Kommentar zu Dewarim 20:19

ימים [WHEN THOU SHALT BESIEGE A CITY] ימים DAYS — The plural implies at least two days,

FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD A MAN? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has explained it well, that the purport of the verse is as follows: “for thou mayest eat of it, for the man is the tree of the field [i.e., man is dependent on the fruit-tree for food], and thou shalt not cut it down that it be used by you in the siege. And the meaning of the expression for the man is the tree of the field is like for he taketh a man to pledge”³⁵⁷Further, 24:6. [which means, “when he takes away a man’s tools and means of earning a livelihood in security for a debt, it is as if the man’s very life is being taken from him,” and here too it means “for the tree of the field is man’s life” because his life depends on it]. But in the opinion of our Rabbis,³⁵⁸Baba Kamma 91b. it is permissible to cut down a fruit-tree to build a bulwark, and the statement of the Torah, Only trees which thou knowest that they are not trees for food etc.³⁵⁹Verse 20. is to assign priority, meaning that a fruitless tree should be cut down prior to a fruit-tree. If so, the meaning of the section, in their opinion, is that the Torah warned, Thou shalt not destroy the trees to cut them down destructively, not for the purpose of the siege, as is the custom of armies [to cut down trees needlessly]. And the reason for it is that warriors destroy a city and its environs in the hope of conquering it, as it says, and ye shall fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water.³⁶⁰II Kings 3:19. You are not to do so, to destroy it, for you are to trust in G-d that He will deliver it into your hand. For the man is the tree of the field, for you will eat of its fruit and live, and through it the city will be besieged by you, meaning to say, you will eat from it after conquering the city, and also when you are encamped, engaged in the siege, you should do likewise. And the meaning of the expression, them thou mayest destroy and cut down³⁵⁹Verse 20. is that you are permitted to cut them down to build bulwarks and also to destroy them until it be subdued,³⁵⁹Verse 20. for sometimes the destruction [of the trees] is for the purpose of capturing the city; for example, when the people of the city go out and fetch the wood thereof, or they hide there in the forest to fight against them, or when the trees are a refuge and a covert³⁶¹Isaiah 4:6. to the city from stones of stumbling.³⁶²See ibid., 8:14.

לא תשחית את עצה לנדוח עליו גרזן, do not destroy its trees merely in order to practice wielding an axe. Destruction must not be wanton; it is justified only if it serves to harm the enemy residing within the city.

כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים, and you find it necessary to cut down the surrounding trees to erect ramparts from which to launch missiles, etc.

כי האדם עץ השדה, “is then the tree of the field a man?” Ibn Ezra claiming that there is no need to add additional letters to make this verse intelligible, writes that the life of man can be compared to that of a tree in the field, therefore you must not destroy the fruit-bearing trees. The words: ואותו לא תכרותו, “you shall not cut it down,” belong together with the words לבא מפניך במצור, “that it should enter the siege before you.” Phrased differently, “seeing that the fruit-bearing tree is a lifeline for man how could you consider destroying it?” Nachmanides writes that according to the approach of our sages (Baba Kamma 91) it is permissible to destroy such trees during the siege and to use the timber to erect structures to enable the troops to bring the war to a speedy end. As to the meaning of the subsequent line that only trees that are not fruit-bearing may be cut down, the meaning is that if you have the choice to cut down fruit-bearing trees, or others that you know not to be of the fruit-baring variety, you must first cut down the trees that cannot furnish fruit. Fruit bearing trees are not to be cut down when such cutting down is not performed in order to fulfill a commandment of the Torah. The reason for this entire legislation, and specifically for its being mentioned at this point, is, that in war soldiers are in the habit of wreaking havoc all over, without regard to the ecological damage they cause by doing so. The Torah, therefore, goes on record that even in war, one must be concerned with what will be needed after the war has ended. The Jewish soldier, fighting a just war, must have confidence in G’d’s help so that he does not have to resort to wholesale destruction.

ואותו לא תכרת כי האדם עץ השדה, “but it (the tree) you must not cut down for is then the tree a man?” Ibn Ezra and other commentators understand the lines as “for man’s life and livelihood depends on the trees in the field.” It is comparable to Deut. 24,6 כי נפש הוא חובל, “for he would take as a pledge something his life depends on.” This is the reason the Torah commands us not to destroy fruit-bearing trees, as it would be equivalent to destroying G’d’s blessing.
Personally, I believe that the word האדם belongs to the earlier part of the verse and is part of the instruction “do not cut down.” The meaning of the whole verse would then be: “for the trees are not man that you could cut them down as if they were your enemies. It is not the mark of an intelligent people to destroy something which does not confer any benefit on it by doing so. This is why you must not only not destroy such trees but do whatever you can to preserve them and their usefulness. You are to eat its fruit, not destroy the tree. Our sages in Taanit 7 interpret the words כי ממנו תאכל, “for you eat from it,” as an allusion to the Torah scholars whose words of Torah are comparable to the fruit yielded by fruit-bearing trees. If such a Torah scholar does not conduct himself in the manner a Torah scholar should, abandon him.

