Divine Restraint and Sacred Violence: A Comprehensive Legal, Theological, and Ethical Analysis of the Rules of Engagement in Deuteronomy 20

23 Nov

1. Introduction: The Theological Constitution of Warfare

The twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy occupies a unique and somewhat paradoxical position within the legal corpus of the Ancient Near East. In an era defined by imperial expansion, the glorification of military might, and the routine brutality of conquest, this text articulates a "Constitution of War" that subordinates military necessity to theological imperative and ethical restraint. It is a document that regulates state violence not merely through the lens of tactical efficacy, but through a rigorous framework of covenantal holiness. While the surrounding cultures—Assyria, Babylon, Egypt—produced annals celebrating the flaying of captives, the piling of heads, and the salting of fields, Deuteronomy 20 introduces a radical counter-narrative: a divinely mandated restraint that restricts the size of the army, protects the environment from "scorched earth" tactics, and mandates diplomatic overtures even to sworn enemies.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of Deuteronomy 20, dissecting its philological roots, its reception in rabbinic jurisprudence, and its enduring legacy in modern military ethics. The investigation is not limited to the text itself but extends to the broader socio-political context of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, contrasting the Israelite laws of war with the normative practices of their neighbors. Furthermore, we will explore the profound theological tensions embedded in the text—specifically the juxtaposition of the humanitarian "offer of peace" with the severity of the Herem (the total ban) decreed against the Canaanite nations.

At its core, Deuteronomy 20 addresses the fundamental tension between the inevitable reality of human conflict and the sanctity demanded of a people governed by Yahweh. It establishes a binary framework for engagement—distinguishing between discretionary wars of expansion (Milchemet Reshut) and obligatory wars of inheritance (Milchemet Mitzvah)—while simultaneously embedding exemptions that prioritize the individual’s life cycle over the state’s military needs. The analysis will reveal a system designed to prevent the brutalization of the conqueror as much as it regulates the fate of the conquered, positing that the conduct of war is a reflection of a nation's spiritual health.

2. The Spiritual Preparation for Battle

2.1 The Divine Presence and the Prohibition of Fear

The text opens with a command that strikes the modern strategic mind as counter-intuitive, if not reckless: "When you go out to battle against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them".1 To understand the weight of this injunction, one must contextualize the military reality of the biblical era. In the Late Bronze and Iron Age Levant, the "horse and chariot" represented the apex of military technology—the ancient equivalent of a modern armored division. For an Israelite militia, largely composed of infantry and lacking a professional standing cavalry, the sight of Egyptian or Canaanite chariotry would have been a source of existential terror.

However, the Deuteronomic text reframes this material disadvantage through a theological lens. The prohibition against fear is not merely a pep talk; it is a legal imperative grounded in historical precedent: "For the LORD your God is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt".3 The reference to the Exodus is deliberate. It serves as the foundational archetype of Israelite victory, which was achieved not through superior arms or strategic brilliance, but through Divine intervention. By invoking Egypt, the text establishes the principle that Israel's wars are "Holy Wars" (Milchemet Mitzvah), where the primary combatant is arguably Yahweh Himself.5 This shifts the locus of confidence from the visible (chariots, numbers) to the invisible (Divine presence), requiring a cognitive restructuring of the battlefield reality.

2.2 The Office of the Kohen Mashuach Milchamah

Unlike the military codes of the Hittites or the Assyrians, where the King is the central figure exhorting the troops to glory, Deuteronomy 20:2 mandates that a priest approach the people on the verge of battle.1 Later rabbinic tradition identifies this figure specifically as the Kohen Mashuach Milchamah (The Priest Anointed for War), a distinct ecclesiastical office separate from the High Priest (Kohen Gadol), though possessing a similar level of sanctity.7

2.2.1 The Distinction from Civil and Royal Authority

The involvement of the priest decenters the monarchy. While the King may lead the tactical operations, the spiritual authorization for violence comes from the priesthood. This separation of powers serves as a check against royal aggrandizement. The priest represents the "reconciled Almighty Lord of Hosts," ensuring that the violence to follow is sanctioned by divine justice rather than the personal ambition of a ruler.8

