“If you follow My laws and faithfully observe My commandments … I will grant peace in the land, and you shall lie down untroubled by anyone; I will give the land respite from vicious beasts, and no sword shall cross your land.  You shall give chase to your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword” (Leviticus 26:3-7).

Theses verses present a moral problem and appear to be contradictory. Firstly, the verses appear to understand reality in terms of the concept of reward and punishment. Peace is presented as the direct result of obeying God’s commandments. But if peace is not an ideal that is achieved through human effort, but rather a gift of divine grace or a heavenly reward for compliance, then peace is simply a miracle and our conduct is devoid of any inherent moral content. Secondly, the verses seem to describe a contradictory reality. If there will be peace in the land, what need will there be chase our enemies? If no sword shall cross our land, how will our enemies fall before us by the sword?

It would appear that these questions are not new. In his commentary to parashat BeHukkotai, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089 – 1164) writes: “I will grant peace in the land – among yourselves”. Similarly, Nahmanides (R. Moses b. Nahaman, 1194 – 1270) explains: “I will grant peace in the land – that there will be peace among you, and brother will not fight brother”.

1. The plain meaning of the text would seem to refer to peace as it is commonly understood, and as is implied by the words: “and no sword shall cross your land”. Why, then, do the commentators explain that the promise is of internal peace – of freedom from internal strife? How must these commentators interpret the phrase “peace in the land” in order to justify their reading?

2. Might we say that due to the moral character of the commandments, living in accordance with them will naturally lead to social solidarity and justice, and that, therefore, the internal “peace” that results from observing God’s law is not a manifestation of divine grace, and does not negate the moral aspect of human conduct?

3. Does the assertion that “peace” refers to freedom from internal strife resolve the apparent contradiction between the promise of peace and the promise of victory in war? Can the approach suggested by the commentators be understood as saying that peace is not the miraculous result of obeying God’s word, but rather that social solidarity is the foundation of national strength and security? Does this resolve the contradiction?

4. Do attempts to explain divine promises as the natural results of proper human conduct, rather than as heavenly rewards for compliance, detract from the validity of the promises? Does presenting the concept of “reward and punishment” as a factual description of a society conducted in accordance with Jewish values, rather than as the realization of divine promises to enact miracles, contribute to the validity of the mitzvot and to our obligation to live by them or detract from their validity?
For further reading on the subject of approaches to halakha and the observance of mitzvot, see: David Golinkin, “The Hows and Whys of Conservative Halakhah” http://www.responsafortoday.com/eng_index.html