Fewer than three days before Shabbos, etc. You might ask: Shabbos is not even mentioned in the verse, and that is what Re”m [also] questions! The answer is that we learn from this verse that one has to tender a peace overture for at least three days. But if they besiege a town of idolaters less than three days before Shabbos they would have to tender peace overtures even on Shabbos, but the verse writes (Yeshayah 58:13), “From doing your matters,” heavenly matters are permitted [to be addressed but] your personal [business] matters are forbidden [to be addressed] on Shabbos; and the tendering of peace overtures is considered personal [business]. Therefore we do not besiege [a town a town of idolaters] less than three days before Shabbos. It may be that Re”m meant this when he wrote, “And perhaps the answer is that one has to tender them a peace overture and it requires three days for the idolaters to take counsel among themselves in order to give a reply.”

V. 19. ספרי) לתפשה ולא לשבותה :לתפשה .כי תצור), deine Absicht darf immer nur sein, die Stadt deiner Macht zu unterwerfen, nicht aber die Bewohner kriegsgefangen zu Sklaven zu machen, oder nach anderer Lesart: לשביתה, nicht zur Zerstörung.

כי האדם עץ השדה, “for man is the tree of the field.” The word: כי in this verse means the same as אלא, “but, only; meaning “supposing a row of trees growing fruit appeared before your eyes while you were laying siege to a city, and these trees would provide cover for your enemies to hide behind them and plan to ambush you, how would you act if it were within your power to destroy these trees? An alternate interpretation: assume that this verse had been abbreviated and should have read: כי האדם עץ השדה ואותו לא תכרות, “for a human being is like a fruit bearing tree, which you are forbidden to cut down.” How would the fact that this phenomenon occurred while you were laying siege to the city behind this orchard affect you? Just as a human being is meant to produce children, i.e. fruit, so the trees are supposed to produce the fruit for which they have been provided by nature. You must not destroy such trees!

כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים , “when you lay siege to a city for a long time;” from this we learn that one does not lay siege to a city for less than three days before the Sabbath. If the city had been encircled and the Sabbath occurs before the city surrenders, this is not a reason to cease military activity on the Sabbath. This rule is one of three that the sage Shammai, (contemporary of Hillel) had stated. The three are: one does not engage in an ocean voyage less than three days before the Sabbath. This rule applies when the destination is further way than a three day voyage. If it closer, under normal circumstances, it may be undertaken closer to the Sabbath. (Sifri) All the rules concerning how to conduct a siege are valid only during expansionary wars. Defensive wars when the land of Israel has been attacked, are not subject to any of these restrictions. Such defensive action may be commenced on any day of the week.

רבים MANY must imply at least three days (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 15:25). From here they (the Rabbis) derived the law that the siege of a heathen city must not be commenced less than three days before the Sabbath, and it (this verse) teaches you that the opening up (the invitation to make) peace (v. 10) must be repeated two or three days, for so it states, (II Samuel 1:1) “And David abode two days (ימים שנים) in Ziklag” (Sifrei Devarim 200:4; Shabbat 19a). And Scripture is speaking here of a war which is not obligatory upon them (Sifrei Devarim 200:1).

כי ממנו תאכל, wanton destruction of such trees is justified only when it is not certain that without such action the war will come to a successful conclusion. The wars of conquest of the Land of Israel, however, the success of which has been guaranteed by G’d, does not fall into this category; it will be won without the need to destroy such trees. Destroying fruit bearing trees in the Land of Israel harms the country.

כי ממנו תאכל, for you will again be in need of these trees to eat of their fruit after the war is over and you have captured the city in question.

... as you may eat from it:In anything that we will need for the benefit of man, it is a commandment not to destroy [it], but rather to benefit from it...

Scripture refers to discretionary warfare. Because it is written “to capture it,” which implies that they are only coming to capture [the town]. We thus see that it refers to discretionary warfare [outside the Land of Israel], because if it is speaking of the war to conquer the Land of Israel, the verse has already written (v. 16), “You are not to leave any person alive.”

לא תשחית וגו׳, du darfst die Bäume ihrer Umgebung nicht fällen, um sie zu zerstören, oder vielmehr: nicht verderben, um sie zu fällen, so dass der ganze Zweck nur in dem "Axtschwung" in der Zerstörung liegt. Essen darfst du von ihnen, ja, du hast die Pflicht, sie dem Nahrungszweck zu erhalten, ואותו לא תכרת ,עשה :ממנו תאכל: (ספרי) זו מצות ל׳׳ת, mit der zwecklosen Zerstörung eines Nahrung gewährenden Baumes wird ein Gebot und ein Verbot übertreten.

