ihre Sammlung in Gott vielmehr allem Ungestüm gegenüber Kühle und Ruhe zu bewahren. — אל תחפזו, während חפץ das besonnene Streben nach einem Ziele bedeutet, bezeichnet חפו immer ein besinnungsloses Eilen.

ואל תחפזו, “and do not be alarmed,” resulting in fleeing;.

אל ירך לבבכם אל תיראו ואל תחפזו ואל תערצו LET NOT YOUR HEARTS FAINT; FEAR NOT, AND HURRY NOT PRECIPITATELY, NEITHER BE TERRIFIED BECAUSE OF THEM — These are four admonitions corresponding to four things which the kings of the nations do in battle: they bring their shields close together in order to strike them one against the other and thereby make a loud noise so that their opponents should flee precipitately; they trample the ground heavily with their horses — and make them neigh — in order to make a noise through the beating of their horses’ hoofs; they themselves shout aloud and blow trumpets and other noisy instruments.

ואל תערצו, do not display your fear.

The Gentile monarchs do. They fasten their armor plates, etc. Meaning, they attach their [armor] plates one to another so as the plates strike against each other they emit a clamor.

”ואל תערצו, “and do not display fear, [even if you feel it. Ed.]

אל ירך לבבכם LET NOT YOUR HEARTS FAINT — through the neighing of the horses,

From the horses’ neighing (צהלת). Meaning, the neighing of the horses is called צהלת.

אל תיראו FEAR NOT from the noise made by the clashing of the shields,

ואל תחפזו AND HURRY NOT PRECIPITATELY at the sounds of the trumpets,

ואל תערצו NEITHER BE TERRIFIED by the noise of the shouting (Sifrei Devarim 192:3; Sotah 42).

כי ה׳ אלהיכם וגו׳ FOR THE LORD YOUR GOD [IS HE WHO GOETH WITH YOU] — They come to war relying on the conquering strength of human beings (lit., flesh and blood) but you come relying on the strength of the Omnipresent God! The Philistines once came to war relying on the strength of Goliath — what was his end? He fell and they fell with him (Sotah 42a).

כי ה' אלוקיכם ההולך עמכם, “for the Lord your G’d is the One going with you.” The details about who is subject to the draft are meant to remind us that in spite of our feeling physically superior to our enemies, success in war, as in other enterprises that are facing opposition, depends on G’d’s being on our side. If He is, we will win, if not, our numerical superiority or our superior weaponry will not secure us victory either.

להושיע אתכם, “to save you.” This promise refers to total salvation, i.e. that the Israelites would not suffer casualties in their war of conquest against the seven Canaanite nations. It will be just like the punitive campaign against Midian when not a single Israelite soldier was even hurt (Numbers 31,49). It is customary that even victorious armies sustain many casualtis in battle. A war fought as a divine commandment is one when the people carrying out the commandments will prove immune. This is why Joshua was so upset when in the first battle of Ai his army sustained 36 casualties (Joshua 7,5-7). Actually, according to a commentary in Sanhedrin 44, the “36” casualties were merely a single soldier named Yair ben Menashe, who was such an outstanding person that he was considered as equivalent to 36 members of the 71-member Sanhedrin.

This refers to the camp of the sacred ark. Because it is impossible to say that it refers to the Holy One Blessed Is He that He marches with you, since the whole world is full of His glory. Therefore he explains, “This refers to the camp, etc.”

להלחם לכם..להושיע אתכם, "to do battle for you with your enemies and to save you." The meaning of להלחם is to destroy your enemies, whereas the additional להושיע אתכם means to ensure that not one of you becomes a casualty of war. This last point is always the essence of the miracle by means of which we know that G'd fights on our side. This may be the reason that at the beginning of the verse the Torah mentions ה׳ אלוקיכם emphasising that both the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice are involved here. The attribute of Mercy expresses itself by saving the Israelites, the attribute of Justice by destroying its adversaries. Had it not been for the Torah wanting to emphasise this it only had to write כי אלוקיכם הולך.

ההלך עמכם [FOR THE LORD THY GOD] GOETH WITH THEE — this refers to the camp of the Holy Ark (the camp that has the Holy Ark in its midst, i.e. the camp of the Levites) (Sotah 42a).

להושיע אתכם, “to save you.” Moses adds these words even though he had already told the people that G’d would participate as a Warrior on their side. The reason is that even victory in war does not mean that the winning side does not sustain casualties, sometimes very heavy casualties. Moses assures the people that in justified wars G’d would ensure that they would not sustain such casualties. A priest, who is a servant of Hashem, warns the assembled soldiers to be G’d-fearing, and to be confident of His help. The שוטרים, the enforcers of the law, are concerned with the more mundane aspects of warfare, the fact that people worry about their lives when exposed to abnormal dangers. He concentrates on three major concerns of such young soldiers, the betrothed, the ones engaged in building a house, and the ones who just began to establish an economic base for themselves, by planting a vineyard, but not having tasted any of its fruit. These three groups of young men are sent home before the battle is joined.

ולא חנכו [WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT HATH BUILT A NEW HOUSE] AND HATH NOT DEDICATED IT — i.e. has not yet dwelt in it. The term חנך denotes beginning a thing (here, it means beginning to live in it; cf. Rashi on Genesis 14:14).

פן ימות במלחמה ואיש אחר יחנכנו, perhaps the man in question had been guilty of a sin on account of which he would be punished by death or one of the punishments mentioned in the Tochahach, the lengthy warnings of Moses in chapter 28. His death would undermine the morale of his brothers in arms.

מי האיש אשר בנה בית חדש ולא חנכו, “who is the man who has built a new house and has not yet consecrated it?” The expression חנך used here by the Torah for moving into one’s private home is the same as that used by the Torah for the consecration of the Altar in the Tabernacle, i.e. חנכת המזבח.
Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes: “seeing such a man’s heart and his craving is so dedicated to consecrating his new house he cannot concentrate on the battle as a soldier should. He may therefore become a liability by fleeing, and other comrades may follow his example, the result being demoralization of the army.”
In connection with the new vineyard the Torah speaks of it not having been חללו instead of חנכו. The word חללו is similar to חליל, flute; it was customary to dance to the accompaniment of flutes when the first harvest of a new vineyard was brought in.
Our sages in Pessikta Zutrata, quoted by Rashi, understand the word as חולין, “secular, profane i.e. after the grapes during the fourth year were holy, now in the fifth year they were available, freely, to the owner for the first time. In the previous year they could be eaten only after having been redeemed, etc.

This is a matter of great anguish. Otherwise, what difference does it make if he inaugurates it or if someone else does?

VV. 5 — 7. ודברו השטרים. Wie bereits zu V. 2 bemerkt, wurde diese Aufforderung בספר, vor Überschreiten der Landesgrenze gesprochen, und zwar sprach sie auch der משוח מלחמה und die Militärbeamten erläuterten sie dem Volke כהן מדבר ושוטר משמיע. Es charakterisiert sich damit die Aufforderung als eine ebenfalls aus der tiefinnersten Natur des Gesetzes fließende, dessen Heiligtum der Priester repräsentiert, sie ist aber zugleich eine solche, deren Ausführung mit unter den Befehl der Militärbeamten gestellt ist. Nach Jeruschalmi Sota VIII, 9 hatte sich nämlich ein jeder, der aus den Versen 5 —7 bezeichneten Motiven heimkehren wollte, über die betreffenden Verhältnisse auszuweisen. כולהן צריכין להביא ראייה לדבריהן.

אשר בנה, “who has built;” the Torah here teaches the correct order in which young men are to approach the subject of matrimony; first they have to make a commitment to the woman they have chosen; then they have to provide for their bride a place to live in; then they have to establish a sound economic base, such as planting a vineyard. Having done so, they may proceed to complete the wedding ceremonies. The reason why such people are excused from fighting in an expansionary war, is that their worries about if they will be able to complete their plans for the future will distract them from performing their military duties to the best of their abilities. They will worry that in spite of promises from G-d they may be or have been guilty of sins which will be used by G-d to withdraw His protection from them when they are facing danger.

ואיש אחר יחנכנו [LEST HE DIE IN THE WAR] AND ANOTHER MAN DEDICATE IT — which is a matter that causes grief of mind.

Diejenigen, die ein neues Haus hatten, das sie noch nicht bezogen, einen Weinberg gepflanzt, den sie noch nicht zum Gebrauch erlangt, eine Frau sich angetraut, die sie noch nicht heimgeführt hatten, rückten mit dem Heere aus bis an die Landesgrenze und gingen von dort wieder heim, hatten jedoch vom Hause aus die Kriegszwecke durch Lieferung an Nahrungsmitteln und sonstigen Leistungen zu unterstützen, מספקים מים ומזון ומתקנין את הדרכים. Diejenigen aber, welche ein neues Haus bezogen, einen neuen Weinberg in Gebrauch genommen, eine Frau heimgeführt hatten, waren nach Kap. 24, 5 (siehe daselbst) ein ganzes Jahr völlig frei, sie rückten nicht mit aus und hatten auch keine Kriegsleistungen zu tragen (Sota 43 a).

ילך וישוב לביתו פן ימות, “he would not be much use in battle if he is too preoccupied with his personal concerns.” As to the fainthearted soldiers, they are excused so that their low morale does not infect and undermine the confidence of their comrades in arms. Therefore they are best sent home.

Offenbar hebt hier das Gesetz im Momente des Krieges die Lebensaufgaben des Friedens in ihrer überwiegenden Bedeutsamkeit hervor, und indem es die Motive zur Rückkehr nicht also ausspricht, dass durch den Tod des Betreffenden das Haus unbewohnt, das Feld unbestellt, die Frau Witwe bleiben könne, sondern פן ימות במלחמה ואיש אחר יחנכנו יקחנה יקחנה, so legt es augenfällig den Wert darauf, dass diese Lebensaufgaben des Friedens von jedem zur Lösung kommen und daher für den, der im Begriffe war, diese Aufgaben seinerseits in einem bestimmten, ihm neuen Verhältnisse zu lösen, die Kriegspflicht zurückzustehen habe.

יחנכנו, “will dedicate it.” The letter ח in this word has the semi vowel sh’va under it.

חנכו (siehe Bereschit S. 212). Indem hier dieser Ausdruck von dem ersten Gebrauche eines gewöhnlichen Hauses vorkommt, wird der menschlichen Tätigkeit, welcher ein Haus zum Bereiche dient, die höhere Weihe einer sittlichen Bestimmung erteilt. — חללו (siehe Wajikra S. 417). Durch den Genuss der Früchte des vierten Jahres oder deren Geldeswertes an der Zentralstätte des Gesetzesheiligtums wird der Weinberg fortan dem חולין-Genusse überwiesen und erhält dieser "Profangenuss" das Gepräge einer von Gott gewordenen, sittlichen, gottheiligen Zwecken dienenden Gewährung. — ארש (siehe Schmot S. 286), es ist die Handlung der persönlichen Aneignung der Frau, קידושין, die aber noch nicht damit dem Hause des Mannes angehört. Dieser Übertritt in das Haus des Mannes wird durch den נישואין-Akt vollzogen, auf welchen sich hier das לקחה bezieht (siehe zu Kap. 34, 1).

