But the inhabitants of Gibeon. They too heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai: He had not offered them peace and had spared no living soul. They therefore assumed that Israel would not accept them either. According to Rambam (Laws of Kings 6:4), Israel was commanded to offer peace even in an obligatory war against the seven Canaanite nations. Acceptance of that peace depended upon their agreeing to three things: tribute, servitude, and the seven Noahide commandments. Once they accepted these conditions, Israel was obligated to make peace with them, as it says, “And it shall be, if it answers you peacefully, then all the people found within it shall pay tribute to you and serve you” (Deuteronomy 20:11). Nevertheless, Israel was forbidden to make a covenant of friendship with them, as it says, “You shall not make a covenant with them” (ibid. 7:2). The people therefore complained against the leaders for accepting the inhabitants of Gibeon, because the leaders had made a covenant with them. Joshua did not offer peace to Jericho and Ai because, before crossing the Jordan, he had sent three proclamations, including: “Whoever wishes to make peace may do so”—meaning by accepting tribute, servitude, and the seven commandments. He had thereby issued a general offer of peace to all the inhabitants of the country. Rambam’s proof is the verse, “There was no city that made peace with the children of Israel except the Hivites,” followed by, “For it was from Hashem to harden their hearts so that they would meet Israel in battle” (Joshua 11:19–20). This shows that had they wished to make peace, Israel would have been obligated to accept them. (Although Rashi in his Torah commentary and Raavad in his glosses disagree with Rambam, the verses here are explained well according to Rambam’s opinion. Radak likewise agrees with Rambam.) Accordingly, Scripture needed to explain why the inhabitants of Gibeon resorted to deception: They had heard what Joshua did to Jericho and Ai and mistakenly concluded that Israel would not accept them in peace.

They too acted. Just as all the other kings took action to save themselves, the Gibeonites acted through deception.

And they presented themselves as envoys. There is a distinction between an envoy and an ordinary messenger. An envoy is sent on a mission with the purpose of bringing an answer back to the one who sent him, as I explained in my commentary on Isaiah, chapter 18. They presented themselves as representatives of their country who were required to return with an answer to those who had sent them.

And they took worn-out sacks. So that it would appear that they had come from a distant land.

And they said to him and to every man of Israel, etc. A covenant between one people and another may take three forms. 1] Neighboring peoples may make a covenant that neither will cross the other’s border to harm it through offenses arising between neighbors. Such a covenant is made between the peoples themselves, so that no person harms another and no neighbor harms his neighbor. 2] Peoples that are not neighbors may make a covenant to assist one another against an oppressive enemy with armies, troops, chariots, and horses, or to permit each other to trade freely within the other’s territory, like the covenant between Hiram and Solomon. Such a covenant is made not by the peoples themselves but by their kings, since it concerns matters affecting the community as a whole. Nor can such a covenant exist between two countries separated from one end of the earth to the other, for they could neither assist each other in time of distress nor trade within each other’s lands. 3] A covenant may concern religion and faith, whereby one people accepts the religion and beliefs of another and makes a covenant with them to enter the tradition of their religious faith. Such a covenant is likewise made with the people themselves rather than merely between kings. It can also be made between exceedingly distant countries, since it concerns spiritual matters, which are not separated by the length of the journey or by distant islands. These envoys initially approached the people as a whole, as it says, “They said to him and to every man of Israel,” and declared, We have come from a distant land; now make a covenant with us—which would be the first kind of covenant. The Israelites therefore did not believe them, for a covenant made directly between peoples is inconceivable when they live in distant lands and have no possibility of harming one another as neighbors; a covenant between distant peoples would ordinarily be made only between their kings. Therefore:

And the men of Israel said. The people’s response was well reasoned: “Perhaps you dwell among us.” I have explained that the word ulai, “perhaps,” is used when the proposition is likely to be true and inclines more toward affirmation than denial. That is, reason suggests that you do dwell among us; otherwise, why would you seek to make a covenant with the entire nation? If so, how can I make a covenant with you? We have been expressly forbidden, “You shall not make a covenant with them.”

