6 min read

Two Days of Peace Before the City Was Closed

Israel camped before a walled city and spent two days offering terms, while inside the gates men argued whether tribute and service were better than the sword.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. Many Days Mean Two, Then a Third
  2. Tribute and Service, Not Half a Peace
  3. Victory with a Condition
  4. The Third Morning

Heralds walked toward the closed gates with no armor on their chests and dust on their tongues. Behind them the Israelite camp waited with ladders still unstrapped and horses nosing empty feed bags. The city wall threw a long shadow across the road like a second army lying down to rest before it stood again as stone.

Two Days of Peace Before the City Was Closed Click for full size

Many Days Mean Two, Then a Third

"When you approach a city to wage war on it, you shall call out to it for peace" (Deuteronomy 20:10). The midrash turned "many days" into a count a soldier could feel in his bones and complain about in the heat: two days for the offer, and on the third the siege may begin. The teachers admitted the count was an intimation more than an iron proof text, and still they held it, pointing toward David's arrival at Ziklag on the third day as a narrative echo that made the number feel older than their debate (I Samuel 30:1).

On the first day the heralds spoke terms until their voices went rough. On the second day they spoke again while dust settled on the same words and a crow walked the wall as if bored. Inside, men argued in a language the camp could not hear, hands cutting the air, elders shaking heads, young fighters spitting toward the road.

No stone was thrown yet. Waiting was its own weapon, and also its own test of whether Israel could obey a pace that felt slower than rage.

A boy in the camp asked why they did not simply climb. His uncle said, "Because the law climbs first with a mouth, not a ladder."

Tribute and Service, Not Half a Peace

Even Canaanites inside a city, the midrash insisted, could be found among "all the people" who might accept terms. The phrase did not let hatred erase the possibility of a bargain. If they made peace, they would be tribute and they would serve. One without the other was not peace. Tribute without service, or service without tribute, was a bargain the camp was told not to trust, a half-yoke that would slip when the season changed.

A merchant on the wall spat when he heard both demands. A father of three closed his eyes and calculated grain against the lives of sons who liked to talk of glory. Peace under a yoke is still not a sword in the street. The calculation hurt and remained real, more adult than the songs the young men wanted.

If the city refused, the text warned, war would come, and the warning itself was part of the ethics: do not pretend surprise when the gates stay shut after two days of open speech. Scripture, the midrash said, apprises you of the refusal before the first ladder touches stone.

In the camp a runner waited for a signal that did not come on the first evening. He slept badly with his hand on a strap.

Victory with a Condition

"The Lord your God will deliver it into your hands," the verse promised, and the midrash stapled a condition to the promise like a seal on a deed: if you do what was instructed. Divine help was not a blank check written for any cruelty that called itself Israel and waved a banner. Conduct first. Delivery second. The same condition followed into the laws of captives and the limits that still bound the winner's hands.

A young fighter wanted the third day immediately, cheeks hot with the insult of waiting. An older officer held him by the strap until the leather creaked. "Two days," he said. "You do not get to be hungrier than the law."

Sabbath edges entered the same teaching like a second clock. Do not start a siege so close to Shabbat that holy time is forced into the first chaos of assault. A long sea voyage had a similar caution in the midrash's widening of "many days." War and travel both had to respect the calendar that made Israel more than a pack of winners with good aim.

The young fighter sat down hard enough to raise dust. Hunger for battle is also a kind of fear, dressed in forward motion.

The Third Morning

On the third morning the gates stayed closed. The heralds walked back without their earlier patience, shoulders tighter, mouths done with courtesy. Ladders came off the carts. The wall looked the same and felt different, as if stone could sense when speech had ended and only weight remained.

Inside, some had wanted terms. They lost the argument to pride, or to fear of their own kings, or to a bet that the camp would tire and leave. The camp did not tire in the way they hoped. It had been ordered to wait, and waiting had become part of its discipline rather than a leak in it.

What followed belonged to the hard laws of capture and the limits that still bound Israel even in victory, including who could be taken and how a captive woman would later sit in a house and mourn. The two days of peace remained in the story as a ridge the army had to climb before it was allowed to become only force.