ולא חללו [AND WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT HATH PLANTED A VINEYARD] AND HATH YET NOT EATEN OF IT — לא חללו means, has not yet redeemed it in the fourth year of its growth, for the fruits had either to be eaten in Jerusalem or to be given a non-holy character (חולין), by exchanging them for money and the money’s worth to be consumed in Jerusalem (The phrase therefore means no more than: who hath not eaten of it).

V’LO CHIL’LO’ — the fourth year [since the vineyard was planted] had not yet arrived. For the custom regarding a vineyard used to be that when the produce was ripe they would dance there and walk in it with chalilim (flutes). Now, Scripture commanded that all the fruits thereof [of the fourth year] shall be holy, for giving praise unto the Eternal,³⁰⁴Leviticus 19:24. that they should praise the Glorious Name³⁰⁵Further, 28:58. at that celebration. It is possible that the meaning of v’lo chil’lo is “that he has not made it chulin (secular),” this referring to the “redemption” [i.e., exchanging the fruits for money in case he cannot transport them to Jerusalem] which our Rabbis have mentioned,³⁰⁶Maaser Sheini 5:2. it being similar to the expressions: for Judah ‘chileil’ (hath profaned) the holiness of the Eternal³⁰⁷Malachi 2:11. [which means Israel has exchanged Him for other gods]; and he shall not ‘yechaleil’ (profane) his seed³⁰⁸Leviticus 21:15. — Here too, by not being able to bring the fruits to Jerusalem, he exchanges their holiness for the redemption money. [which also means that he shall not exchange his holy seed by taking a woman forbidden to him].

ולא חללו, “and he has not yet redeemed it.” Nachmanides writes that this means that the fourth year of that vineyard has not yet reached harvest time. The word חלל is derived here from מחולות, dancing. When the harvest of the fourth year is completed, the people owning the vineyard are happy and express their gratitude to G’d by dancing, although that year’s harvest is still קודש הלולים, “sanctified to laud” (Leviticus 19,24) It is not secular yet, that is why it has to be consumed in Jerusalem. It is also possible to interpret the word לא חללו, to mean that the owner had not yet redeemed that crop so that it was not yet חולין, secular produce.

ולא חללו, “and has not been able to enjoy the fruit of it.” The word describes dancing of a kind. It was customary at the end of the fourth year after planting a vineyard for the owner to give a party seeing that up to then the fruit of that vineyard was not at his free disposal. (Compare Judges 21,21, about the daughters of Shiloh.)

פן ימות במלחמה [LET HIM GO AND RETURN] LEST HE DIE IN THE WAR — The meaning is: let him return so that he not die, for if he will not hearken to the words of the priests he deserves death (Sifrei Devarim 194:5).

פן ימות במלחמה, “lest he die in battle.” The Torah refers to his premature death. This is clear proof that all the people who die in battle died before the time allocated as their life span at birth. We have still more direct proof of this in Samuel I 26,10: ”or his ‘day’ will come and he will die, or he will go down to battle and will die.”

For if he does not follow the instructions of the kohein etc. I.e., he certainly returns in order to protect those [who return because of their transgressions], etc. [Therefore] if the kohein told him to return and he does not return, he transgresses the words of the kohein and deserves to die in battle because of this sin, and this goes according to the opinion [of R’ Yosi Hagalili] that there is no death without sin. This answers why [in some texts] Rashi explains “lest he die in battle” at the end and not according to the order of the text that is written in the verses, because he is explaining according to [the view of] R’ Yosi Hagalili. (In the name of the Maharitz, and this is similar to Re”m’s explanation).

ויספו השטרים AND THE BAILIFFS [SHALL SPEAK] FURTHER [UNTO THE PEOPLE] — Why does it here state: they shall speak further unto the people? The meaning is that they added this to the words of the priest, for the priest spoke and proclaimed from שמע ישראל (v. 3) to להושיע אתכם (end of 5:4), whilst the paragraphs beginning with מי האיש (v. 5) and with the second מי האיש (v. 6) and with the third מי האיש (v. 7) the priest said quietly and the officers proclaimed. This paragraph, the officers spoke and proclaimed, so that Scripture rightly introduces this last part by the word ויספו השוטרים (Sotah 43a).

AND THE OFFICERS SHALL SPEAK FURTHER UNTO THE PEOPLE, AND THEY SHALL SAY: ‘WHAT MAN IS THERE THAT IS FEARFUL.’ According to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean [who says, the fearful is someone who is afraid that he will fall in battle as punishment for his transgressions],³⁰⁹Sotah 44a. after the priest had assured them that G-d would help them and that not one man of them will be lacking, it was fitting that the righteous put their trust in Him, [that He will help them not to be overthrown in battle]. Then, the officers warn those that are afraid [to go into battle] because of the transgressions they had committed. The Torah, therefore, gave everyone the opportunity of attributing his return home because of his house, his vineyard, or his wife, in order to serve as a pretext for others who are returning home because they are afraid of their transgressions. And the meaning of the expression lest he die in the battle [mentioned in each of the three categories]³⁰³Verses 5-7. is that he will think so in his heart and he will flee [despite the fact that the priest had already assured them that no one would be lacking after the battle]. But in the opinion of the Rabbi Akiba [who says that fearful is he who cannot endure a pitched battle or bear to see a drawn sword,]³⁰⁹Sotah 44a. the verse is to be understood in its simple meaning, that whoever is still afraid after the assurance of the priest, does not trust in G-d properly and the miracle [of being saved] will not be done for him [and therefore the Torah gave him the opportunity to return home].

מי האיש הירא, "Who is the man who is afraid, etc." We are told in Sotah 44 that our verse speaks of soldiers who are afraid to die in battle due to sins they had committed. We find such a concept in Isaiah 33,14: "Sinners in Zion are frightened." It is natural that people who have sinned should be worried. Even people who are not aware that they did commit sins would start to worry about such a possibility when they go to war, on a dangerous mission. Shulchan Aruch Or Hachayim 54 mentions that one has reason to worry even if one only knows that one spoke during certain parts of the prayers when one should not have interrupted one's prayer by talking. The reason is simple. When one goes into battle one needs a miracle in order not to be hurt. If one is guilty of sins which one has not atoned for one cannot expect G'd to perform a miracle.

ילך וישוב לביתו. If he is afraid that his mazzal is poor

מי האיש הירא, “who is the man who is fearful;” he does not trust the assurance by the priest.”

מי האיש הירא, “who is the man who is afraid?” to kill others; ורך הלבב, “and faint of heart,” to be killed (Ibn Ezra).

R’ Yosi Hagalili said, one who is afraid because of his transgressions, etc. Rashi means to say, R’ Yosi Hagalili is of the opinion that there cannot be death without transgression, and thus, if he is without transgression, why should he be afraid of battle? So most certainly he is afraid of his transgressions. But now Rashi questions: If there is no death without transgression, why then does the Torah decree to return [from going to battle] because of one’s house, or vineyard or wife [to protect those who return because of their transgressions]? If they [the latter] are without transgressions, they do not return even because of a house, or vineyard or wife according to R’ Yosi Hagalili! Rashi answers that they certainly do not have transgressions. But the Torah decrees that they return in order “to protect those who return because of their transgressions, etc.” Rashi then questions that according to R’ Yosi Hagalili who says that the reason that they return because of a house, vineyard or wife is in order to protect those who return because of their transgressions, why does Scripture write regarding each one of these “lest he die in battle,” which implies that he returns because of [fear of] death? This indicates that there is death without transgression! Rashi answers: [This is what Scripture is saying:] “Lest he die in battle, etc.” [He should return lest he die, for if he transgresses the words of the kohein, he deserves to die.]”

V. 8. ויספו וגו׳. Die hier folgende Aufforderung steht ganz in dem Dienste des Kriegszweckes, sie wird daher lediglich von den Militärbeamten gesprochen und dem Volke zum Verständnis gebracht, שוטר מדבר ושוטר משמיע, und findet dabei keine Beteiligung der כהנים statt (Sota 43 a). Es ist die Aufforderung an jeden, dem der körperliche Mut und die Standfestigkeit fehlt, die dazu gehören, לעמוד בקשרי המלחמה ולראות חרב שלופה, dem Anprall des Feindes gegenüber in Reihe und Glied Stand zu halten und gezückte Schwerter furchtlos zu sehen (daselbst), heimzukehren, damit seine Schwäche nicht ansteckend werde und anderen zum Verderben gereiche. Eine nicht als Halacha rezipierte Ansicht (daselbst) versteht ירא ורך לבב nicht von dem Mangel an körperlichem Mut, sondern von durch Bewusstsein noch ungesühnter Vergehen erzeugter Verzagtheit, המתיירא מן העבירות שבידו, und meint, dass eben solchen das Gesetz durch Gestattung der Rückkehr aus häuslichen Gründen (Verse 5 —7) einen vor Beschämung schützenden Vorwand habe gewähren wollen. Wie bemerkt, ist diese Ansicht nicht als Halacha aufgenommen und stände sie auch nicht mit der oben aus dem Jeruschalmi zitierten Bestimmung im Einklange, nach welchen alle die aus häuslichen Gründen Heimkehrenden sich über diese Verhältnisse ausweisen mussten. מאירי hält jedoch להלכה die Ansicht des ר׳ יוסי fest und beschränkt dieselbe auf עבירות של תורה שהן ידועות לכל.

מי האיש הירא, “who is the man who is afraid?” The first part of this verse speaks about people whose fear is based on becoming the victim of painful injuries, or worse.

