דברים, פרק ז׳, פסוק ט״ז

Confronting the local nations of Canaan presented the Israelites with a profound moral and spiritual challenge. They were required to act against their naturally merciful disposition to secure their designated existence in the land.

The directive to consume these nations is understood as a metaphor for total destruction; just as the act of eating completely breaks down food, the sword was to entirely eliminate the enemy [רבנו בחיי, הכתב והקבלה, רש ר הירש, ביאור יש״ר, נתינה לגר, אבי עזר]. Commentators differ on the exact nature of this directive. Some view it as a strict commandment that must not be neglected, as failing to fulfill it would be akin to rejecting God's gift [אבן עזרא, אור החיים, אבי עזר]. Others read it as a divine blessing and a promise of victory [רלב״ג], while a synthesized view suggests it is both a commandment and a blessing simultaneously [אדרת אליהו]. An alternative approach takes the idea of consumption more literally, interpreting it as the right to derive benefit and take spoils from the defeated enemy [הכתב והקבלה, מלבי״ם]. However, this permission to take spoils and harm these nations applies strictly to the context of war and conquest. During times of peace, robbing a non-Jew is absolutely forbidden. In fact, such theft is considered even more severe than stealing from a fellow Israelite because it involves the desecration of God's name [רבנו בחיי, תורה תמימה, שפתי כהן].

The strict warning against showing pity was necessary precisely because it countered the inherent nature of the Israelites. Mercy is a deeply rooted trait within the nation, requiring a special admonition to act against their natural instincts during this unique, obligatory war [אור החיים, רש ר הירש, ביאור יש״ר, שפתי כהן]. Showing compassion to these deeply corrupt nations would ultimately be an act of cruelty, bringing further evil into the world [אור החיים, ביאור יש״ר]. Additionally, there was a practical concern that the Israelites might spare the enemy out of personal interest, hoping to keep them as slaves [מלבי״ם].

The danger of leaving the inhabitants in the land is tied to a deadly snare, though commentators debate what exactly constitutes this trap. The primary approach among commentators is that the snare is the misplaced mercy itself. If the Israelites were to spare the local inhabitants, this compassion would inevitably lead to intermingling, which would ultimately result in idolatry. In this view, idolatry is not the trap, but the tragic result of it. A closely related perspective argues that the surviving nations themselves are the actual trap [אור החיים, שד״ל]. Conversely, others maintain that the snare refers directly to the foreign gods, with every individual idol serving as a distinct trap [אבן עזרא, ברכת אשר על התורה]. The danger here is not merely the sin of worship; rather, the idolatrous practice transforms into an accusing force that actively brings punishment upon the transgressor [אדרת אליהו, שפתי כהן]. This prohibition extends beyond actual worship, including a ban on showing any outward respect or fear toward the idols, even without the intent to worship them [העמק דבר]. Finally, this directive is also understood as a warning to prevent the non-Jews from worshipping their own gods within the Land of Israel, lest the Israelites be influenced to follow their practices [הכתב והקבלה].