At dusk of the second day, before that third morning, a child on the wall had watched the heralds and asked whether the men outside preferred talking to winning. His father said, "They prefer winning the way they were told to win." The child did not understand. The midrash does, and keeps the two days so later camps cannot skip the mouth and go straight to the ladder without feeling the skip as a sin against their own instruction.


← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

5 sources

The texts behind this telling. Some cards carry a translation of the source; others are our own retelling of it, and each card says which. Every card links out to the original.

Sifrei Devarim 203:4Sifrei Devarim

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Sifrei by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein · CC-BY

The phrase "many days" becomes a rule of war in Sifrei Devarim: two days for peace, then a third day when siege may begin.

This teaching breaks down "many days" into its component parts. "Days" implies a minimum of two, while "many" adds a third.

It's important to note that the text itself acknowledges a certain… interpretive leap here. "Even though there is no proof for this," it says, "there is an intimation of it" in the Book of Samuel (I Samuel 30:1). Remember when David and his men arrived at Tziklag? It was on the third day. The text subtly suggests that this timing wasn't accidental. Perhaps it echoes this deeper principle of offering peace first.

The interpretation doesn't stop there. The text offers another perspective, shifting our focus from warfare ethics to Sabbath observance. This time, "many days" informs regulations around besieging gentile cities. The rule? Don't start a siege less than three days before the Sabbath. Why? So you don’t accidentally violate the sanctity of the Sabbath if the siege drags on. However, if the siege has already begun, you don't have to stop it for the Sabbath. It's a delicate balance between military strategy and religious observance.

And it’s not just sieges. The same principle applies to sea voyages. Don’t set sail on a long journey less than three days before the Sabbath. The same rationale applies: to avoid potentially desecrating the Sabbath at sea. But, and it’s a crucial "but," this only applies to long voyages. A short trip? That's perfectly fine.

What we see here is a prime example of how the rabbis would carefully interpret even the smallest of phrases to derive practical laws and ethical guidelines. It's not always straightforward; sometimes it requires a bit of interpretation, a bit of inference. But this is how the tradition lives and breathes.

So, the next time you encounter a seemingly simple phrase in a sacred text, remember the "many days" of Sifrei Devarim. Remember that behind those words lies a tradition of interpretation, ethical considerations, and a deep commitment to living a life guided by Jewish law, or halakha. And remember that sometimes, the most profound insights are hidden in the spaces between the words, waiting to be discovered.

Full source
Sifrei Devarim 200:5Sifrei Devarim

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Sifrei by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein · CC-BY

This particular passage deals with the laws of warfare laid out in the Book of Deuteronomy. It begins with a seemingly simple phrase: "then all the people found in it." But who are "all the people?" Sifrei Devarim clarifies that this includes even the Canaanites within the city.

Hold on a second. The Canaanites? The very people we were commanded to destroy? What's going on here?

Well, that’s precisely the tension this passage addresses. Even these sworn adversaries are given a chance. The text continues: "shall be tribute to you and they shall serve you." In other words, if the Canaanites agree to a treaty, they become subject to Israelite rule, paying tribute and performing service. A path to coexistence, albeit an unequal one.

Here’s the kicker: it has to be both tribute and servitude. The text explicitly states that if they offer only one – tribute but not servitude, or servitude but not tribute – they are not to be heeded. They must accept the full terms. It's a stark reminder that peace, in this context, comes with specific conditions.

Why this insistence on both? We can read this as a reflection of the ancient world's understanding of power dynamics and treaty obligations. It also reflects the very real practical realities of administering a conquered population, and preventing future rebellion.

But the passage doesn't stop there. It also offers a cautionary note: "But if it does not make peace with you, and it makes war with you." This isn’t just stating the obvious. It’s a warning. Scripture, according to the Sifrei, "apprises you that if it does not make peace with you (and you let it be), in the end it will make war with you." Letting a potential enemy fester only invites future conflict. Think of it as a strategic assessment: Ignoring the possibility of peace, or failing to secure it properly, will inevitably lead to more bloodshed.

And what if war is unavoidable? "Then you shall lay siege to it." The text adds an unsettling detail: this siege can even involve reducing the city "by famine, thirst, or plague." A grim reminder of the brutal realities of ancient warfare. Sieges were not pretty affairs. They were designed to break the enemy's will through any means necessary.