הירא ורך הלבב [WHAT MAN IS THERE] WHO IS FEARFUL AND FAINT-HEARTED — Rabbi Akiba said, Take these words as what they literally imply; they mean that he cannot stand in the dense ranks of battle and look on a naked sword. Rabbi Jose, the Galilean, said that it means one who is afraid of the sins he has committed, and therefore Scripture gave him the opportunity of attributing his return home to his house, his vineyard, or his wife, in order to veil the motives of those who really returned because of the sins they had committed, so that people should not know they were great sinners, and whoever saw a person returning would say, “Perhaps he has built a house, or planted a vineyard or betrothed a wife” (Sotah 44a).

and he would die in battle, seeing that G’d made him worry that he might not live to consecrate his new home, wed his bride, or eat from the fruit of his vineyard, he had assumed that if he was now required to participate in this war it was apparently ordained to prevent him for realising his objectives on earth.
The Torah selected three examples of what would inspire such fear, concern over one’s house, one’s wife, and one’s vineyard. Having first named these specific concerns and declared them as legitimate under the circumstances, the Torah proceeds to include all other kinds of concerns which inspire fear for his impending death in the heart of a person. (verse 8). This pattern is not as unusual as it strikes us at first glance, seeing that Solomon employs it in Kohelet 1,3-9. He begins by listing examples of things he considers futile in this life, such as 1) a generation goes, another takes its place, a constant change, nothing remaining whereas the “dead” earth remains forever.
2) The sun rises and the suns sets; 3) the rivers all end up in the ocean but the ocean never flows over. Solomon tires of listing all the phenomena that recur constantly since the days of creation, all except man, because no new generation is exactly like the generation preceding it. The result is that the generation that has died is not remembered as it has never been replaced. This is why Solomon considers death the most futile phenomenon, seeing it wipes out what there was without replacing it. By the time Solomon reaches verse 9 he comes to the conclusion that seeing that there is nothing new in this life on earth which has not happened before, everything is remembered by reason of that very fact. However, just because one generation is not at all like a previous generation, man’s existence is apt to be forgotten, precisely because there is no one around anymore to duplicate what previous generations have done. There is therefore nothing by which to remember the existence of previous generations. (verse 11 there)

ורך הלבב, “and he is of faint heart;” he is constitutionally unable to face swords and blood. Nachmanides writes that according to the approach by Rabbi Yossi Hag’lili who interprets the word הירא as not applying to physical fear but to fear of retribution for the sins he is aware of having committed, the words פן ימות must be understood that he is afraid of dying as punishment for his sins. He may therefore plan to desert his comrades, rationalizing his action by the priest having promised his compatriots that they will remain unharmed, i.e. his absence does not weaken the army. They, his compatriots, will not be at risk on account of his sins. According to Rabbi Akiva, who interprets the words in our verse as one reads them, at face value, simply says that if someone even after being reassured by the priest, G’d’s interpreter, still feels afraid that G’d would not perform a miracle on his account and save him, he is sent home so that he does not undermine the morale of his fellow soldiers. The Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8,9 quotes a view according to which all those claiming release from the army must furnish proof of their “excuses,” and that according to the view of Rabbi Yossi Hag’lili the person afraid of retribution for his sins must furnish proof that he is indeed guilty of such a sin, except the person who claims to be afraid and all can see from his demeanour that he is a coward.

FAINT-HEARTED. The meaning thereof is that it is not in his nature to see the stroke of the sword, and slaughter,³¹⁰Esther 9:5. for the fearful is he who does not trust, and Scripture commands him to return to his home because of his deficient trust. The faint-hearted is sent home because of the weakness of his nature, for he will flee or faint. Now the Rabbis have said in the Yerushalmi³¹¹Yerushalmi Sotah VIII, 9. that “all who return home need to bring proof for their words,” that is to say, they are to bring proof concerning the [new] house, the vineyard, or the wife before the captain of the host who then gives him permission to return home. Similarly they also said according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean [who says the fearful is he that is afraid because of his transgressions] that he needs to bring proof concerning the transgression he committed, for otherwise most of the people would have been returning home under false pleas. But according to Rabbi Akiba, the faint-hearted cannot endure pitched battle or bear to see a drawn sword,³⁰⁹Sotah 44a. [the Yerushalmi states] he need not bring proof, “for his witnesses are with him” [i.e., everybody sees that he is fearful and faint-hearted].

The second part of the verse describing “fear,” speaks of someone who is uncomfortable about having to inflict pain, injury or worse, on opponents that have never done him any harm or even threatened to do so. Such a person is described by the Torah as רך הלבב , “faint hearted.” (Ibn Ezra)

ולא ימס את לבב אחיו , “so he will not melt the heart of his buddies.” According to the author of halachot gedolot (Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Shemuel of the ancient academy in Sura) the above words are a negative commandment, applicable to the שוטרים not to deny that “coward’s” application to go home.

LEST HIS BRETHREN’S HEART MELT AS HIS HEART. The author of the Hilchoth Gedoloth³¹²See Vol. II, p. 350, Note 70. considered this verse a negative commandment, meaning that [if he is fearful and faint-hearted] he should not avoid returning home, lest he melt his brethren’s heart like his own.³¹³In his Supplementary List of the negative commandments to Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvoth, Ramban comments on the opinion of the Hilchoth Gedoloth: “In that case the word yimas (melt) is to be understood as a transitive verb [‘lest he cause his brethren’s heart to melt’ “] — Ramban’s intent is to differ with Ibn Ezra who interpreted the word yimas as a passive [lest his brethren’s heart ‘be melted’] and the particle eth [yimas ‘eth’ l’vav echav] is redundant. Ramban’s opinion, as based upon the Hilchoth Gedoloth, is that yimas is a transitive verb and the particle eth is a necessary part of the verse. It is similar to the verse, and its flesh shall not be eaten³¹⁴Exodus 21:28. [which is counted among the negative commandments].³¹⁵See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 185-186.

ילך וישוב לביתו, “let him go and return to his house.” He is not released from every duty, but is assigned to support the troops in the frontline by keeping the lengthening lines of supply open. This is as opposed to the previous three categories of mobilized men, who are released from any participation.

Any war which involves defending the land of Israel against an invasion by Gentiles is to be resisted without any reservations such as listed above. In fact, according to the Talmud in tractate Sotah folio 44, even a bridegroom just after the vows have been completed must join his unit to defend the country and its people.

שרי צבאות [THEY SHALL APPOINT] OFFICERS OF THE HOSTS — This means that they shall place guards (זוקפין from זקף “to stand erect”) in front of and behind them (the troops), with iron axes in their hands, and if anybody attempted to desert he (the guard) was empowered to chop off his legs. זוקפין are men who stood in the wings of the battle-line to raise (זקף) those who fall and to strengthen them by encouraging words: “Go back to the battle and do not flee, for flight is the first step to defeat” (Sifrei Devarim 198; Sotah 44).

AND CAPTAINS OF HOSTS SHALL BE APPOINTED AT THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE. He so commanded because the Torah enjoins in accordance with the way of the world while G-d does miracles for those who fear Him secretly. There is no desire before Him to change the natural order of the world, unless there is no other way for salvation, or in order to make His Name known to His adversaries³¹⁶Isaiah 64:1. at certain times as at the splitting of the Red Sea and similar events.

ופקדו שרי צבאות, after all those who were sent home had left. If even one of the people that should have been sent home were included in the roll call by the commanders this might eventually prove demoralising if the party in question became a casualty of war. Compare Amos 9,1 הך הכפתור וירעשו הספים, “strike a knob and the very foundations will quake,” [insignificant appearing actions have far-reaching consequences. Ed.]

ופקדו שרי צבאות בראש העם, “the leaders of the people shall take command at the head of the people.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah’s instructions here run parallel to what the nations of the world are doing in similar circumstances. G’d’s intervention on behalf of the Jewish soldiers is in the nature of “hidden miracles,” the types that resulted in the collapse of Haman and the rise to power of Mordechai. [People are saved or killed by being in the right place, or the wrong place at the right time or at the wrong time, as required in order for His will to be done. Ed.] G’d does not interfere with natural law overtly unless unavoidable in order to achieve His ends without depriving man of his free will in the process.

Do not run away, for running away is the beginning of downfall. Rashi is of the opinion that whoever flees ends up having a downfall because it says (Shmuel I 31:1), “And the men of Israel fled from before the Plishtim and they fell corpses in Mount Gilboa.” And so it says in Sotah (44b).

ופקדו, “and they shall appoint, etc.” This takes place after all those that have been allowed to return home have done so. The use of the root פקד to describe making appointments is first found in the advice Joseph gave to Pharaoh in Genesis 41,34.

Whichever man. In the first chapter of Sota the Gemara states: 40 days before a child is formed a voice comes out from Heaven and states, “so-and-so will marry this child, such and such a house will belong to this child, such and such a field will belong to this child.” The Gemara lists three things which are the essentials for a person. For this reason the kohein warns specifically about these three things. As long as a person has not completed these three he may not go to battle. The Satan tries to attack at times of danger. Specifically in these three areas which were decreed the Satan challenges, in order to prevent a person reaching his potential. Alternatively, due to not yet having completed these three things a person will become depressed and put himself in danger. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yossi HaGalili, this is not considered a time of danger, and there is no need for a person to be afraid. However, he returns from battle in order to protect those who are returning due to sins that they have committed.

כי תקרב אל עיר WHEN THOU APPROACHEST UNTO A CITY [TO FIGHT AGAINST IT] — Scripture is speaking of a war which is not obligatory upon them (as was the war against the seven nations of Canaan, referred to in v. 16), as it is distinctly stated in this section (v. 15) “Thus thou shalt do unto all the cities which are very far [from thee]” etc. (Sifrei Devarim 199:1).

