Weekly Torah Study: Matot-Masei - Chazak!

DIRECTIVES FOR THE FUTURE (33:50–56) God instructs Moses to proclaim an entrance strategy, describing the protocol concerning the inhabitants of Canaan. The instructions are concise and severe, calling upon the Israelites to dispossess the inhabitants completely; to destroy figured objects, molten images, and all worship places; and then to settle in the land. They are instructed to divide the land in proportion to the size of the tribes (or perhaps of the clans) once they enter the land. They are warned that God would destroy them should they neglect to destroy all the inhabitants. The rationale for complete destruction of the inhabitants is the danger that their presence would pose for Israel’s future.According to Numbers’ ideology, as well as Deuteronomy’s, Israel cannot survive if it is subject to the influence and presence of Canaanites. The perspective of this disturbing mandate reflects an understanding of Israel as small, inhabiting a landscape surrounded by (and infiltrated by) a stronger and more numerous people, the Canaanites. Historically speaking, the Canaanites and the Israelites were closely related. For example, what we know of contemporaneous Canaanite languages is that (like Phoenician to the north, and Moabite to the east) they were very close to Hebrew. Indeed, historians argue that the separation of Israelites from other Canaanites was a slow process. Some scholars maintain that the Bible is most severe with regard to Canaanites because Canaanite culture is most easily confused with that of Israel, as it attempts to establish a distinct identity. (See also at Deuteronomy 7:1–5, 24; 12:29–31.) - The Torah: A Women's Commentary

Even though the Torah says in Deut. 20, 16 that: "you must not allow a single soul (of these seven nations) to survive," in this instance the Torah does not speak of the seven Canaanite nations but about others who lived amongst them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e. "all the ones who dwell in the land," that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven nations.

Open

Add to Sheet

52

Alternatively, the Torah refers again to a nation which the Israelites do not possess the strength to kill. At least they should ensure that they would leave the land and not remain in it. - Or Ha'Chaim

“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. -Chizkuni

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. - Rashbam

A different view from Sforno...

In my opinion this is a positive commandment, in which He is commanding them to dwell in the Land and inherit it, because He has given it to them and they should not reject the inheritance of the Eternal. Thus if the thought occurs to them to go and conquer the land of Shinar or the land of Assyria or any other country and to settle therein, they are [thereby] transgressing the commandment of G-d. And that which our Rabbis have emphasized, the significance of the commandment of settling in the Land of Israel, and that it is forbidden to leave it [except for certain specified reasons] - Ramban

We should note, however, that God’s commanding the destruction of the Canaanites was not racially or culturally motivated. The Lord never told Israel to wipe out the inhabitants of the promised land because they were of a different bloodline than the people of Israel. Moreover, God did not order Israel to pursue Canaanite peoples who fled outside the boundaries of the promised land. His goal was not to wipe out a people for ethnic reasons but to get them out of the land. It was possible for Canaanite peoples to flee the territory for safety. Clearly, God was not moved by ethnic or racial hatred to order the conquest of Canaan, for we see that Rahab converted to the God of Israel and was spared while remaining ethnically Canaanite (Josh. 2; 6:25).

A true genocide seeks to exterminate an entire people no matter what, even if they flee to another land, and will spare none from that people. The scope of the destruction of the Canaanites was limited to a particular territory, and one could escape the sword of Israel by fleeing or by turning from sin and trusting in the one true God. God did not order a genocide. - Robert Rothwell https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2025/02/the-conquest-of-canaan/

In last lesson, we considered the war against the Canaanites from the broader perspective of the Pentateuch. An investigation of the sources in the Torah that obligated Israel to wipe out all expressions of indigenous idolatrous worship clearly demonstrated that the underlying impetus for their campaign of eradication was moral rather than racial or ethnic. Almost without exception, every Pentateuchal source that commanded the conquest of Canaan also noted the moral degradation of its inhabitants. With Israel poised to settle the land and found their nation state, the menace of its foundations becoming undermined by the adoption of polytheistic relativism was too great to overlook. In our own day, we recognize only too well the inherent danger of granting clemency to dictators or to regimes that refuse to abide by any ethical principles. In the end, such individuals and societies destroy not only themselves but those around them as well. - Rav Michael Hattin https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/neviim/sefer-yehoshua/yehoshua-12-moral-war

In his article, Naim S. Ateek argues that though many Jews and fundamentalist Christians believe that Palestine was given to the Jews by God and it belongs to them forever, the Hebrew Bible does not fully support the idea and criticizes this view as an abuse of the Bible.10For Ateek, the land does not belong to any human group but to God according to Lev 25:23 and Jer 16:18;11 there are two exodus stories in the Hebrew Bible, one in the Exodus and the other in the narrative of returnees from Babylon—according to Ezek 47:21-23, God commends Israel to “treat them [indigenous population] as citizens of Israel.”12 Ateek’s counter-reading reveals that the Hebrew Bible does support a peaceful life of Israel with indigenous populations. It also reveals that the exodus and conquest narratives are being appropriated in political hegemonic discourse. -https://aatfweb.org/2014/09/01/biblical-moral-dilemmas-the-case-of-canaanites/