The Kohen Mashuach Milchamah was anointed with the sacred anointing oil, a status usually reserved for the High Priest and the King. This elevation underscores the gravity of warfare in Jewish law; the shedding of blood requires a specific, high-level holiness to ensure it does not degenerate into murder. The priest's role is not just to encourage but to sanctify the camp, ensuring that the "Camp of Israel" remains a fit dwelling place for the Divine Presence even amidst the carnage of war.5

2.2.2 The Liturgy of Courage and the Hebrew Tongue

The address delivered by the priest (verses 3-4) is a formal liturgy. "Hear, O Israel: Today you are going into battle... Do not be fainthearted or afraid... For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you".3

Mishnah Sotah 8:1 specifies that this address must be delivered in "the Holy Tongue" (Hebrew).9 This linguistic requirement is profound. It binds the soldiers to their collective identity, history, and covenant. Hearing the language of the Torah and Creation on the precipice of death serves to remind the soldier that he is part of a meta-historical narrative. It reinforces the nationalistic and religious specificity of the event—this is not a mercenary engagement, but a defense of the Covenant.

Furthermore, the Talmud (Sotah 42b) suggests the priest would sometimes wear the Tzitz (the golden headplate inscribed with "Holy to the Lord") into battle, or that the Ark of the Covenant would accompany the troops.11 The Tzitz functioned as a spiritual shield, famously used by Phinehas in the war against Midian to counteract the sorcery of Balaam.11 This suggests that the Israelite view of war included a metaphysical dimension where spiritual forces (sorcery vs. holiness) were as real and decisive as physical weaponry.

2.3 The Role of Officers and the Final Formation

Only after the priest has established the theological parameters do the officers (Shotrim) speak. Their role is logistical and administrative, yet their message (the exemptions) is equally theological. Crucially, verse 9 states that only after the exemptions are processed and the fearful have departed do the officers "appoint commanders of armies".12

This sequence is critical: the structure of the army is finalized only after the force has been whittled down. Commanders are not appointed over a mass of conscripts, but over a purified, volunteer-like remnant. This implies that leadership is chosen based on the quality of the remaining soldiers, creating a cohesive unit defined by courage and moral rectitude rather than sheer mass.13

3. The Military Exemptions: Contracting the Army to Strengthen It

Following the priest's spiritual exhortation, the officers (Shotrim) address the troops with a series of pragmatic exemptions (Deut 20:5-8). These exemptions are unique in the annals of military history. While most ancient (and modern) armies resort to conscription and press-gangs to maximize numbers—operating on the logic that quantity has a quality all its own—Deuteronomy legislates a deliberate reduction of force.1

This counter-intuitive policy serves two main purposes:

Operational Efficiency: It ensures that those remaining on the battlefield are fully committed, undistracted by domestic anxieties or paralyzing fear.
Theological Statement: It reinforces the premise that victory depends on God, not manpower. Just as Gideon was commanded to reduce his army from 32,000 to 300 to prevent Israel from boasting "my own hand has saved me" (Judges 7), these laws institutionalize the idea that a smaller, faithful force is superior to a large, distracted one.14

3.1 The Economic and Social Exemptions

The first three categories of exemption relate to the incompleteness of personal milestones. These laws reflect a profound anthropological concern for the individual's right to complete their life projects.

3.1.1 The Builder of a New House

"Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home..." (Deut 20:5).3 In the agrarian society of ancient Israel, building a house was a monumental life achievement, representing stability and lineage. To die before inhabiting it was considered a tragic reversal of the natural order. The Mishnah (Sotah 8:2) clarifies that this applies not just to a residence but also to functional structures like storehouses, barns, or wood sheds.15 This extends the protection to the individual's economic infrastructure. The text's rationale—"lest he die in battle and another man dedicate it"—reveals a sensitivity to the specific psychological torment of replacement.14 The soldier is not just afraid of death; he is afraid of the erasure of his effort.

3.1.2 The Planter of a Vineyard

"Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it?" (Deut 20:6).3 The Hebrew term used implies the process of Chillul—redeeming the fruit in the fourth year (after the three years of orlah prohibition) to make it permissible for common use. This represents a significant long-term investment (four years of labor without return). The exemption protects the planter from the "curse" of futility (cf. Deut 28:30), where one plants but does not harvest.14 It acknowledges that a soldier worrying about his unharvested crops is a liability.