WHEN THOU DRAWEST NEAR UNTO A CITY TO FIGHT AGAINST IT, THEN PROCLAIM PEACE UNTO IT. “Scripture is speaking of a permissible war [rather than a war required by the Torah, such as the invasion of the seven nations of Canaan], as it is expressly stated in this section, Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee.”³¹⁷Verse 15. Thus according to Rashi we were not required to offer peace before invading the land of Canaan. Ramban will differ with this opinion. This is Rashi’s language. The Rabbi [Rashi] wrote this based on the Sifre where a similar text is taught:³¹⁸Sifre, Shoftim 199. “Scripture is speaking of a battle waged of free choice.” But the intent of our Rabbis with reference to this verse [before us, was not to say that the requirement of proclaiming peace applies exclusively to permissible, but not to obligatory, wars; rather, their teaching in the Sifre] refers only to the later section wherein there is a differentiation between the two kinds of wars [i.e., in Verses 13-14 declaring that if the enemy insists on war, then only the men are to be killed, but the women and children are to be spared — that law applies only to a permissible but not to an obligatory war]. But the call for peace applies even to an obligatory war. It requires us to offer peace-terms even to the seven nations [of Canaan], for Moses proclaimed peace to Sihon, king of the Amorites,³¹⁹Above, 2:26. and he would not have transgressed both the positive and negative commandments in this section: but thou shalt utterly destroy them,³²⁰Verse 17. and thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth!³²¹Verse 16. Rather, the difference between them [i.e., obligatory and permissible wars] is when the enemy does not make peace and continues to make war. Then, in the case of the cities which are very far off,³²²Verse 15. Scripture commanded us to smite every male thereof³²³Verse 13. and keep alive the women and male children,³²⁴See Verse 14. but in the cities of these peoples³²¹Verse 16. [i.e., the seven nations of Canaan in the event they refuse the call to peace], it commanded us to destroy even the women and children. And so did our Rabbis say in the Midrash of Eileh Hadevarim Rabbah,³²⁵Devarim Rabbah 5:13. and it is found also in Tanchuma³²⁶Tanchuma, Shoftim 18. and in the Gemara Yerushalmi:³²⁷Yerushalmi Shevi’ith VI, 1. “Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rabbi Nachmani said: Joshua the son of Nun fulfilled the laws of this section. What did Joshua do? Wherever he went to conquer, he would send a proclamation in which he wrote: ‘He who wishes to make peace let him come forward and make peace; he who wishes to leave, let him leave, and he who wishes to make war, let him make war.’ The Girgashite left. With the Gibeonites who made peace, Joshua made peace. The thirty-one kings³²⁸Joshua 12:9-24. who came to wage war — the Holy One, blessed be He, cast them down etc.” And so indeed Scripture states with reference to all cities [including those of the seven nations], There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon; they took all in battle. For it was of the Eternal to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that they might be utterly destroyed.³²⁹Ibid., 11:19-20. Obviously, if they had wanted to make peace, the Israelites would have made peace with them.
It appears that regarding the terms of peace, there were differences [between what was offered the very far off cities and what was offered the seven nations], for, with reference to the distant cities, we ask that they make peace and become tributary to us and serve,³³⁰Verse 11. but, regarding the cities of these peoples [the seven nations] we request of them peace, tribute and service, on the condition that they agree not to worship idols. Scripture does not mention it in this section, because concerning idolators, it has already given the prohibition, They shall not dwell in thy Land, lest they make thee sin against Me, for thou wilt serve their gods.³³¹Exodus 23:33. It is possible that we must inform them only of the peace offer, tribute and service; after they are subject to us, we tell them that we execute judgment upon idols and their worshippers, whether individuals or the community. Similarly, that which is stated here, That they teach you not to do after all their abominations,³³²Verse 18. and with reference to it the Rabbis said in the Sifre,³³³Sifre, Shoftim 202. “But if they repent [of their idol-worship] they are not to be killed” — this refers to the seven nations. The “repentance” is that they accept upon themselves the seven commandments³³⁴See Vol. I, p. 417, Note 148. in which “the sons of Noah”³³⁵See ibid., Note 147. were commanded, but not that they must convert to become righteous proselytes.
Now, in Tractate Sotah the Rabbis have said³³⁶Sotah 38 b. that “they [i.e., the Israelites upon coming into the Land] inscribed the Torah upon stones in seventy languages³³⁷Ibid., 32 a. and that, below, they wrote, That they teach you not to do.³³²Verse 18. However, [we deduce,] if the peoples were to repent, the Israelites would accept them.” Rashi explained this text as follows: “[This verse was written upon the stones below] to inform the nations that dwelled outside the border of the Land of Israel that they [i.e., the Israelites] were not commanded to destroy [populations] except for those [the seven nations] that dwell within the borders in order that they [the Canaanites] should not teach them their perverted practices. But as to those who dwell outside [the boundaries] we tell them, ‘If you repent, we accept you.’ Those who dwell within the Land we do not accept because their repentance was due to fear.” This is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi]. But it is not correct, for it was with reference to the cities of these peoples, that the Eternal thy G-d giveth thee for an inheritance³²¹Verse 16. — it was of them that he said that they teach you not³³²Verse 18. thus indicating that if they do repent [thereby negating the fear that they may teach you] they are not to be slain. Similarly He said of them, They shall not dwell in thy Land, lest they make thee sin against Me, for thou wilt serve their gods,³³¹Exodus 23:33. which indicates that if they abandon their gods they are permitted to dwell there.
This is the project of Solomon concerning which it is written, And this is the account of the levy which King Solomon raised; to build the House of the Eternal, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem etc.³³⁸I Kings 9:15. All the people that were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel; even their children that were left after them in the Land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy, of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants, unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondservants.³³⁹Ibid., Verses 20-22. This project he did in accordance with the Law, for they accepted the observance of the seven commandments³³⁴See Vol. I, p. 417, Note 148. upon themselves. Now it is clear that since Solomon was able to draft them as his laborers, he had power over them and he could have destroyed them, except that it was permissible to let them live, as we have written.

כי תקרב אל עיר, "When you approach a city, etc." Perhaps this paragraph alludes to something that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said in Zohar volume 2 page 62 that G'd sends man an additional soul to guide him on the right path and to save him from committing sins against Him. In our paragraph we may perceive G'd as addressing this additional soul telling it: "when you approach a city," i.e. the body of the human being whom you will inhabit which is kown as עיר. We know from Zohar Chadash Ruth page 97 on the verse in Kohelet 9,14: עיר קטנה ואנשים בה מעט, "there is a small city with few inhabitants," that the city Solomon speaks of is the human body. This additional soul may be the "miracle" needed to protect the Jewish soldier at the time he goes into battle as it helps stop him from committing sins which could result in his violent death in war.

כי תקרב אל עיר, Rashi understands this paragraph as speaking of a מלחמת רשות, a war sanctioned by Hashem, but not conducted for reasons of self defense. Nachmanides, elaborating on this, adds that Rashi was forced to offer this interpretation on account of what is written a few verses later, i.e. that if in spite of peaceful overtures the inhabitants of the city described insist of conducting a war against the Israelites, then the males are to be killed, whereas the women and even the male children are to be kept alive, which is different from the rules of the Torah when the seven Canaanite nations will be attacked. There, all the inhabitants of such cities are to be killed regardless of sex or age. What is noteworthy is that even when confronting cities of the seven Canaanite nations about to be driven out from their country or to be killed, the Torah commands the people to offer surrender first. These Canaanites, if willing, will even be accepted as converts and thus escape death or forced exile. This is what Moses had done with the people under the rule of Sichon, King of the Emorite, one of the seven Canaanite nations. [This editor does not see evidence that any of Sichon’s subjects had converted to Judaism, although Rachav, who had hidden the two spies in Jericho, was saved and not enslaved or exiled, although judging from her own words she may have been close to conversion to Judaism long before Joshua crossed the Jordan. Ed.] It appears that there was a difference between the offer of peace to the cities of the seven nations on the one hand, and those in more distant countries, not Canaanites. The latter were informed that if they wanted to survive they could accept subservient status to the Israelites, work for them, etc, but lose their independence, whereas a similar offer to the Canaanite cities contained an additional rider, namely that they had to abandon idolatry and accept the seven Noachide laws. This had to be a minimum as the Torah had expressly forbidden sparing the lives of any idolatrous population in what was going to be the land of Israel. Once they would have become enslaved to the Jewish people, they would find out that their idols and any remnants of their religious symbols would be destroyed, in accordance with Torah law, which does not tolerate the existence of such relics of idolatry in the Holy Land. Rashi, on the other hand, states that no compromise of any kind was permitted with the seven Canaanite nations and they either were killed or had to emigrate to escape such a fate. According to his view, even total conversion to Judaism was not an option for them. Nachmanides does not concur, as he interprets the warning by the Torah in verse 18 that the presence of these people in the Holy Land represents a danger that they will influence the Israelites culturally and morally, as clearly demanding that these people must leave or be killed. The Jerusalem Talmud states that Joshua offered to such people that they become labourers for the Israel performing menial tasks, such as hewing wood and carrying water. Exodus 23,33 makes it plain that these people are considered as a cultural hazard “if they continue to practice their religion.” In Nachmanides’ view this means that if they abandon idolatry they may live in the land of Israel, but as slaves or serfs. We are familiar with the story of Gibeonites, who pretended to have come from outside the land of Canaan in order to qualify for conversion of sorts. When Joshua found out too late (after having made a solemn deal with them) that he had become the victim of a fraud, he did not kill these people but made labourers of them, a status that continued down to the time of Solomon over 400 years later. (Joshua chapter 9) If these Gibeonites had not first misrepresented themselves causing the Israelites to make a pact with them reinforced by an oath, Joshua would not have punished them by denying them all the rights that normal converts are entitled to. Under the unusual circumstances at that time Joshua saw himself forced to apply what is written in Some commentators interpret the line והיה אם שלום תענך, as applying only at the time when the offer is first made. If the offer is not accepted immediately, there is no second opportunity to save one’s life by means of converting to Judaism, so that Joshua would have acted illegally by granting them a second opportunity, and he should not have accepted them. [The fact is that there were bloody repercussions later on both in the time of King Sha-ul and King David. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah, 8)

VV. 10 — 14. כי תקרב וגו׳. Die vorhergehenden Bestimmungen regeln den Heeresbann zur offenen Feldschlacht; es folgen nun Bestimmungen von Belagerungen. Es wird zur Pflicht gemacht, immer zuerst לשלום, friedliche Beziehungen anzubieten, und wenn die Stadt sich freiwillig ergibt, so darf keiner Person und keinem Gut das Geringste geschehen; sie werden nur zur Tributpflicht und Untertänigkeit verhalten, יהיו לך למס ועבדוך. Nach allgemeinster im ספרי und ירושלמי ausgesprochener und auch vom הל׳ מלכים) רמב׳׳ם Vl, 1) und רמב׳׳ן z. St. vertretener Auffassung war diese Friedensentbietung überall und auch bei der Eroberung des Landes den Bevölkerungen gegenüber Pflicht. Auch ihnen wurde Frieden und ein tributäres untertanpflichtiges Verbleiben im Lande, jedoch nur unter der Bedingung der Lossagung von ע׳׳ז und Rückkehr zu den allgemeinen menschlichen Sitten- und Rechtspflichten, שבע מצות בני נח, angeboten. Die hier Verse 16 — 17 vorgeschriebene Vertilgung aus dem Lande war nur geboten, wenn sie auf diese Friedensbedingungen nicht eingehen und mit Beibehaltung ihrer polytheistischen Lebensweisen sich im Lande behaupten wollten.

וקראת אליה לשלום, “you shall first offer peace to that city. According to some sages the rule mentioned here even included nations who the Israelites had been ordered by G–d to kill every “soul.” However, this command did not apply if the inhabitants agreed to vacate the town and relocate outside the Holy Land. We know that peace is superior to war, i.e. hostility, from when G–d Himself changed what Sarah had thought about her husband when she considered him too old to impregnate her with effective sperm. (Genesis18,12) He did not tell him about that part of her reaction to the angel’s prediction that by the following year she would have a son. We have a verse in Hoseah 4,17: חבור עצבים אפרים הנח לו, “Ephrayim is addicted to images,- let him be.” This verse is quoted by Rashi in connection with the verse we just quoted from Genesis, where he says that this cannot be understood at face value, i.e. that the prophet should not predict doom for idol worshippers. Our author cites several additional examples of where we cannot take a quotation at face value, especially when the brothers after Yaakov’s funeral quote their father as having commanded them to ask Joseph for forgiveness. (Genesis 50,17) The Torah wrote this in order to preserve harmony between Joseph and his brothers, not because Yaakov had actually said these words. Both the blessings by the priests end with bestowing the blessing of peace and the last of the 19 benedictions in the amidah prayer that we recite at least three times daily, concludes with the blessing of shalom, peace. Our sages in the Talmud, tractate Gittin folio 61, bid us to greet a gentile with the blessing of shalom before waiting for him to greet us, and in the event that he does to respond with using the expression shalom twice. Seeing that this might appear insincere on our part, the Talmud urges us to greet him before he can greet us so that we can avoid using the word shalom twice when greeting him, something that is forbidden in the Talmud, tractate Gittin folio 62. On folio 59 in the same tractate we are also told not to accept something that had been found by a deaf person or a minor, as it might have come into his possession illegally. We are also to feed the poor of the gentiles, all in order to maintain harmonious relations with the gentiles, generally. For all these reasons Hashem blessed His people with shalom (Psalms 29.11)

The Torah was careful to write עליה, which here needs to be translated as "on her account." The idea is that this soul is intended to save the body from the evil urge; it is in line with the verse in Kohelet 9,14 which continues ובא אליה מלך גדול, (the small city) "against which a great king comes and lays siege to it, An insignificant looking wise man saves that small city from the onslaught of the great king using his wisdom" (compare Nedarim 32).

