שיח בין מקורות מקרה מבחן: כי האדם עץ השדה

(19) When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city? (20) Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siegeworks against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced.

כי האדם עץ השדה FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD A MAN [THAT IT SHOULD BE BESIEGED BY THEE]? — כי has here the meaning of “possibly”, “perhaps” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 23:5) — is the tree of the field perhaps a man who is able to withdraw within the besieged city from before you, that it should be chastised by the suffering of famine and thirst like the inhabitants of the city? Why should you destroy it?

man is a tree of the field I have already explained, in Sefer Hayyǝsod , that in every language there is a tendency to omit words in order to be concise. Nevertheless, one never omits the word “not”, because then one’s meaning is reversed. A great Spanish grammarian asserted that the sentence is missing an interrogative heh , as if Scripture were asking rhetorically, “is a tree of the field a man?” — but in my view this interpretation is not correct, because it makes no sense to explain a prohibition against destroying a fruit tree, on the grounds that a tree is not a man (and is thus incapable of running away). In my opinion there is no need for any of this. The meaning, rather, is as follows: You may eat of them, but do not cut them down, for man is a tree of the field (i.e., the life of man depends on the trees of the field). A similar construction appears in “for it is taking a life in pawn” [24: 6], which clearly means “it is taking the means of a man’s livelihood in pawn”. The phrase but do not cut them down is conceptually tied to the phrase to come before you in the siege, to wit: You may not destroy fruit-bearing trees, which are a source of life to mankind, but you may eat of their fruit; you are forbidden to destroy them so that the besieged city will surrender before you. The subsequent phrase cut to build up siegeworks is proof that this is the correct interpretation.

(11) And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

Fruit tree, making fruit according to its species: [The verse refers to all trees as fruit trees] since all trees are called fruit trees and all trees make fruit, some for food and some for medicine. And that which is stated, "making fruit according to its species," appears to be explained, in that 'man is [like] the tree of the field' and [a tree] is similar to him, whether as a result of its stature or whether as a result of its enduring remnant, like man, as it is stated (Job 14:7), "Since there is hope for a tree." And all of the grasses relate to the other animals, whether because of their being of lowly stature or whether because they don't have roots and branches, but rather (Job 14:7), "like a flower, comes out and withers." And the Holy One, blessed be He, created all types of food, such that [each food] should be appropriate to the constitution of the eater; and combined every 'type [of food] to its type' [of eater], as it is stated (Psalms 145:16), "and He satiates the will of all life," which means to say [He feeds it with] something that is its will, from the angle that it is close to its nature and its constitution. And that is why it states, "And to all the living on the earth, etc... all of the green grass to eat." Since grass is not specifically appropriate except for the species of physical life that do not speak. But for man, He said, "Behold, I have given all grass, etc. and all trees etc.," since from the physical aspect of man, the grass is also appropriate for him, and from the aspect of the spiritual mixture within him, the fruit of the tree is appropriate for him. And then every 'specie will go with it specie;' and that is why it says [here], "according to its species," [meaning] to the one who is its specie, which is man. And [with] grass that give off seed, the phrase, "according to its species," is not mentioned, since it is also for man [as well as animals], even though it is not completely its specie. But when [the grass] is [actually] made, [the Torah] does mention "according to its species," from the angle that [man] is, in one aspect, its species, which is the physical side of man.

To not destroy fruit trees: That we have been prevented from chopping down trees when we besiege a city to distress the people of the city and to sadden their hearts. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 20:19), "you may not destroy its tree, etc. and you shall not chop it down." And likewise not to do any damage - such as burning or ripping a garment or breaking a vessel for no reason - entered under this negative commandment And in all of these matters and in all that is similar to them, they, may their memory be blessed, would always say in the Gemara (Kiddushin 32a), "But behold, he is transgressing on account of 'do not destroy.'" And nonetheless we only administer lashes for one that cuts down a fruit tree, since it is explicit in Scripture. But with other destructions, we [only] give him lashes of rebellion (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:10).