In parashat Shoftim we read: “When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it responds peaceably and lets you in, all the people present there shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not surrender to you, but would join battle with you, you shall lay siege to it” (Deuteronomy 20:10-12).

We encountered this obligation to offer terms of peace earlier, but not as a Divine commandment:

Then I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to King Sihon of Heshbon with an offer of peace, as follows, “Let me pass through your country. I will keep strictly to the highway, turning off neither to the right nor to the left” (Deut. 2:26-27).

The midrash explains:

This is one of three things that Moses said to the Holy One, and He said: You have taught me…The third was when the Holy One instructed him to go to war with Sihon, and even if he does not seek it with you, you will declare war upon him, as it says: Up! Set out across the wadi Arnon! (Deut. 2:24). But Moses did not do so, but what is written there? Then I sent messengers. The Holy One said to him: By your life! I rescind my words and uphold yours, as it says: When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace (Numbers Rabba (Vilna) 19:33).

According to the midrash, it would appear that the commandment did not originate in God’s will, but rather derived from Moses’ moral judgment. Rashi (relying upon Midrash Tanhuma, Deuteronomy) explains: “Even though the Divine Presence did not command me to offer Sihon terms of peace, I learned from the wilderness of Sinai, from the Torah that preceded the world. When the Holy One came to give the Torah to Israel, He also offered it to Esau and Ishmael, for although He knew that they would not accept it, He nevertheless approached them in peace. So I approached Sihon with an offer of peace. Another explanation of ‘From the wilderness of Kedemoth’:  I learned form Who existed before Creation. You could have sent one bolt of lightening and burned all of Egypt, but You sent me to Pharaoh from the desert to say Let my people go, gently” (Rashi, Deut. 2:26). According to these midrashic commentaries, while God did not expressly command that we act in this manner, it nevertheless reflects God’s will as expressed in the Divine conduct that we wish to emulate.

1.      Relying upon Midrash Sifre (Deut. 199), Rashi explains simply: ‘The Torah is referring to a discretionary war (milhemet reshut).” This view is also adopted in Sefer Hahinukh and elsewhere, and appears to reflect the plain meaning of the text, as expressed in verses 15-16: “Thus you shall deal with all towns that lie very far from you, towns that do not belong to nations hereabout. In the towns of the latter peoples, however, which the Lord your God is giving you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive.” As Rashi’s grandson R. Solomon b. Meir (Rashbam) explains: “When you come to fight them, you shall not offer them terms of peace, as I instructed you in regard to other nations, but if they offer to be your slaves before you approach them, like the Gibeonites, you may let them live.” Why does Rashbam add that final explanation? What question is he answering?

2.      As opposed to the above, Maimonides rules: “War is not waged against anyone before offering terms of peace, both in a discretionary war and an obligatory war (Laws concerning Kings 6:1). Nahmanides writes: “Rashi explains that in regard to a discretionary war, the Torah says that we begin with an offer of peace, but in a war against the Seven Nations we do not offer peace. But the text speaks in general terms: ‘When you approach a town”. This clearly refers to every town and every war, and whether it is a discretionary war or an obligatory war, it is commanded that we offer terms of peace, except to Amon and Moab, of which the Torah says ‘You shall never concern yourself with their welfare or benefit as long as you live’ (Deut. 23:7). But even in the case of Amon and Moab, to whom we do not offer peace, if they adopt them on their own initiative, we accept them, for such is the power of peace.” Upon what do Maimonides and Nahmanides base their views? Like Rashbam, Nahmanides also adds the eventuality of an enemy adopting terms of peace at its own initiative. Why does Nahmanides add this condition? Is it relevant to note that Sihon was an Amorite king?