So heißt es im Jeruschalmi (Schebuoth vl, 1): שלוש פרסטניות שלח יהושע לארץ ישראל עד שלא יכנסו לארץ מי שהוא רוצה להפנות יפנה להשלים ישלים לעשות מלחמה יעשה גרגשי פינה והאמין לו לה׳ב׳ה והלך לו לאפריקי גבעונים השלימו שלשים ואחד מלך עשו מלחמה ונפלו. Drei Kundmachungen schickte Josua vor sich her, bevor er ins Land zog: wer sein Land räumen will, der gehe fort, wer Frieden eingehen will, der schließe Frieden, wer Krieg führen will, der führe Krieg. Girgaschi verließ das Land und ging nach Afrika, die Gibeoniten wählten den Frieden, die einunddreißig Könige den Krieg und fielen. Daher wird auch Josua 11, 19 berichtet: לא היתה עיר ׳אשר השלימה אל בני ישראל בלתי החוי יושבי גבעון וגו, dass außer den Gibeoniten keine Stadt in Friedensbeziehungen zu Israel habe eingehen wollen, was offenbar voraussetzt, dass diese Friedensbeziehungen ihnen angeboten worden. Wenn daher gleichwohl die Gibeoniten glaubten, ihre Zuflucht zu einer List nehmen zu müssen, so müssen sie, wie dies auch die Kommentatoren erläutern, entweder den einfachen Friedensanbietungen Josuas nicht getraut, oder ein über die Friedensbedingungen hinausgehendes Verhältnis, ein כריתות ברית angestrebt haben, wie sie dies selbst in ihren Anträgen: כרתו לנו ברית bezeichneten, das jedoch Israel ausdrücklich (Schmot 34, 14) verboten war.

וקראת אליה לשלום, "and you call out to her: 'peace'." The meaning is that you do not immediately wade into the den of iniquity (your evil urge) and try to conquer it in one single frontal assault; rather you first suggest that it also give heaven its due, as a result of which it will experience great benefits. As a result the evil urge will allow that man has a duty also vis-a-vis heaven. After all, secular activities such as eating and drinking in this life also enable man to perform his spiritual tasks better. As a result of this accomodation with the evil urge one assures oneself of not losing one's hereafter altogether.

Es wird ferner (Verse 12. — 14) zur Pflicht gemacht, dass bei einer mit Kriegsgewalt erzwungenen Einnahme einer Stadt nur die wehrbare Mannschaft dem Schwerte erliegen dürfe, Weiber aber und Kinder und auch alles andere zur Beute fallende lebende und leblose Gut keiner Verletzung und Zerstörung unterliegen sollen.

והיה אם שלום, It will be if "peace," etc. The word והיה as usual, refers to something joyful; here too, if your approach to the evil urge is in the manner we have just described so that you have opened the door a crack to spiritually positive values, G'd in His turn will open this door wide, i.e. והיה כל העם הנמצא בה, so that it embraces all the "people" i.e. the 248 bones and 365 sinews which man's body is constructed of and they will all become subservient to the soul (instead of to the evil urge). The body will then perform both the positive commandments and refrain from violating the negative commandments. ועבדוך, "and they will serve you," i.e. like a slave who is afraid of his master and will neither deviate to the left nor to the right.

-15. ואם לא תשלים, "If she is not prepared to surrender peacefully," If the "city" does not accept the soul's proposal to allow heaven its due, or that even after man began to become a penitent he slid back into sin, then you have to make all out war against the city, i.e. the evil urge. The words ועשתה עמך מלחמה, refer to the body, i.e. the evil urge making war against you. We know that once an attempt to become a בעל תשובה fails, the chances are that the forces of evil will redouble their efforts against any religious instincts a person has. [We have a phenomenon in Israel called חוזר בשאלה. These are persons who used to be very pious but have left the fold. They are not neutral in their attitude as a result of having abandoned the Jewish tradition but become virulently anti religious seeking every opportunity to besmirch our tradition and the people who observe it. Ed.] The author describes a similar process taking place within the personality of the Jew described in our verse. We have learned in Berachot 5 that as a matter of principle one's good urge should be in a constant state of confrontation with one's evil urge. This means that one should deny oneself things which are permitted, should observe private fasts, and even flagellate oneself, all in order to weaken the power of the evil urge. This is why the Torah adds והכית כל זכורה, this will enable you to vanquish all its males, i.e. the forces of Samael and his armies.

לפי חרב, "by the sword." In our context these words may be understood as analogous to Psalms 149,6: רוממות קל בגרונם וחרב פיפיות בידם, "when they have songs of praise to G'd in their throats this is equal to having two-edged swords in their hands."

רק הנשים והטף, "Only the women and the children, etc." The word נשים refers to the נפש ורוח, both of which are called "women" in comparison to the higher soul known as נשמה. The word הטף refers to the commandments and good deeds a person has performed (and which are considered his children) prior to his becoming despised by G'd as a sinner. In the case of a wicked person, G'd says of him (Psalms 50,57: "concerning the wicked G'd said: 'who are you to recite my laws?'" When a person turns penitent, these good deeds he had performed (while an active sinner) are accounted for him as merits. We also have a statement in Yuma 86 according to which even inadvertently committed sins will be accounted as merits after a person becomes a בעל תשובה. All of these are subsumed under the heading טף, "children."

והבהמה וכל אשר בעיר תבוז לך, "and the beasts and all that is in the city you may plunder for yourself;" the word "beasts" refers to the animalistic desires a person suffers from, his love for everything sensual and material. A true בעל תשובה will be able to put all these urges and desires to use in his efforts to serve the Lord.

כן תעשה לבל הערים הרחוקות, "So you shall do to all the cities which are distant, etc." All the commandments mentioned in this paragraph have been given only to the "cities," i.e. the bodies which have become distant from G'd. We know from Isaiah 57,19 that G'd offers peace to the near and the far. The "far" are the sinners. He has become distant from his holy source, the שכינה from where all holy souls originate. However, מערי העמים האלה, "from any city of these nations" (Canaanites) cities of the Gentiles, which never had contact with sanctity and which had left its source due to its many sins, such a city has no hope of returning to a sanctity it had never possessed in the first place. This is why the Torah mentions אשר לא מערי הגוים, that all the Torah's exhortation to return to the fold is addressed only to the Jew. Others, such as the cities of the seven Canaanite nations, have to be annihilated completely. Moses made the mistake in accepting as proselytes the mixed multitude which he took out of Egypt with the Jewish people (Shemot Rabbah 42,6). G'd had told him in Exodus 7,4: "I will take out My hosts, My people," meaning that He would only redeem the Israelites who had holy roots. The root of these people was evil and they would not fit into a holy society. When Moses "revived" them he did not revive their נשמה as they never had a נשמה in the first place which he could have revived.

כל העם הנמצא בה ALL THE PEOPLE THAT IS FOUND THEREIN [SHALL BE TRIBUTARIES] — all: even if you find in it persons belonging to the seven nations which you have been commanded to exterminate, you are allowed to keep them alive (Sifrei Devarim 200:2).

TRIBUTARIES UNTO THEE, AND THEY SHALL SERVE THEE. “[Their surrender is not to be accepted] until they accept tribute and servitude upon themselves.” This is the language of Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi]. And in the Sifre the Rabbis have said:³⁴⁰Sifre, Shoftim 200. “If they say ‘We accept tribute upon ourselves but not servitude’, or ‘servitude but not tribute,’ they are not to heed them until they accept both upon themselves.”
Now the purport of the tribute was that the king of Israel or the Sanhedrin could impose a levy upon them, [drafting men] to build the king’s palace and his store-cities, also the House of G-d. The servitude was that any Israelite could take one of them to be the hewer of his wood and the drawer of his water and pay him proper wages. This is the sense of what is written in connection with Solomon a levy of bondservants,³⁴¹I Kings 9:21. meaning that they took upon themselves [both] tribute and servitude as is the law of the Torah. [However, the law of the Torah is] not as is written, And it came to pass, when Israel was waxen strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, but did not drive them out entirely,³⁴²Judges 1:28. for “servitude” is not mentioned there. Instead it was like a king who bribes a more powerful king not to wage war against him.
Know that the matter of the Gibeonites³⁴³Joshua 9:3-27. came to pass because they did not know the law of Israel with respect to proclaiming peace, and therefore they put forward their plan, before Joshua’s proclamation arrived. Hence they said, and we were sore afraid for our lives.³⁴⁴Ibid., Verse 24. Or it may be that, at first they did not wish to hearken to Joshua’s offer [thus laying themselves open to invasion], and in the end they became frightened and disguised themselves as strangers, as it is written, And when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done unto Jericho and to Ai, they also did work wilily.³⁴⁵Ibid., Verses 3-4. Their trickery helped them yet in that they did not become their servants, but their confederates.
The Israelites were irritated at them and would have killed them had it not been for the oath of the princes³⁴⁶Ibid., Verse 19. because the Gibeonites should have taken upon themselves tribute and servitude, as we have said, while they [the princes] made a covenant with them to be equal and to be their confederates helping each other in their wars. They made peace with them [the Gibeonites] because they had thought that they were [from] very distant cities, from the peoples against whom they [the Israelites] had no intention of advancing. Therefore, Joshua cursed the Gibeonites, saying, Now therefore ye are cursed,³⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 23. meaning that they are of the accursed peoples whom the Eternal had cursed, and he did to them according to the law appropriate to be applied to them, to fulfill that which is written concerning them, tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee, that they be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Eternal,³⁴⁸Ibid., Verse 27. this being the tribute and the servitude, as we have explained.
And some scholars³⁴⁹This opinion is found in Tosafoth, Sotah 35b. say that the meaning of the verse, And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace etc.³³⁰Verse 11. is [that it applies only to an answer given] at the time of the proclamation [of peace]. But if at first they refused to make peace, we no longer accept them. The Gibeonites refused at first to hearken to Joshua’s proclamation and the law therefore did not require the Israelites to accept them. And Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] wrote³⁵⁰Hilchoth Melachim 6:5. that “they were irritated at them because [they tricked the Israelites into] making a covenant with them, when it is said, Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.”³⁵¹Exodus 23:32. But this does not appear to be correct, for the Gibeonites had surely taken upon themselves not to worship idols, as they said, thy servants are come because of the name of the Eternal thy G-d.³⁵²Joshua 9:9. Therefore, Joshua did not have to tell them afterwards that they must take upon themselves to worship G-d. And if so, it was permissible for the Israelites to make that covenant with them, just as they were permitted to dwell in the Land, for both, [the making of a covenant, and the dwelling in the Land] were prohibited only before repentance [from the sin of idolatry], as He said, lest they make thee sin against Me,³³¹Exodus 23:33. and so also He said, Thou shalt make no covenant with them, or with their gods.³⁵¹Exodus 23:32. But the explanation of the Gibeonite affair is as we have said.