So, what are we to make of all this? Is this an endorsement of ruthless conquest? A pragmatic acceptance of the realities of power? Or a nuanced exploration of the complexities of war and peace?

Perhaps it's all of the above. The text doesn't shy away from the harshness of war, but it also emphasizes the importance of pursuing peace whenever possible – even with those considered enemies. But it's a very specific kind of peace. One that demands submission and adherence to specific terms.

Reading this passage today, it’s hard not to confront its implications. How do we balance the desire for peace with the need for security? How far should we go to accommodate those who may threaten us? And what are the ethical implications of demanding specific conditions for peace?

These aren't easy questions, and Sifrei Devarim 200 doesn't offer easy answers. But it does offer a powerful glimpse into the moral and strategic considerations that have shaped Jewish thought on war and peace for centuries. It invites us to wrestle with these difficult questions and to consider what it truly means to pursue peace in a complex and often dangerous world.

Full source
Sifrei Devarim 200:7Sifrei Devarim

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Sifrei by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein · CC-BY

Sometimes, it really is. to a fascinating, and frankly unsettling, passage from Sifrei Devarim, a collection of legal interpretations on the Book of Deuteronomy. Specifically,

The verse states: "Then the L-rd your G-d will deliver it into your hands." Okay, sounds promising! But Sifrei Devarim immediately adds a crucial condition: if you do everything that’s been instructed previously, then God will deliver victory. It’s a reminder that divine assistance isn’t a blank check; it's contingent on our actions, on following the divine plan. There's always a condition. Now, things get complicated. The text continues, "then you shall smite all of its males by the sword." Ouch. This raises a serious ethical question: Who exactly are we talking about here? Are we talking about everyone?

The Rabbis in Sifrei Devarim immediately confront this. Could this possibly include the children? The text anticipates this very question, immediately pointing us to the next verse (Deuteronomy 20:14): "but the women and the little ones… you shall take for yourself." So, women and children are spared. Relief. But wait… It's not that simple!

A logical challenge is posed: What about the female children? Does "little ones" refer only to the daughters? Could we possibly understand the text to mean that only male children are to be killed?

The text then brings in a brilliant, albeit chilling, qal va-chomer argument – an “how much more so” argument, a form of logical inference. It references the war with Midian (Numbers 31), a particularly brutal episode where adult women were put to death. If, in that extreme case, the children were spared, then "how much more so" should the children be spared here, where the adult women are being spared? In other words, if even in the worst case the children lived, then surely they live in the better case! Therefore, the conclusion reached is that "little ones" in this context must refer to the male children.

Let's just sit with that for a second.

What are we to make of this? The implications are disturbing, aren't they? It's a stark reminder that even within sacred texts, there are passages that challenge our modern sensibilities, that force us to confront difficult moral questions. It forces us to ask what the role of historical context plays in biblical understanding. It is a case study in how to interpret difficult texts. It highlights the tension between divine command and human morality.

Perhaps the enduring lesson isn't the specific ruling itself, but the very act of wrestling with these texts. The Rabbis of Sifrei Devarim didn't shy away from the difficult questions. They grappled with the ethical implications, they argued, they debated, all in the pursuit of understanding. And maybe, that's what we're called to do as well: to engage with our traditions, to question, to learn, and to strive for a more just and compassionate world, even when the path isn't clear.

Full source
Sifrei Devarim 190:20Sifrei Devarim

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Sifrei by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein · CC-BY

The Sifrei Devarim, a collection of legal midrashim (rabbinic interpretive commentary) on the Book of Deuteronomy, tackles this very feeling in a fascinating way.

It starts with the verse from Deuteronomy (20:1): "When you go out to war against your foes…" Seems straightforward. But the Sifrei Devarim immediately points out that this isn't talking about a mandatory war, a milchemet mitzvah, but rather an optional one. A war you choose to fight.

Then comes a powerful reminder: "against your foes": (Remember that) it is against your foes that you are warring." It’s a subtle but crucial point. Don’t get lost in the grand strategy, the fear, the noise of battle. Remember who you're fighting and why.