3.1.3 The Betrothed Man

"Has any man become engaged to a woman and not married her?" (Deut 20:7).4 This exemption highlights the sanctity of the marital bond and the establishment of a household. The engagement (erusin) in ancient Jewish law was a binding legal contract, distinct from the consummation (nissuin). A man in this liminal state is distracted by unfulfilled desire and the responsibility to establish a lineage. The exemption safeguards the continuity of the family unit, prioritizing the potential for new life over the immediate demands of death-dealing.

Limitation of Exemptions: It is crucial to note that rabbinic law (Mishnah Sotah 8:7) limits these exemptions to Milchemet Reshut (discretionary wars of expansion). In a Milchemet Mitzvah (a war of defense or the initial conquest of the land), "all go out, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy".17 When the survival of the nation is at stake, individual rights are suspended.

3.2 The Exemption of the Fearful: A Psychological and Moral Pivot

The fourth exemption is the most radical: "What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house" (Deut 20:8).16 The stated rationale is contagion: "so that he does not cause his brothers' courage to fail like his own." This acknowledges that panic is communicable and can dissolve the cohesion of a fighting unit faster than enemy fire.

3.2.1 The Debate: Natural Fear vs. Fear of Sin

This verse sparked a famous debate between Tannaitic sages regarding the nature of this fear, recorded in the Mishnah (Sotah 8:5) and Talmud (Sotah 44a).

Rabbi Akiva's View: He interprets the verse literally ("according to its apparent meaning"). The exemption applies to the man who is physically terrified of battle—the one who cannot endure the sight of a drawn sword or the noise of crashing shields.16 This acknowledges the reality of what modern psychology terms acute stress reaction or combat fatigue. Rabbi Akiva, having lived through the Bar Kokhba revolt, likely witnessed the devastating effects of terror on raw recruits.
Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's View: He interprets "fearful and fainthearted" as "one who is afraid because of the sins that he has".18 In this theological worldview, war is a time of Divine Judgment. The soldier fears not the enemy, but that his lack of merit will cause God to withdraw protection.

3.2.2 The "Cover-Up" Mechanism

A profound sociological insight emerges from the interplay of these exemptions. If the exemption were only for sinners, leaving the ranks would be a public confession of guilt, leading to immense shame. A sinner might therefore stay and fight to avoid embarrassment, endangering the unit spiritually and physically.

However, by grouping the sinners with those building houses, planting vineyards, or getting married, the Torah provides a "cover" for the penitent.20 An observer seeing a man return home would not know if he was leaving because of a new house, a fiancee, or a hidden sin (such as speaking between putting on the arm and head phylacteries, a seemingly minor infraction cited in the Talmud to show the high standard expected).18 This protects the dignity of the individual while purifying the camp of spiritual liabilities.21

3.3 Comparative Analysis of Exemptions

Exemption Type

Biblical Criteria

Rationale

Modern/Strategic Equivalent

Economic

Built house, not dedicated

Prevention of displacement anxiety

Deferment for hardship

Agricultural

Planted vineyard, not harvested

Protection of labor fruit

Economic stability preservation

Domestic

Betrothed, not married

Sanctity of family formation

Dependency exemptions

Psychological

Fearful / Fainthearted

Prevention of panic contagion

Screening for psychological fitness

Spiritual

Fear of Sin (Rabbinic)

Spiritual purity of the camp

Moral waiver / Chaplaincy clearance

**4. Diplomatic Protocols: The Imperative of Peace (Kri'ah l'Shalom)**

Deuteronomy 20:10 introduces a mandatory diplomatic phase before the commencement of hostilities: "When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it".1 This requirement to sue for peace (Kri'ah l'Shalom) fundamentally frames Israelite warfare as a last resort. The sword is drawn only after words have failed.