Even if you should find in it members of the seven nations, etc. You might ask, why do we need a verse [to teach us this]? We can derive this from the inclusionary term, “And you capture prisoners from them,” which teaches us to include the Canaanites among them, as Rashi explains later (21:10)! The answer is that if [we learnt this] from there, one might have thought that only if they were found in a town that did not make peace [with you] where one is obligated to kill all the males inside, is the Torah lenient regarding the [female and minor] Canaanites inside, allowing them to be saved with the town’s women and minors, since the men, who are the principle idolaters, are killed. But if they are found in a town that made peace where everyone is saved [including] the men, women and children, one might say that the Canaanites inside are to be treated as if they were in their own town. So [the extra verse] tells us [that this is not so, and the Canaanites are saved even in the latter case]. And if [we learnt] from here, one may have though that this applies only when they were found in a town of other nations that had made peace, because since they submitted to us, the Torah is lenient regarding the Canaanites inside. But if they were found in a town of other nations that did not make peace, whose men are killed, one might have thought that the [female and minor] Canaanites inside are also killed as if they were in their own town. So Scripture tells us [that this is not so and the Canaanites are saved even in this case]. These are [the words of] Re”m. (See what I write later regarding this).

למס ועבדוך, “shall become liable to be taxed by you and become subservient.” Rashi explained that it is sufficient that they make an oral declaration to do so. Seeing that some of their cities may be a long distance away from you, it is unlikely that they will teach you and your children their pagan culture; this is why the rule that you must not allow a soul to survive in the lands captured by Joshua does not need to be applied in such situations as described here. Conversion to Judaism by any of the members of the seven Canaanite nations whose territory would form the first Jewish state is out of the question.

למס ועבדוך [ALL THE PEOPLE … SHALL BE] TRIBUTARIES [UNTO THEE], AND THEY SHALL SERVE THEE — You must not accept their surrender until they take upon themselves both the payment of tribute and servitude (one alone is not sufficient) (Sifrei Devarim 200:3).

ואם לא תשלים עמך ועשתה עמך מלחמה — Scripture tells you that if it does not make peace with you it will in the end make war against you (attack you) — if you leave it alone and go away (Sifrei Devarim 200:4). (The translation therefore is: AND IF IT WILL MAKE NO PEACE WITH THEE. IT WILL WAR AGAINST THEE).

It will ultimately engage in war against you, etc. And this is what the verse is saying: If it does not settle for peace with you, in the end it will engage in war against you. Therefore you should lay siege to it.

וצרת עליה THEN THOU SHALT BESIEGE IT — This implies that you are entitled even to starve it out, to make it suffer thirst and to kill it (the inhabitants) by mortal diseases (Sifrei Devarim 200:5).

ונתנה ה' אלהיך בידך means THEN THE LORD THY GOD WILL GIVE IT INTO THY HANDS — if you have done all that is prescribed in this section the Lord will in the end give it into your hands (Sifrei Devarim 200:6).

והטף AND THE LITTLE ONES [… SHALT THOU TAKE UNTO THYSELF] — the male children, too. But how am I to understand (v. 13) “and thou shalt smite every male thereof”? As referring to the male adults (Sifrei Devarim 200:7).

הרחוקות ממך מאד, distant from the present location of the Israelites in their camps. At that time the boundaries of the Land of Israel will be far from the center in every direction.

V. 15. כן תעשה, dieses כן und die damit eingeleitete Beschränkung bezieht sich nur auf die im V. 14 gebotene Schonung, diese soll nur bei außerhalb des jüdischen Landes eroberten Städten eintreten. Die aber Verse 10 und 11 gebotene Friedenseröffnung war auch, wie bereits bemerkt, den Bevölkerungen des jüdischen Landes gegenüber geboten. — הרחוקות ממך מאוד, das: מאד bedarf der Erklärung. Vielleicht sollen damit die ganz Fernen, nicht aber die nahe zur Landesgrenze Wohnenden bezeichnet sein.

לא תחיה כל נשמה. When you confront them in battle do not offer them peace and expulsion as in the case of other hostile nations that are not Canaanites, a procedure I (Moses) have already explained in verse 10. However, if they make the first move in approaching you, and express their willingness to become your slaves before the battle is joined you are allowed to let them live.

V. 16. רק מערי העמים, im vorigen Verse, wo sie im Zusammenhange mit den auswärtigen Völkern genannt werden, die Israel gegenüber nur in ihrer internationalen Beziehung zu denken sind, werden sie als גוים, als nach außen geschlossene Körperschaften gedacht. Hier aber, wo sie nach ihrer inneren sozialen Sittenverderbnis gewürdigt werden, heißen sie daher: עמים.

לא תחיה כל נשמה, “you must not allow to remain for anyone to be alive;” if you were to ignore this commandment, the survivors would stir up trouble internationally, even, over having been deprived of their ancestral land. The validity of this commandment is limited to the generation Moses is addressing, i.e. the period during which the Israelites will be engaged in fighting the Canaanites in order to settle in the land promised by G-d to their patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. If members of these tribes had emigrated voluntarily, and at some future date return individually, and even wish to convert to Judaism this is acceptable. According to this interpretation, the Israelites under Joshua did not sin when they accepted the conversion of the Givonim, even though these had misrepresented themselves.

כאשר צוך [BUT THOU SHALT DOOM THEM TO DESTRUCTION: THE HITTITES, … AND THE JEBUSITES,] AS [THE LORD THY GOD] HATH COMMANDED THEE — The words: “as God hath commanded thee” are intended to include the Girgashites (the seventh nation that is not mentioned here) (Sifrei Devarim 201:4).

כי החרם תחרימם החתי והאמורי, ”rather, you shall utterly destroy them; the Chivite, the Emorite, etc.” In this instance the Torah enumerated only six of the seven nations omitting the Girgashi, either due to it's small size, or, as our Sages have explained, seeing they had emigrated as we mentioned earlier.

This adds the Girgashites. Rashi means to say that [only] six nations are mentioned in the verse but the Girgashites are not mentioned. And “as [Hashem] commanded you” includes the Girgashites. The reason the verse does not mention [them] explicitly is because [the command], “Annihilate are you to annihilate them, etc.,” was not fulfilled regarding them, for the Girgashites rose up and fled [before Israel’s conquest] as Rashi explains in parshas Ki Sisa (Shmos 33:2). (Maharan). Nevertheless, the verse [here] still needed to include them because they are included in [the command here], “You are not to leave any person alive.” And if members of them are found among the six [remaining] nations, [you should know] that they too are like them.

כי החרם תחרימם, “but you shall utterly destroy them.” You might think that also their belongings would be out of bounds to you, (as the booty from Jericho); in order to assure you that this is not so, the Torah wrote in Deut. 6,11, that you will capture (and keep) their houses and contents intact.

למען אשר לא ילמדו [BUT THOU SHALT DOOM THEM TO DESTRUCTION …] THAT THEY TEACH YOU NOT TO DO [AFTER THEIR ABOMINATIONS] — Consequently if they repent of their abominations and wish to become proselytes you are allowed to accept them as such (Sifrei Devarim 202:1).

THAT THEY TEACH YOU NOT TO DO AFTER ALL THEIR ABOMINATIONS, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE UNTO THEIR GODS. The purport thereof is that they will teach you to worship the Glorious Name³⁵³Further, 28:58. with the burning of your sons and daughters and every abomination to the Eternal, which He hateth,³⁵⁴Above, 12:31. and so ye sin against the Eternal your G-d³⁵⁵In Verse 18 before us. Who has warned you against saying, How used these nations to serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.³⁵⁶Above, 12:30. Now the Torah warned them, They shall not dwell in thy Land, lest they make thee sin against Me, for thou wilt serve their gods, for they will be a snare unto thee,³³¹Exodus 23:33. which is an admonition against idolatry, for if you make a covenant with them and their gods, they will dwell in your Land and many of them will entice you to worship the idols. He added here to explain that thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth,³²¹Verse 16. for even one of them that remains among you to serve you, will remind you of the worship of their gods and perhaps you will be persuaded to do so to the Glorious Name³⁵³Further, 28:58. and you will sin against Him, blessed be He.

למען אשר לא ילמדו אתכם לעשות, וגו', “so that they will not teach you to act, etc.” so that they will not teach you how to worship Hashem by burning your children in His honour, as they do to their respective deities. Actually, the Torah had already warned the people not to allow these former inhabitants of the land of Canaan to remain in their land, as Hashem was afraid they would lead the Israelites to sin by adopting part of the religious mores that had prevailed in that land. (Exodus 23,33) This was part of the prohibition not to enter into any pact or alliance with those people, because, if they felt secure, they would remain behind in large numbers. Moses reinforces that original command by adding that the Israelites must not allow any of those former inhabitants of the land of Canaan to survive, without ifs or buts. Even individuals allowed to survive pose a spiritual danger to his environment. Observing such a person performing his cult arouses curiosity among the onlookers.

This infers that if they repent, etc. You might ask: If they repent and convert it is obvious that one may be received, so what is the verse teaching us? One answer is that it is teaching us that one is permitted to receive them even if they only accepted upon themselves the seven Noachide mitzvos. (Re”m). Another answer is that one may have thought that they may not be received even if they repented and converted, for perhaps they converted only out of fear but they did not fully repent. So it teaches us [otherwise].

V. 18. הא למדת שאם היו חוזרין בתשובה היו :למען אשר לא ילמדו אתכם מקבלין אותן die Vernichtung war nur geboten, wenn sie mit ihren polytheistischen Entartungen im Lande ein verführerisches Beispiel bleiben, nicht aber, wenn sie zu der allgemein menschlichen Sittenpflicht zurückkehren wollten (ספרי und Sota 35 a; siehe oben).

