The command to destroy certain peoples in the Hebrew Bible, often referred to as herem texts, presents a challenging topic for Jewish scholars and adherents. These texts, prominently featured in Deuteronomy 20:16-18, the conquest narratives of Joshua, and 1 Samuel 15, depict divine instructions for the Israelites to annihilate certain groups, including the Canaanites and Amalekites. This article will explore how Jewish commentators and scholars have grappled with these texts, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of their interpretations.
Textual Exploration
Deuteronomy 20:16-18 commands the Israelites concerning the cities of particular peoples in Canaan: "you shall not let anything that breathes remain alive" (Hebrew: lo techayeh kol neshamah). The passage names the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, while parallel lists such as Deuteronomy 7:1 include the Girgashites as part of the traditional "seven nations." Joshua 6-11 uses sweeping language of total destruction, especially at Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. At the same time, Joshua and Judges also preserve notices that many Canaanite populations remained in the land (for example, Joshua 13:1-6; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; Judges 1). A careful reading therefore has to ask whether the conquest language is literal enumeration, ancient Near Eastern war rhetoric, a theological idealization, or evidence of tension among biblical traditions. In 1 Samuel 15, Saul is instructed through Samuel to destroy Amalek, and his failure to carry out the command becomes the immediate reason given for his rejection as king.
Rambam's Position
Maimonides (Rambam), in Hilchot Melachim (Laws of Kings), gives a legal rather than merely rhetorical treatment of these texts. He codifies the command concerning the seven nations, but then states that their memory and identity have already been lost, making the command practically inoperative toward any identifiable people today (Melachim 5:4). He also treats Amalek separately, so his comment about the seven nations should not be turned into a blanket denial that the Torah contains such war commands. Equally important, Rambam rules that Israel may not wage war, whether optional or commanded, without first offering peace terms (Melachim 6:1-4). If those terms are accepted, the population is not killed. Rambam's position therefore narrows practical application and places the commands inside a halakhic framework, but it does not erase the ethical difficulty of the biblical wording itself.
Rabbinic Requirement to Offer Peace
Rabbinic tradition adds a major qualification: before war, Israel must offer terms of peace. This reading draws on Deuteronomy 20:10-12 and is extended by rabbinic interpretation beyond distant cities. The Jerusalem Talmud states that Joshua sent three messages before entering the land: those who wished to flee could flee, those who wished to make peace could make peace, and those who wished to fight could fight (Jerusalem Talmud, Sheviit 6:1). Rambam later codifies the peace offer as applying to both discretionary and commanded wars. This is a genuine moderating tradition, but it should be described honestly: the proposed "peace" was not a modern treaty between equals. In Rambam's formulation it involved accepting Israelite rule, tribute or subordination, and basic religious-ethical obligations. The rabbinic move significantly limits violence, but it does not make the plain sense of the herem passages morally easy.
Ramban's Discussion
Nachmanides (Ramban) approaches the issue more theologically, but he is not simply dismissive of the moral problem. He takes seriously the reason given inside Deuteronomy itself: "so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods" (Deuteronomy 20:18). For Ramban, the command is tied to the creation of a covenantal society in the land and to the prevention of idolatrous practices that the Torah views as spiritually and morally destructive. He also engages the peace-offer tradition rather than treating extermination as the only possible first step. The strength of Ramban's reading is that it explains why the Torah frames the command in religious terms; its limitation is that appealing to divine purpose and anti-idolatry still leaves modern readers facing the severity of the commanded violence.
Modern Academic Views
Contemporary academic scholarship often approaches Joshua as theological historiography shaped by the Deuteronomistic tradition, with older materials and later editing rather than as a simple battlefield chronicle. Archaeology has not produced a straightforward picture of a rapid, unified conquest of Canaan. Some sites show destruction layers, with Hazor often discussed as a significant example, while other famous sites, including Jericho and Ai as commonly identified, do not fit neatly with the biblical chronology. Settlement evidence is frequently read as pointing to a more gradual and complex emergence of Israel in the highlands. On this view, the conquest narratives function to reinforce Israel's identity, covenantal loyalty, and rejection of idolatry. This approach can reduce the likelihood that the texts describe events exactly as narrated, but it still has to account for why the canonical text preserves such severe commands.
Assessing the Responses
The interpretations offered by Rambam, the rabbinic tradition, and Ramban each have real strengths and real limits. Rambam is strong on present-day application: if the seven nations are no longer identifiable, the command cannot be applied to any living ethnic group. That is a serious legal safeguard, though it does not answer every question about the original command. The rabbinic peace-offer tradition has a textual basis in Deuteronomy 20:10-12 and an important halakhic pedigree, but extending it to the seven nations and Amalek is a harmonizing interpretation rather than the most obvious reading of Deuteronomy 20:16-18 by itself. Ramban's theological reading is strong insofar as it follows the Torah's own stated rationale against idolatry, but it remains difficult for readers who ask whether that rationale can justify the killing language in the texts.
Modern academic perspectives provide a critical lens that questions the historicity and literary shaping of the conquest accounts. They can make the texts look less like a transcript of actual extermination and more like ancient theological war literature. Yet this approach does not by itself solve the canonical problem: Jewish communities still read these passages as part of Torah and Prophets, and traditional readers often need an account that is not only historical-critical but also ethical and theological.
Concluding Thoughts
The herem texts remain a source of profound moral and theological tension within Judaism. While Jewish scholars have developed various ways to interpret these passages, none offer a complete resolution to the ethical challenges they present. The dialogue between tradition and modernity continues as scholars and believers seek to understand these ancient commands within the broader context of Jewish ethics and theology. Ultimately, the difficulty of these texts invites ongoing reflection and discussion, underscoring the dynamic nature of engagement with sacred scripture.