4.1 The Terms of "Peace": Submission and Tribute

It is essential to define what the biblical text means by "peace" in this context. It is not a cessation of hostilities between equals or a mutual defense treaty, but a vassal treaty establishing hierarchy. Verse 11 states: "If it accepts your offer of peace... all the people... shall be subject to forced labor (Mas) and shall work for you".23

4.1.1 The Meaning of Mas

The Hebrew term Mas refers to a tribute or corvée labor. Translations vary between "tributaries" and "forced laborers".23

Historical Context: In the Ancient Near East (ANE), Mas typically involved a dual obligation:

Fiscal Tribute: Payment of taxes in grain, oil, or precious metals.
Corvée Labor: Drafting of the population for state projects (building fortifications, royal farming) for a specified duration each year.

Comparison to Slavery: While modern sensibilities might equate this with slavery, scholars distinguish Mas from chattel slavery. It was a form of political subjugation and vassalage common to the era. Unlike chattel slavery, where the individual is property, Mas is a tax on labor and production. It was often the preferred outcome for conquered populations compared to the alternatives of annihilation or total displacement.25

4.2 The Scope of the Peace Offer: The Rashi-Rambam Dispute

A critical jurisprudential debate exists regarding who is eligible for this peace offer. This dispute determines whether the text advocates for the unconditional genocide of the Canaanites or a conditional conquest dependent on their behavior.

4.2.1 Rashi’s View: The Exclusivity of Distant Wars

Rashi, relying on the juxtaposition of the "distant cities" (v. 15) and the "cities of these nations" (v. 16), argues that the peace offer applies only to discretionary wars against distant enemies. For the Seven Nations of Canaan (Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Girgashites), Rashi maintains there is no option for peace. They are to be destroyed immediately upon contact to prevent spiritual contamination.27 In this reading, the command of Herem (destruction) acts as an exception that nullifies the general command of peace.

4.2.2 Maimonides’ (Rambam) View: The Universality of Peace

In his Mishneh Torah (Laws of Kings and Wars 6:1), Maimonides rules that the offer of peace is obligatory for all wars, including those against the Seven Nations and Amalek.22 Maimonides argues that the command to destroy the Canaanites applies only if they refuse the peace offer.

The Rambam's Conditions for Peace:

According to Maimonides, for a Canaanite city to be spared, they must accept three conditions 22:

Acceptance of the Seven Noahide Laws: They must renounce idolatry and adhere to universal moral laws (prohibitions against murder, theft, sexual immorality, idolatry, blasphemy, eating limb of a living animal, and establishing courts of justice).
Payment of Tribute (Mas): Financial submission.
Subjugation (Servitude): Accepting a lower political status (they cannot hold positions of authority over Jews).

Implication: Maimonides' view significantly transforms the moral landscape of the text. The genocide of the Canaanites was not an absolute inevitability rooted in race, but a conditional consequence of their refusal to capitulate to a moral and political order. If they accepted the Noahide laws (renouncing their abominable practices), the reason for their destruction (fear of theological contagion) would vanish, and thus they would be spared.22

4.3 Historical Precedents: Gibeonites and Solomon

The biblical narrative offers examples supporting Maimonides. The Gibeonites (Joshua 9) secured a treaty through deception, but the fact that a treaty was legally possible suggests the ban was not absolute. Furthermore, 1 Kings 9:20-21 records that King Solomon levied Mas (forced labor) on "All the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.".32 If the command had been total annihilation without exception, Solomon’s act of enslaving them rather than killing them would have been a violation of Torah law. The fact that the text reports this without condemnation implies that their subjugation was a valid fulfillment of the law, likely because they accepted terms of surrender.32

5. Rules of Engagement: Distant vs. Nearby Cities

The text bifurcates the rules of engagement based on the identity and location of the enemy, creating a two-tiered system of warfare.