ימים [WHEN THOU SHALT BESIEGE A CITY] ימים DAYS — The plural implies at least two days,

FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD A MAN? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has explained it well, that the purport of the verse is as follows: “for thou mayest eat of it, for the man is the tree of the field [i.e., man is dependent on the fruit-tree for food], and thou shalt not cut it down that it be used by you in the siege. And the meaning of the expression for the man is the tree of the field is like for he taketh a man to pledge”³⁵⁷Further, 24:6. [which means, “when he takes away a man’s tools and means of earning a livelihood in security for a debt, it is as if the man’s very life is being taken from him,” and here too it means “for the tree of the field is man’s life” because his life depends on it]. But in the opinion of our Rabbis,³⁵⁸Baba Kamma 91b. it is permissible to cut down a fruit-tree to build a bulwark, and the statement of the Torah, Only trees which thou knowest that they are not trees for food etc.³⁵⁹Verse 20. is to assign priority, meaning that a fruitless tree should be cut down prior to a fruit-tree. If so, the meaning of the section, in their opinion, is that the Torah warned, Thou shalt not destroy the trees to cut them down destructively, not for the purpose of the siege, as is the custom of armies [to cut down trees needlessly]. And the reason for it is that warriors destroy a city and its environs in the hope of conquering it, as it says, and ye shall fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water.³⁶⁰II Kings 3:19. You are not to do so, to destroy it, for you are to trust in G-d that He will deliver it into your hand. For the man is the tree of the field, for you will eat of its fruit and live, and through it the city will be besieged by you, meaning to say, you will eat from it after conquering the city, and also when you are encamped, engaged in the siege, you should do likewise. And the meaning of the expression, them thou mayest destroy and cut down³⁵⁹Verse 20. is that you are permitted to cut them down to build bulwarks and also to destroy them until it be subdued,³⁵⁹Verse 20. for sometimes the destruction [of the trees] is for the purpose of capturing the city; for example, when the people of the city go out and fetch the wood thereof, or they hide there in the forest to fight against them, or when the trees are a refuge and a covert³⁶¹Isaiah 4:6. to the city from stones of stumbling.³⁶²See ibid., 8:14.

לא תשחית את עצה לנדוח עליו גרזן, do not destroy its trees merely in order to practice wielding an axe. Destruction must not be wanton; it is justified only if it serves to harm the enemy residing within the city.

כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים, and you find it necessary to cut down the surrounding trees to erect ramparts from which to launch missiles, etc.

כי האדם עץ השדה, “is then the tree of the field a man?” Ibn Ezra claiming that there is no need to add additional letters to make this verse intelligible, writes that the life of man can be compared to that of a tree in the field, therefore you must not destroy the fruit-bearing trees. The words: ואותו לא תכרותו, “you shall not cut it down,” belong together with the words לבא מפניך במצור, “that it should enter the siege before you.” Phrased differently, “seeing that the fruit-bearing tree is a lifeline for man how could you consider destroying it?” Nachmanides writes that according to the approach of our sages (Baba Kamma 91) it is permissible to destroy such trees during the siege and to use the timber to erect structures to enable the troops to bring the war to a speedy end. As to the meaning of the subsequent line that only trees that are not fruit-bearing may be cut down, the meaning is that if you have the choice to cut down fruit-bearing trees, or others that you know not to be of the fruit-baring variety, you must first cut down the trees that cannot furnish fruit. Fruit bearing trees are not to be cut down when such cutting down is not performed in order to fulfill a commandment of the Torah. The reason for this entire legislation, and specifically for its being mentioned at this point, is, that in war soldiers are in the habit of wreaking havoc all over, without regard to the ecological damage they cause by doing so. The Torah, therefore, goes on record that even in war, one must be concerned with what will be needed after the war has ended. The Jewish soldier, fighting a just war, must have confidence in G’d’s help so that he does not have to resort to wholesale destruction.

ואותו לא תכרת כי האדם עץ השדה, “but it (the tree) you must not cut down for is then the tree a man?” Ibn Ezra and other commentators understand the lines as “for man’s life and livelihood depends on the trees in the field.” It is comparable to Deut. 24,6 כי נפש הוא חובל, “for he would take as a pledge something his life depends on.” This is the reason the Torah commands us not to destroy fruit-bearing trees, as it would be equivalent to destroying G’d’s blessing.
Personally, I believe that the word האדם belongs to the earlier part of the verse and is part of the instruction “do not cut down.” The meaning of the whole verse would then be: “for the trees are not man that you could cut them down as if they were your enemies. It is not the mark of an intelligent people to destroy something which does not confer any benefit on it by doing so. This is why you must not only not destroy such trees but do whatever you can to preserve them and their usefulness. You are to eat its fruit, not destroy the tree. Our sages in Taanit 7 interpret the words כי ממנו תאכל, “for you eat from it,” as an allusion to the Torah scholars whose words of Torah are comparable to the fruit yielded by fruit-bearing trees. If such a Torah scholar does not conduct himself in the manner a Torah scholar should, abandon him.

Fewer than three days before Shabbos, etc. You might ask: Shabbos is not even mentioned in the verse, and that is what Re”m [also] questions! The answer is that we learn from this verse that one has to tender a peace overture for at least three days. But if they besiege a town of idolaters less than three days before Shabbos they would have to tender peace overtures even on Shabbos, but the verse writes (Yeshayah 58:13), “From doing your matters,” heavenly matters are permitted [to be addressed but] your personal [business] matters are forbidden [to be addressed] on Shabbos; and the tendering of peace overtures is considered personal [business]. Therefore we do not besiege [a town a town of idolaters] less than three days before Shabbos. It may be that Re”m meant this when he wrote, “And perhaps the answer is that one has to tender them a peace overture and it requires three days for the idolaters to take counsel among themselves in order to give a reply.”

V. 19. ספרי) לתפשה ולא לשבותה :לתפשה .כי תצור), deine Absicht darf immer nur sein, die Stadt deiner Macht zu unterwerfen, nicht aber die Bewohner kriegsgefangen zu Sklaven zu machen, oder nach anderer Lesart: לשביתה, nicht zur Zerstörung.

כי האדם עץ השדה, “for man is the tree of the field.” The word: כי in this verse means the same as אלא, “but, only; meaning “supposing a row of trees growing fruit appeared before your eyes while you were laying siege to a city, and these trees would provide cover for your enemies to hide behind them and plan to ambush you, how would you act if it were within your power to destroy these trees? An alternate interpretation: assume that this verse had been abbreviated and should have read: כי האדם עץ השדה ואותו לא תכרות, “for a human being is like a fruit bearing tree, which you are forbidden to cut down.” How would the fact that this phenomenon occurred while you were laying siege to the city behind this orchard affect you? Just as a human being is meant to produce children, i.e. fruit, so the trees are supposed to produce the fruit for which they have been provided by nature. You must not destroy such trees!

כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים , “when you lay siege to a city for a long time;” from this we learn that one does not lay siege to a city for less than three days before the Sabbath. If the city had been encircled and the Sabbath occurs before the city surrenders, this is not a reason to cease military activity on the Sabbath. This rule is one of three that the sage Shammai, (contemporary of Hillel) had stated. The three are: one does not engage in an ocean voyage less than three days before the Sabbath. This rule applies when the destination is further way than a three day voyage. If it closer, under normal circumstances, it may be undertaken closer to the Sabbath. (Sifri) All the rules concerning how to conduct a siege are valid only during expansionary wars. Defensive wars when the land of Israel has been attacked, are not subject to any of these restrictions. Such defensive action may be commenced on any day of the week.

רבים MANY must imply at least three days (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 15:25). From here they (the Rabbis) derived the law that the siege of a heathen city must not be commenced less than three days before the Sabbath, and it (this verse) teaches you that the opening up (the invitation to make) peace (v. 10) must be repeated two or three days, for so it states, (II Samuel 1:1) “And David abode two days (ימים שנים) in Ziklag” (Sifrei Devarim 200:4; Shabbat 19a). And Scripture is speaking here of a war which is not obligatory upon them (Sifrei Devarim 200:1).

כי ממנו תאכל, wanton destruction of such trees is justified only when it is not certain that without such action the war will come to a successful conclusion. The wars of conquest of the Land of Israel, however, the success of which has been guaranteed by G’d, does not fall into this category; it will be won without the need to destroy such trees. Destroying fruit bearing trees in the Land of Israel harms the country.

כי ממנו תאכל, for you will again be in need of these trees to eat of their fruit after the war is over and you have captured the city in question.

... as you may eat from it:In anything that we will need for the benefit of man, it is a commandment not to destroy [it], but rather to benefit from it...

Scripture refers to discretionary warfare. Because it is written “to capture it,” which implies that they are only coming to capture [the town]. We thus see that it refers to discretionary warfare [outside the Land of Israel], because if it is speaking of the war to conquer the Land of Israel, the verse has already written (v. 16), “You are not to leave any person alive.”

לא תשחית וגו׳, du darfst die Bäume ihrer Umgebung nicht fällen, um sie zu zerstören, oder vielmehr: nicht verderben, um sie zu fällen, so dass der ganze Zweck nur in dem "Axtschwung" in der Zerstörung liegt. Essen darfst du von ihnen, ja, du hast die Pflicht, sie dem Nahrungszweck zu erhalten, ואותו לא תכרת ,עשה :ממנו תאכל: (ספרי) זו מצות ל׳׳ת, mit der zwecklosen Zerstörung eines Nahrung gewährenden Baumes wird ein Gebot und ein Verbot übertreten.

לא תשחית את עצה, “You must not destroy its (fruitbearing) trees;” this applies to trees near the town under siege.

כי האדם עץ השדה FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD A MAN [THAT IT SHOULD BE BESIEGED BY THEE]? — כי has here the meaning of “possibly”, “perhaps” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 23:5) — is the tree of the field perhaps a man who is able to withdraw within the besieged city from before you, that it should be chastised by the suffering of famine and thirst like the inhabitants of the city? Why should you destroy it?

כי ממנו תאכל, because as soon as you have conquered the land you yourselves will want to eat the fruit of such trees.

ואותו לא תכרת, this fruit bearing tree which does not serve as support for the inhabitants of the beleaguered city such as the more distant ones, you must not cut down,

Perhaps the tree in the field is a man, to be included, etc. I.e., is the tree in the field perhaps like a man? Because it is the custom of people besieging a town that when they capture one of its inhabitants they torture him with hunger and thirst so that those in the town should fear them [and that would dissuade them] from being involved in the siege and [they too] suffer the pain of hunger and thirst. And perhaps you think that the tree in the field is the same, that if you cut it down, the other trees will fear them [and dissuade them] from being involved in the siege, just as [it works for] the town’s inhabitants. But this is not so, why destroy it?!