And they said to Joshua. When they realized that they had become ensnared by their own words, they turned to Joshua alone and said, We are your servants. That is, we have come to you alone to make a covenant between you and the king of our land—the second kind of covenant. Such a covenant between kings is possible even between distant countries, since they can assist one another in times of distress.

And Joshua said to them. Even according to this claim, their country could not have been exceedingly distant from the borders of his land, for otherwise they could not come to one another’s assistance. He therefore asked them, Who are you, and from where do you come? Sometimes a people is known because it is famous, and concerning this he asked, “Who are you?” At other times, the people itself is not famous, but the name of its country is known, and concerning this he asked, “From where do you come?” His meaning was: Since you are emissaries of your king, I must necessarily know the name of either your people or your country before making a covenant with him, so that I know that I have made a covenant with the king of a particular people or country. They were now caught a second time, for they could not invent a fictitious name; if they did, the covenant would not apply to the king of Gibeon.

And they said to him. They therefore devised a new stratagem, claiming that they had come to establish the third kind of covenant. They said: We cannot tell you the name of our people or country, because your servants have come from a very distant land—so exceedingly remote that you would not know who they are. If you ask why people from such a distant land would need a covenant with you, know that the covenant we seek, and the reason for our coming, is for the sake of the name of Hashem your God. We wish to establish a covenant of religion and faith by accepting His Divinity and His Torah, for we have heard that He created the world, continually sustains it, and governs it; we have also heard what He did in Egypt, overriding nature according to His will, and what He did in the wars against Sihon and Og. They did not mention the splitting of the Jordan, since they claimed to have come from a distant land.

And our elders and all the inhabitants of our land said to us. We have been sent for this purpose both by the people as a whole and by the elders who govern them. They told us, Go to meet them and say to them—meaning to the entire people, since this is a religious covenant—We are your servants in this respect, for you will receive us into your religion, faith, and Torah; and on this basis, make a covenant with us.

This. After they succeeded in removing suspicion and dispelling Israel’s doubts about them, they added affirmative evidence that they had come from a distant land. They said: This bread of ours bears witness to the matter. Do not think that it was already dry when we departed, for we took it hot as provisions, and this was on the day we departed to come to you. Our wineskins and garments likewise bear witness.

And the men took. They accepted the evidence of their dried provisions as proof that their account was true, and on the basis of this evidence they believed them. Although they could have determined the truth through the Urim and Thummim, they did not inquire of Hashem.

And Joshua made. Although Israel would have been obligated to accept them even had they known that they belonged to the seven Canaanite nations, since they had accepted the seven Noahide commandments, they nevertheless did not act according to the law in two respects: 1] The Gibeonites should also have accepted tribute and servitude, as explained above (verse 3), but they did not do so explicitly, and Joshua made peace with them unconditionally. 2] Israel made a covenant with them, which is forbidden by a negative commandment. Nevertheless, Joshua took care to make a covenant with them only to let them live—that is, not to kill them. It was concerning this covenant that the leaders of the congregation swore to them. They accepted no other obligations, such as promising not to subject them to servitude; they swore only to preserve their lives.

The Questions (16) Why the repetition: “They were near him” and “they dwelt in his midst”?

And it came to pass, etc., after they had made the covenant. At that point, it was no longer possible to withdraw from it.

And they dwelt in his midst. They were unlike the Girgashites, who had initially lived nearby but withdrew and departed for Africa. That is, because the Gibeonites were nearby, Israel was forbidden to make a covenant with them; and because they dwelt in Israel’s midst, they were required to accept tribute and servitude.

The Questions (18–22) Since the congregation’s complaint concerned the oath taken by the leaders, what answer did the leaders provide by saying, “We have sworn to them,” etc.? That was precisely the subject of the complaint. The statement, “This we shall do to them, and let them live,” is an obvious repetition. Why does Scripture twice say, “The leaders said,” and then repeat for a third time, “Let them live”? The phrase “as the leaders had spoken concerning them” also appears unnecessary. Finally, how could they alter their oath by appointing the Gibeonites as woodcutters?