5.1 Distant Cities (Verses 13-15)

For cities "very far from you," which do not pose a direct territorial or theological threat to Israel's residence in Canaan, the rules of war follow a standard, albeit regulated, ANE pattern.33

Scenario: The city refuses the peace offer and is besieged.
Combatants: Upon victory, the adult males (zakhur) are put to the sword.35 This effectively eliminates the military capacity of the enemy city to rise up again.
Non-Combatant Immunity: Women, children ("little ones"), and livestock are explicitly spared and taken as plunder.33

Analysis: While harsh by modern standards, the preservation of women and children was a check against the total obliteration often practiced in antiquity (e.g., by the Assyrians). However, it also functioned as an economic incentive, as captives were valuable assets.
Sexual Violence Restrictions: It is vital to read this alongside Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (Eishet Yefat To'ar). While women were taken as captives, the Torah forbids the immediate rape of captives on the battlefield—a near-universal practice in ancient war. A soldier desiring a captive woman had to bring her home, allow her a month of mourning for her parents, shave her head, and cut her nails (acts designed to reduce her attractiveness and allow for a cooling-off period). Only then could he marry her. If he no longer desired her, he had to set her free; he could not sell her as a slave.35 This conferred a status of personhood on the captive woman unknown in other legal codes of the time.

5.2 The Seven Nations (Verses 16-18)

For the cities of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, the command is distinct and severe: Herem—total devotion to destruction.

**5.2.1 The Law of Herem (The Ban)**

"You shall save alive nothing that breathes" (Deut 20:16).33 This command requires the total elimination of the population. The Hebrew word Herem implies something set apart or devoted to God, often via destruction. In this context, the entire population is treated as a prohibited offering that must be removed from the human sphere.

5.2.2 The Theological Rationale: Contagion of Idolatry

The text explicitly provides the reason for this severity: "That they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God" (Deut 20:18).34

The existential threat posed by the Canaanites was not military but cultural and theological. Their practices—archaeologically attested and biblically described—included child sacrifice (Moloch), ritual prostitution, and bestiality. The Torah posits that these cultures were so morally gangrenous that coexistence was impossible. If they remained, they would inevitably infect Israel with their practices, leading to the collapse of the Covenant. The history of the period of the Judges affirms this fear; incomplete conquest invariably led to syncretism and religious decline.32

5.2.3 The Mystery of the Girgashites

Verse 17 lists six nations to be destroyed but omits the Girgashites, who are usually included in the standard list of "Seven Nations" (e.g., Deut 7:1).

Rabbinic Explanation: The Jerusalem Talmud (Sheviit 6:1) and commentators like Rashi suggest that the Girgashites fundamentally accepted the situation and emigrated or fled prior to the conflict.38
Implication: This tradition reinforces the idea that the destruction was not racially motivated but geographically and theologically contingent. Those who left the land were spared. The Girgashites, by voluntarily removing themselves from the sphere of influence, saved themselves from the Herem. This further supports the Maimonidean view that there were alternatives to annihilation available to the Canaanites (Flight, Peace Treaty, or War).

6. Siege Warfare and Environmental Ethics: Bal Tashchit

6.1 The Prohibition of Scorched Earth

Verses 19-20 introduce one of the most remarkable laws in the entire biblical corpus: the prohibition against cutting down fruit-bearing trees during a siege.3 This law, known as Bal Tashchit ("Do not destroy"), forbids the use of "scorched earth" tactics that were standard in ancient warfare.

Comparative Context: The Assyrians and Egyptians frequently boasted of cutting down the orchards of conquered cities to inflict starvation and long-term economic ruin. It was a standard tool of psychological warfare and collective punishment.41 Archaeological evidence from Lachish shows the massive use of timber for siege ramps, often leading to deforestation. Deuteronomy 20 intervenes to limit this devastation.

6.2 "Is the Tree of the Field a Man?"

The Hebrew phrase Ki HaAdam Etz HaSadeh (v. 19) presents a translation difficulty that yields profound insights into the text's environmental philosophy.

Rashi's Interpretation (Rhetorical Question): Rashi reads it as: "Is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you?".43

Meaning: The tree is an innocent bystander. War is a conflict between human moral agents. Nature, having no agency in the conflict, should not be a casualty. This establishes the moral standing of the environment independent of the belligerents.

Ibn Ezra's Interpretation (Statement of Fact): Ibn Ezra reads it as: "For man is [dependent on] the tree of the field" (i.e., man's life is the tree).45

Meaning: This emphasizes enlightened self-interest. Destroying the food source is self-defeating because the conqueror will need the food after the victory to feed the population or his own troops. It is a warning against short-term tactical thinking that destroys long-term strategic assets.

