כִּֽי־תָצ֣וּר אֶל־עִיר֩ יָמִ֨ים רַבִּ֜ים לְֽהִלָּחֵ֧ם עָלֶ֣יהָ לְתָפְשָׂ֗הּ לֹֽא־תַשְׁחִ֤ית אֶת־עֵצָהּ֙ לִנְדֹּ֤חַ עָלָיו֙ גַּרְזֶ֔ן כִּ֚י מִמֶּ֣נּוּ תֹאכֵ֔ל וְאֹת֖וֹ לֹ֣א תִכְרֹ֑ת כִּ֤י הָֽאָדָם֙ עֵ֣ץ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה לָבֹ֥א מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ בַּמָּצֽוֹר׃
Cuando pusieres cerco a alguna ciudad, peleando contra ella muchos días para tomarla, <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>57mo Precepto Negativo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">no destruyas su arboleda</span> metiendo en ella hacha, porque de ella comerás; y no la talarás, que no es hombre el árbol del campo para venir contra tí en el cerco.
Rashi
ימים [WHEN THOU SHALT BESIEGE A CITY] ימים DAYS — The plural implies at least two days,
Chizkuni
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) These restrictions apply to those who travel for voluntary matters but not to those whose travel is for a matter of mitzva; the latter can leave on any day. 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. Ed.]
Da'at Zekenim
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!