לא תשחית את עצה, “You must not destroy its (fruitbearing) trees;” this applies to trees near the town under siege.

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?

כי ממנו תאכל, because as soon as you have conquered the land you yourselves will want to eat the fruit of such trees.

ואותו לא תכרת, this fruit bearing tree which does not serve as support for the inhabitants of the beleaguered city such as the more distant ones, you must not cut down,

Perhaps the tree in the field is a man, to be included, etc. I.e., is the tree in the field perhaps like a man? Because it is the custom of people besieging a town that when they capture one of its inhabitants they torture him with hunger and thirst so that those in the town should fear them [and that would dissuade them] from being involved in the siege and [they too] suffer the pain of hunger and thirst. And perhaps you think that the tree in the field is the same, that if you cut it down, the other trees will fear them [and dissuade them] from being involved in the siege, just as [it works for] the town’s inhabitants. But this is not so, why destroy it?!

כי האדם עץ השדה לבא מפניך במצור, denn der Baum des Feldes ist der Mensch, die Bodenproduktion ist die Existenzbedingung des Menschen, שחייו של אדם אינו אלא מן האילן .(ספרי) ( עץ השדה ist ein Subjekt) Ibn Esra weist treffend auf die ähnliche Ausdrucksweise כי נפש הוא חובל (Kap. 24, 6) hin, wo die Mühlsteine geradezu נפש genannt werden, weil sie zur Existenz der נפש unumgänglich sind. Der Sinn des Satzes wäre, wie uns scheint, demnach: du sollst die Fruchtbäume der belagerten Stadt nicht fällen; denn Fruchtbäume bilden die Menschenexistenz, gehen daher mit in die Belagerung ein, d. h. gehören mit zu den Objekten, welche du durch die Belagerung gewinnen willst. So wenig Zerstörung die Absicht deiner Belagerung sein soll, so wenig darfst du die Bäume der Stadt zerstören. Sie gehören mit zu der belagerten Stadt.

כי ממנו תאכל, “for you will be able to eat their fruit once you have conquered the town.”

כי האדם עץ השדה, for is a tree of the field equivalent to a human being, capable of defending itself and therefore posing a danger to you? Neither is it able to surrender on account of the siege; seeing that this is so, even though part of its timber could serve as a rampart for helping you to mount an attack against the city itself, since this will not be achieved (directly) by cutting down these trees it is not proper for you to destroy such trees, as opposed to your being permitted to kill human beings in that city opposing you and endangering you.

כי האדם עץ השדה לבא מפניך במצור, every time we find the word כי in the Torah after the word לא it must be understood as meaning “but, however.” Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: “only those trees of the field which can be used by man to hide behind, and therefore interfere with your pursuit of your war, these you may cut down.” They are generally the trees that are very close to the outer perimeter of the city under siege that serve as hideouts for the enemy and represent a potential danger to your soldiers in addition to giving shelter to enemy soldiers seeking to flee. (compare Kings II 24,10

... Because man is compared to a tree of the field. And behold this comparison is found in several ways... And the explanation of the comparison [regarding the siege of war, which is only with a fruit tree] is that it is like [when] there is a man sent secretly by the besiegers (on the outside of the city) to be inside the siege in order to assist the besiegers break open the city by his causing division inside; and behold when the city is broken open and they kill the people of the besieged city - would they think of also killing those same people that came into the siege for the purpose of the besiegers and for their benefit?! So too does the fruit tree come for the benefit of the besiegers, since they benefit from its fruit at the time when they pluck the fresh fruit off of the tree. Hence it is fitting to appreciate it.

כי האדם עץ השדה, according to Rashi, the word כי here means :”perhaps” used as a question, i.e. “did you think perhaps that rules that apply to human beings are the same as those applying to fruitbearing trees?” Why should the tree which is giving man of its fruit suffer and endure the hardships of the population of the town you have laid siege to? Seeing that these trees are not guilty of anything why would you destroy them?

לבא מפניך במצור, so that you would besiege the city on their account so they would surrender to you? [the underlying idea, if I understand the author and the text correctly, is that the purpose of laying siege to a city instead of assaulting it and destroying it, is to preserve it intact after its inhabitants have been forced to surrender. Cutting down fruit bearing trees would be the opposite of your objectives in such a war. Ed.]

כי האדם עץ השדה, for man is the tree of the field, i.e. man uses the trees of the field to necessitate the enemy to lay siege to a town instead of assaulting it frontally.

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).