כי האדם עץ השדה לבא מפניך במצור, denn der Baum des Feldes ist der Mensch, die Bodenproduktion ist die Existenzbedingung des Menschen, שחייו של אדם אינו אלא מן האילן .(ספרי) ( עץ השדה ist ein Subjekt) Ibn Esra weist treffend auf die ähnliche Ausdrucksweise כי נפש הוא חובל (Kap. 24, 6) hin, wo die Mühlsteine geradezu נפש genannt werden, weil sie zur Existenz der נפש unumgänglich sind. Der Sinn des Satzes wäre, wie uns scheint, demnach: du sollst die Fruchtbäume der belagerten Stadt nicht fällen; denn Fruchtbäume bilden die Menschenexistenz, gehen daher mit in die Belagerung ein, d. h. gehören mit zu den Objekten, welche du durch die Belagerung gewinnen willst. So wenig Zerstörung die Absicht deiner Belagerung sein soll, so wenig darfst du die Bäume der Stadt zerstören. Sie gehören mit zu der belagerten Stadt.

כי ממנו תאכל, “for you will be able to eat their fruit once you have conquered the town.”

כי האדם עץ השדה, for is a tree of the field equivalent to a human being, capable of defending itself and therefore posing a danger to you? Neither is it able to surrender on account of the siege; seeing that this is so, even though part of its timber could serve as a rampart for helping you to mount an attack against the city itself, since this will not be achieved (directly) by cutting down these trees it is not proper for you to destroy such trees, as opposed to your being permitted to kill human beings in that city opposing you and endangering you.

כי האדם עץ השדה לבא מפניך במצור, every time we find the word כי in the Torah after the word לא it must be understood as meaning “but, however.” Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: “only those trees of the field which can be used by man to hide behind, and therefore interfere with your pursuit of your war, these you may cut down.” They are generally the trees that are very close to the outer perimeter of the city under siege that serve as hideouts for the enemy and represent a potential danger to your soldiers in addition to giving shelter to enemy soldiers seeking to flee. (compare Kings II 24,10

... Because man is compared to a tree of the field. And behold this comparison is found in several ways... And the explanation of the comparison [regarding the siege of war, which is only with a fruit tree] is that it is like [when] there is a man sent secretly by the besiegers (on the outside of the city) to be inside the siege in order to assist the besiegers break open the city by his causing division inside; and behold when the city is broken open and they kill the people of the besieged city - would they think of also killing those same people that came into the siege for the purpose of the besiegers and for their benefit?! So too does the fruit tree come for the benefit of the besiegers, since they benefit from its fruit at the time when they pluck the fresh fruit off of the tree. Hence it is fitting to appreciate it.

כי האדם עץ השדה, according to Rashi, the word כי here means :”perhaps” used as a question, i.e. “did you think perhaps that rules that apply to human beings are the same as those applying to fruitbearing trees?” Why should the tree which is giving man of its fruit suffer and endure the hardships of the population of the town you have laid siege to? Seeing that these trees are not guilty of anything why would you destroy them?

לבא מפניך במצור, so that you would besiege the city on their account so they would surrender to you? [the underlying idea, if I understand the author and the text correctly, is that the purpose of laying siege to a city instead of assaulting it and destroying it, is to preserve it intact after its inhabitants have been forced to surrender. Cutting down fruit bearing trees would be the opposite of your objectives in such a war. Ed.]

כי האדם עץ השדה, for man is the tree of the field, i.e. man uses the trees of the field to necessitate the enemy to lay siege to a town instead of assaulting it frontally.

עד רדתה [AND THOU SHALT BUILD BULWARKS AGAINST THE CITY …] UNTIL רדתה — This (the word רדתה) means “subduing”, [and the meaning is, thou shalt besiege it until] it becomes submissive.

רק עץ אשר תדע כי לא עץ מאכל הוא, even if it belongs to a category of trees which normally bear fruit; if you know that it is defective or too old to still bear fruit, so that no sane human being would waste his time on tending it, pruning it, etc. אותו תשחית, such a tree you may destroy for your own purposes.

'רק עץ אשר תדע וגו, a tree which never bore fruit, whether close to the city under siege or distant from it, you may cut down to help you construct the ramparts from which to launch missiles; but a fruit bearing tree that is far enough removed from the city not to afford shelter to your enemy you must not cut down.

אותו תשחית וכרת, “it you may destroy by cutting it down.” You are free to cut down such a tree without restriction whether in order to build platforms to shoot arrows from, or for whatever reasons, such as to build a fire at night to keep warm.

The meaning is “conquest.” Until it is subjugated to you. [An expression] similar to “conquer (רדה) in the midst of your enemies” (Tehillim 110:2), because the term ירידה (falling) does not refer to the town, meaning its people, but to its walls.

V. 20. רק עץ אשר תדע, es heißt nicht: רק עץ אשר איננו עץ מאכל, dies würde nur solche Bäume bezeichnen, die ihrer Art nach überhaupt keine Früchte tragen. Es heißt vielmehr: ׳אשר תדע כי וגו, das Urteil, dass er kein עץ מאכל ist, beruht auf einer speziellen Kenntnis der Individualität des Baumes. Er ist seiner Art nach ein Fruchtbaum, allein er ist doch kein עץ מאכל mehr, er kann nicht mehr zu den Bäumen gerechnet werden, die zur Nahrung dienen. Er ist so alt, dass er überhaupt keine Frucht mehr, oder nur so wenige liefert, dass sie außer Betracht kommen. Daher B. K. 91 b der Satz: דקלא דטען קבא אסור למקצציה, ein Dattelbaum, der noch ein קב jährlich trägt, darf nicht gefällt werden, und ebenso (daselbst) von Ölbäumen, deren Frucht wertvoller ist: כמה יהא בזית ולא יקצצו רובע, ein Ölbaum, der noch 1/4 קב trägt, darf nicht gefällt werden (siehe כ׳׳מ zu הל׳ מלכים ,רמב׳׳ם VII, 9), und wird dort gelehrt: ואם היה מעולה בדמים מותר, wenn der Holzwert des Baumes, z. B. zu Bauzwecken, den Fruchtwert übersteigt, so ist das Fällen zu diesem wertvolleren Zweck gestattet. לא אסרה התורה, erläutert אלא דרך השחתה ,רמב׳׳ם, das Gesetz verbietet nur ein zerstörendes Fällen, und gebietet (daselbst): להקדים סרק למאכל, überall, wo der Zweck durch einen Holzbaum erreicht werden kann, auch einen wenig fruchttragenden Baum zu schonen.

רק עץ אשר תדע כי לא עץ מאכל, אותו תשחית וכרת, “only trees that you know that they are not trees for food, you may destroy and cut down;” you may do so in order to use the lumber for purposes connected with the siege. In the Talmud, tractate Taanit, folio 7, the sages contrast the word עץ with a Torah scholar, suggesting that if the Torah scholar in question possesses the virtues that we are entitled to expect of him, we are permitted to eat of its fruit, i.e. to study Torah with him. If his character does not match his Torah knowledge, we must not study Torah from him as he is not fit to be our model. Something similar applies to disseminating Torah to students whose character and purpose in wanting to study Torah is not in order to keep the commandments; such students are not worth your while to instruct.

כי לא עץ מאכל הוא, “for it is not a tree providing food; the Torah suggests that once a fruitbearing tree has reached a stage when it no longer bears fruit, it may be treated as if it had never born fruit. Another interpretation: you must not cut down any fruitbearing tree on the field; the exception are those trees that serve as cover for your enemies and help them escape you and continue in their fight against you. If such trees make it impossible for you to reach the walls of the city which you are besieging, you may remove such an obstacle by cutting it down even if it still does bear fruit.

אשר תדע, which you recognise as such.

Es ist aber dies Verbot einer zwecklosen Zerstörung von Bäumen bei Belagerungen nur exemplifikatorisch zu fassen, und wird unter den Begriff כל תשחית das Verbot zweckloser Vernichtung irgend eines Gegenstandes überhaupt gefasst, so dass das לא תשחית unseres Gesetzes zum umfassendsten Warnruf an den Menschen wird, seine ihm eingeräumte Weltstellung nicht zur launenhaften, leidenschaftlichen, oder auch nur gedankenlosen Zerstörung der Dinge der Erde zu missbrauchen. Nur zum weisen Gebrauch hat Gott ihm seine Welt zu Füßen gelegt, als er sein: "bezwinge sie", "beherrsche sie" gesprochen (siehe ל׳׳ת רבט ,סמג).

'רק עץ אשר תדע כי לא עץ מאכל הוא וגו, “only a category of tree of which you know that it does not bear edible fruit, you may destroy even it is far from the walls of the city which you are besieging. ”Why did this line have to be written here? If it is permissible to cut down a fruit-bearing tree under certain conditions, is it is not simple logic that you may cut down non fruit bearing trees? The answer is something that we have come across repeatedly. Punishment for a sin committed may never be imposed based only on logic. Unless the Torah has specifically spelled out such punishment, it is not for us human beings to determine appropriate penalties for violating laws made by the Creator.

עד רדתה, until you have broken down the city’s wall and other fortifications. (compare 28,52)

Demgemäß, glauben wir, dürften sich die Sätze unseres Textes also darstellen: לא תשחית את עצה wäre das allgemeine Verbot der Zerstörung selbst eines Holzbaumes, wo nichts als Zerstörung, לנדח עליו גרזן, Zweck ist.

An alternate interpretation: The text has to be understood literally, “It you must not cut down.” If you wish to understand the rationale: for man is similar to the tree of the field; for just as the people who lay siege to a city and the living beings inside are compared here to the tree of the field. In order to illustrate this better, let us compare it to Deuteronomy 24,6, כי נפש הוא חובל, “for this would be equivalent to taking that person’s life;” where the Torah compares vital household utensils taken by a creditor to secure his loan as the creditor taking the debtor’s life. The human being owing the money can continue to exist only as long as he is not deprived of these vital utensils. The fruit-bearing trees around a city are similarly a basic utensil ensuring the inhabitants’ economic survival. Since the object of the siege is not to kill all its inhabitants,but to make them subservient to you, depriving them of their fruit bearing trees would be neither in your interest and certainly not in their interest.

כי ממנו תאכל ואתו לא תכרת wäre das Gebot der Erhaltung und das Verbot der Fällung von Fruchtbäumen.

רק עץ אשר תדע וגו׳ אתו תשחית וכרת ובנית וגו׳ gestattet das Fällen von alten, nur wenige Früchte tragenden Bäumen, geschweige denn von Holzbäumen, zum Bauzweck. Nach רמב׳׳ם (daselbst) wäre jedoch die Erweiterung des Verbotes לא תשחית auf alle Gegenstände nur דרבנן.

To not destroy fruit trees: That we have been prevented from chopping down trees when we besiege a city to distress the people of the city and to sadden their hearts. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 20:19), "you may not destroy its tree, etc. and you shall not chop it down." And likewise not to do any damage - such as burning or ripping a garment or breaking a vessel for no reason - entered under this negative commandment And in all of these matters and in all that is similar to them, they, may their memory be blessed, would always say in the Gemara (Kiddushin 32a), "But behold, he is transgressing on account of 'do not destroy.'" And nonetheless we only administer lashes for one that cuts down a fruit tree, since it is explicit in Scripture. But with other destructions, we [only] give him lashes of rebellion (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:10).