But they did not strike them. That is, Israel came to their cities and wished to kill them. Since the Gibeonites had not explicitly accepted tribute and servitude, Israel remained bound by the prohibition, “You shall not allow any soul to live.” The leaders’ oath did not bind all Israel, especially since it had been taken in error and would have nullified a commandment of the Torah. Nevertheless, they did not strike them, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them by Hashem, the God of Israel. The leaders would not permit the people to kill them, because this would cause a desecration of God’s name. Therefore, the entire congregation complained against the leaders.

And all the leaders said. They said: It is impossible for you to kill them, because we have sworn to them, and the oath was taken in the name of Hashem; violating it would therefore desecrate His name. Moreover, the people were obligated to honor the commitments undertaken by the leaders of the congregation.

This we shall do to them. Nevertheless, since the oath obligated them only to preserve the Gibeonites’ lives and did not prohibit imposing tribute and servitude upon them, we can fulfill the oath while still acting according to the Torah’s command. We will keep the oath and let them live, for this alone is what we swore to do; and thus there will be no wrath upon us because of the oath that we swore to them—Hashem will not be angry with us for violating it. Their meaning is explained in the following verse:

And the leaders said concerning them. They now explained how they would fulfill both their oath and the Torah’s commandment:

Let them live. In this way, we will fulfill the oath.

And they became woodcutters. In this way, we will fulfill the Torah’s commandment. Their oath to preserve the Gibeonites’ lives meant only that they would not kill them, not that they would refrain from imposing tribute and servitude upon them. Nor should you think that this would nevertheless make us violators of a covenant: Since we made a covenant of friendship with them, how could we subjugate them as servants? Concerning this, Scripture says, As the leaders had spoken to them. The leaders had initially said to them, “Perhaps you dwell in our midst; how, then, can I make a covenant with you?” Although the verse there says, “The men of Israel said,” it was certainly their leaders who spoke. They had thus already explained that Israel could not make a covenant with Canaanites dwelling in their midst. The Gibeonites lied, and consequently their covenant was founded upon falsehood; only the oath to preserve their lives remained binding. Scripture says, “They became woodcutters,” in the past tense, meaning that they voluntarily became woodcutters. This was implicit in what the leaders had originally told them: “Perhaps you dwell in our midst,” which made clear that if this were so, they would be obligated to accept tribute and servitude.

And Joshua summoned them. He wished to inform them that they had violated the covenant at its very inception by deceiving Israel, since Israel had made known to them that they would not make a covenant with those who lived nearby. Thus he said, Why did you deceive us?

And now you are cursed. One who is cursed cannot enter into a covenant with one who is blessed. The oath obligated us only to preserve your lives, but I now impose the condition that you accept tribute and servitude.

And you shall never cease to be servants. This constitutes the servitude.

And woodcutters, etc., for the house of my God. This constitutes the tribute. The leaders had said that they would be woodcutters for the entire congregation, thereby combining servitude and tribute. Joshua, however, imposed servitude upon them separately; he therefore did not require them to serve as woodcutters for the entire congregation, but only for the house of God. This service would constitute their tribute.

And they answered Joshua. They had not devised this deception in order to exempt themselves from tribute and servitude, but only to save their lives, as they said, We were afraid, etc., and therefore we did this thing. They had believed that the command was to destroy all the inhabitants of the land and not to accept them under any circumstances.

And now, etc. Behold, we are prepared to do whatever is right in your eyes.

The Questions (26) Why does Scripture say that Joshua saved them from the hand of the children of Israel? It already stated (verse 18) that Israel did not strike them because of the leaders’ oath. Furthermore, the statement in verse 27 that Joshua made them woodcutters for both the congregation and the altar appears to contradict verse 23, where he assigned them as woodcutters only for the altar.

And he delivered them from the hand, etc. Had the Gibeonites not accepted tribute and servitude, the people would have killed them, for they believed that the leaders’ oath did not bind them in this matter, as explained above (verses 17–18).

And he appointed them. Since the house of Hashem was not yet established in its proper place, Joshua appointed them on that day to serve, until the Temple was established, as woodcutters for the congregation while the people were engaged in war during the seven years of conquest and the seven years of dividing the land. Afterward, they would serve as woodcutters for the altar of Hashem. This arrangement continued until the very day on which the book was written.

At the place that He would choose. When He would choose a place for His dwelling.