Utilization of Non-Fruit Trees: The law allows for the cutting of non-fruit-bearing trees to build "siegeworks" (bulwarks, battering rams).37 This pragmatism demonstrates that the Torah is not pacifistic; it permits the necessary machinery of war but sets strict limits on collateral damage. The destruction must be strictly utilitarian (for the siege), not punitive or wanton.40

6.3 The Fourth Side of the Siege

Derived from the general principles of mercy and the specific tactics mentioned in Numbers regarding the war on Midian, Maimonides codifies a law of siege that requires leaving one side of the city open.29

Strategic Purpose: A cornered enemy fights to the death (a concept known in strategic theory as "Sun Tzu's Death Ground"). Allowing an escape route encourages flight, breaks the enemy's will to fight, and potentially reduces casualties on both sides.
Humanitarian Purpose: It allows non-combatants and those wishing to surrender a chance to flee the zone of destruction.29
Halakhic Debate: There is a debate (Nachmanides vs. Minchat Chinuch) over whether this applies to obligatory wars (Milchemet Mitzvah) or only discretionary ones. However, the dominant ethical thrust is that total encirclement is viewed as an act of cruelty that forces a massacre, whereas leaving an exit is an act of mercy that allows for a bloodless victory.49

7. Legacy and Application: From Halacha to the IDF Code of Ethics

7.1 The Expansion of Bal Tashchit

Rabbinic law expanded the specific prohibition against destroying fruit trees into a general prohibition against waste and wanton destruction (Bal Tashchit). This applies to wasting fuel, tearing clothes, breaking vessels, or destroying furniture without cause.40 The wartime law became the cornerstone of Jewish environmental ethics, teaching that human dominion over nature is stewardship, not ownership. We do not have the right to destroy the world simply because we have the power to do so.

**7.2 Purity of Arms (Tohar HaNeshek)**

The principles of Deuteronomy 20—specifically the discrimination between combatants and non-combatants (in discretionary wars), the obligation to offer peace, and the limitation of force—serve as the intellectual and spiritual bedrock for the modern Israel Defense Forces (IDF) doctrine of Tohar HaNeshek (Purity of Arms).52

Restraint: Just as the biblical warrior must control his fear and his greed (plunder), the modern soldier is trained to use force only to the extent necessary for the mission. The IDF Code of Ethics states: "The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even in combat".52
Human Dignity: The requirement to spare captives and respect the "tree of the field" translates into regulations minimizing harm to civilian infrastructure and dignity. This creates a direct line from the "Priest Anointed for War" to the modern Military Advocate General, ensuring that the use of power remains tethered to moral accountability.53

8. Conclusion

Deuteronomy 20 presents a complex, multi-layered "Constitution of War" that refuses to separate the physical act of combat from its spiritual and ethical dimensions. It is a text that mandates violence while simultaneously restricting it, demanding that the warrior remain a moral agent even in the chaos of battle.

By interweaving the theological reassurance of the Priest, the social protections of the exemptions, the diplomatic mandate of the peace offer, and the environmental safeguard of the trees, the text asserts that war is not a suspension of the law, but a domain where the law must be applied with even greater rigor. Whether through the Maimonidean lens of conditional conquest, where even the Seven Nations could be spared through ethical compliance, or the modern application of "Purity of Arms," Deuteronomy 20 remains a foundational document in the history of military ethics. It posits that true victory is achieved not just by overcoming the enemy, but by retaining one's humanity and covenantal fidelity in the process.

Category

Verse

Rule

Rationale/Insight

Preparation

20:1-4

Priest addresses troops; forbids fear.

Victory is Divine, not material. Rejects reliance on "horses and chariots."

Exemptions

20:5-9

New house, vineyard, betrothal, fear.

Prioritizes individual life-cycle events; removes spiritual/psychological liabilities ("Cover-up" for sinners).

Diplomacy

20:10-11

Must offer Peace (Shalom) first.

War is a last resort. Peace = Tribute/Subjugation (Mas), not equality.

Engagement

20:12-15

Distant Cities: Siege allowed.

Men killed; women/children/livestock spared. Standard but regulated ANE warfare.