The real depth comes with the line, "and you see horse and chariot." The Sifrei Devarim doesn't just gloss over this detail. It dives into it. "Just as they go out against you with horse and chariot, so, you go out against them with horse and chariot." Okay, makes sense. Fight fire with fire. But then it gets… weird. "Now do they have only one horse? Is it not written 'a great host'?" The text seems to be saying: don't take the words literally. The enemy doesn't have just one horse. They have legions! So what’s going on here?

The Sifrei Devarim offers a stunning interpretation: "when Israel do the L-rd's will, they are all reckoned as one horse."

Wow. Let that sink in.

When the people of Israel are unified, when they are aligned with the Divine will, they become… one. A single, powerful force. It’s not about the number of soldiers, the sophistication of the weaponry, or the size of the enemy's army. It's about unity and purpose.

The text reinforces this with another example, referencing the splitting of the Red Sea. "Horse and its rider He has cast into the sea." (Exodus 15:1). Was there only one horse? Of course not! As it says in (Exodus 14:7), "And he (Pharaoh) took six hundred choice chariots…" Again, the point is that when Israel is united and following God's will, they are seen as one entity, a force to be reckoned with, even against overwhelming odds.

We may not be facing literal wars with horses and chariots. But we face challenges – internal and external – that can feel overwhelming. Perhaps the Sifrei Devarim is reminding us that our strength isn't just in our individual abilities, but in our unity, our shared purpose, and our connection to something larger than ourselves. When we act in accordance with what's right, when we strive for justice and compassion, we, too, can become "one horse," a force capable of overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

Full source
Sifrei Devarim 211:7Sifrei Devarim

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Sifrei by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein · CC-BY

This particular section, 211, deals with the laws of war, and specifically, what happens when an Israelite soldier encounters a captivating woman amongst the captives.

It all starts with the verse: "and the L-rd your G-d delivers him into your hand." A But the Sifrei emphasizes a condition: if you act according to the laws and principles laid out in the Torah, then you can expect divine aid. It’s a reminder that victory isn’t just about military might; it’s about ethical conduct, too. There's a cause and effect here.

Then we get to the phrase: "and you capture its captivity." Now, what does "its captivity" even include? The Sifrei clarifies that this encompasses everyone within the captured territory, "including Canaanites in their midst (even if they be of the seven nations)." Even those belonging to nations previously marked for a different fate are now included in the rules governing captives. This adds a layer of complexity to the laws of war.

The real heart of this passage, the bit that always gets people talking, revolves around the phrase "and you see in the captivity.. of beautiful form." This is where things get interesting, and perhaps a little uncomfortable, as it discusses the scenario where a soldier finds himself attracted to a female captive.

The text specifically mentions "of beautiful form," leading to a logical question: does this law only apply to beautiful women? The rabbis, in their wisdom, delve deeper. "This tells me only of a woman of beautiful form," the Sifrei notes. "Whence do I derive that the same applies to an ugly woman? From 'and you desire her': even if she is not beautiful." The passage acknowledges that desire isn't always rational or based on conventional beauty. The very act of desiring her, regardless of her physical appearance, triggers the application of these laws.

So, if the law applies to any woman desired, why the specific mention of "beautiful form"? The Sifrei answers, "Scripture speaks of the common instance." In other words, the Torah often uses the most typical scenario as a starting point, even when the principle extends beyond that specific example. It's like saying, "When you buy a car…" even though the principle of making a purchase applies to everything from cars to cucumbers.

It’s a fascinating glimpse into how the rabbis of old grappled with complex human emotions and tried to create a framework for ethical behavior, even in the midst of war. It's not condoning the taking of captives. Far from it. It's trying to mitigate the potential for abuse and establish rules, however imperfect, for a deeply troubling situation.

The underlying message here, I think, is about controlling our impulses and treating all human beings with dignity, even in the most extreme circumstances. It’s a reminder that even in war, our humanity – and our adherence to a higher moral code – is what truly defines us. It challenges us to consider: what are the ethical considerations in the midst of conflict, and how do we maintain our values when confronted with difficult choices? Powerful questions, aren't they?

Full source