Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What does Deuteronomy 20:13 mean when it says 'smite every male with the edge of the sword'?
A: This verse refers to the laws of war (milchemet reshut) as outlined in the Torah. According to Rashi and the Talmud (Sotah 44b), this applies specifically to optional wars (not mandatory wars like those against Amalek). The Torah commands that when besieging a city that refuses peace terms, adult males must be killed to prevent future military threats. However, women, children, and property were to be spared (as stated in the following verses).
Q: Why does the Torah command killing the males in war?
A: The Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 6:1-4) explains that this was a strategic military necessity in ancient times to prevent conquered populations from regrouping and retaliating. However, the Torah first requires offering terms of peace (Deuteronomy 20:10). Only if the city refused peace would this extreme measure be taken. Jewish tradition emphasizes that war is always a last resort, and the Torah limits violence as much as possible while recognizing the realities of warfare.
Q: How does this verse apply to Jews today?
A: According to halacha (Jewish law), these laws primarily applied to biblical-era wars fought under direct divine command or by Jewish kings with proper authorization. Today, without the Sanhedrin or Temple, these laws are not practically applicable. The principles we learn are about the Torah's approach to warfare - always seeking peace first (as stated in preceding verses), limiting violence to what's necessary, and maintaining ethical conduct even in war.
Q: Does this verse conflict with Judaism's value of peace?
A: Not at all. The Talmud (Gittin 46a) teaches that 'great is peace, for even in war, peace must be sought first.' This verse comes after the requirement to offer peace terms (Deuteronomy 20:10). The Torah recognizes that sometimes war is necessary for survival, but it must be conducted ethically. The Midrash (Tanchuma Shoftim 15) emphasizes that these commands were specific to particular historical circumstances and not general endorsements of violence.
Q: What's the difference between this war and the war against Amalek?
A: Rashi (on Deuteronomy 20:13) distinguishes between this 'optional war' (milchemet reshut) and the 'obligatory war' (milchemet mitzvah) against Amalek. For optional wars, peace must be offered first, and only adult males are killed if they refuse. Against Amalek (a mandatory war), there was no peace option, and all were to be destroyed (Deuteronomy 25:19) because of their unique evil and eternal threat to Israel. The Talmud (Sotah 44b) elaborates on these distinctions.
Context in the Torah
The verse (Devarim 20:13) appears in the context of the laws governing warfare, specifically concerning the treatment of cities outside the borders of Eretz Yisrael that refuse to accept terms of peace. The Torah outlines the harsh measures to be taken against such cities, including the killing of all males.
Rashi's Explanation
Rashi (Devarim 20:13) clarifies that this commandment applies specifically to milchemet reshut (a discretionary war), not a milchemet mitzvah (an obligatory war, such as the battles against the seven Canaanite nations). He emphasizes that this is a wartime measure and not a general ethical principle, as the Torah elsewhere commands seeking peace first (Devarim 20:10).
Rambam's Halachic Perspective
In Hilchot Melachim (6:1-4), the Rambam codifies these laws, stating that before engaging in battle, the Jewish people must offer terms of peace. Only if the city refuses peace do these severe measures apply. The Rambam stresses that this is a last resort after all diplomatic efforts fail.
Moral and Ethical Considerations
Midrashic Insights
The Sifrei (Devarim 20:10) elaborates that the offer of peace must include acceptance of the Seven Noahide Laws and payment of tribute. Only if they refuse both conditions does the war proceed. This shows that the Torah prioritizes peaceful resolution whenever possible.
Modern Orthodox Perspectives
Contemporary poskim, such as Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe), discuss how these laws are not applicable in modern times due to the absence of a Jewish king and Sanhedrin to authorize such wars. The principles are studied for their ethical and halachic insights rather than practical application today.