““My positive interpretive thesis is thus straightforward. In response to the puzzle as to why Deuteronomy should promote and prioritize ḥērem if it “was never in effect,” I am arguing that to speak of its being “never in effect” misrepresents the issue. It is not that Deuteronomic ḥērem was not envisaged as an actual practice, but rather that the nature of the practice the text envisages is no longer military: ḥērem could be practiced, yet in ways other than on the battlefield.””
