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׃
Kapag kinubkob mo ang isang lungsod nang maraming araw upang makipaglaban dito at masakop ito, huwag mong sisirain ang mga punongkahoy nito sa pamamagitan ng pagtaga rito ng palakol, sapagkat mula rito ay makakakain ka, at huwag mo itong puputulin. Sapagkat tao ba ang punongkahoy sa parang, upang ito rin ay mapasailalim sa iyong pagkubkob?
Kli Yakar
“When a slain person is found on the land, etc.” Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel raised a difficulty regarding this section, questioning why it is placed here among the four sections dealing with matters of war. The Rabbi gave a weak reason for this, and other commentators who approached this to explain the connection did so with forced explanations. Now lift up your eyes and see what our Sages said (Sotah 46a): “It was taught: Rabbi Yochanan ben Shaul said: Why did the Torah command to bring the heifer whose neck is broken? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: ‘Let the heifer which has not produced fruit come and have its neck broken in a place that does not produce fruit, and atone for the one whom they did not allow to produce fruit.’” The Gemara questions: “If this refers to procreation, then would we not perform this ceremony for someone who was castrated or elderly? Rather, it refers to [the inability to perform] commandments.”
And in the previous section it states, For you may eat from it, but you shall not cut it down; only a tree that you know is not a food tree, and our Sages said in the Tractate Ta’anit (7a), “If he is a worthy Torah scholar, from it you may eat and you shall not cut it down, but a tree that you know is not a food tree refers to an unworthy Torah scholar, etc.”
Thus, any intelligent person can see with their mind’s eye that the connection between these two sections is self-evident: If the reason for the heifer whose neck is broken is because they did not allow him to produce fruit through procreation, then it is appropriately connected to the previous section which is particular about not cutting down a fruit-bearing tree. What difference is there between the fruit of man and the fruit of the ground? They share the same law, as it says, For man is a tree of the field. And if [the reason is] that they did not allow him to produce the fruits of commandments, as per the conclusion, behold, in the previous section as well, there is concern not to cut down the Torah scholar who produces fruit — the tree of life according to its kind. I am surprised at all the commentators that such a simple matter was hidden from their eyes.
And in the previous section it states, For you may eat from it, but you shall not cut it down; only a tree that you know is not a food tree, and our Sages said in the Tractate Ta’anit (7a), “If he is a worthy Torah scholar, from it you may eat and you shall not cut it down, but a tree that you know is not a food tree refers to an unworthy Torah scholar, etc.”
Thus, any intelligent person can see with their mind’s eye that the connection between these two sections is self-evident: If the reason for the heifer whose neck is broken is because they did not allow him to produce fruit through procreation, then it is appropriately connected to the previous section which is particular about not cutting down a fruit-bearing tree. What difference is there between the fruit of man and the fruit of the ground? They share the same law, as it says, For man is a tree of the field. And if [the reason is] that they did not allow him to produce the fruits of commandments, as per the conclusion, behold, in the previous section as well, there is concern not to cut down the Torah scholar who produces fruit — the tree of life according to its kind. I am surprised at all the commentators that such a simple matter was hidden from their eyes.
Sforno
שלוש ערים תבדיל, after Moses had explained the function of the judges, the king, the priests, and the prophets, Moses now details some of the tasks that fall under the jurisdiction of the judges, among them the establishment of the cities of refuge, the boundaries of the land, the examination of witnesses to establish that their testimony is truthful and accurate, and that they are acceptable as witnesses. Next, he deals with the tasks that fall within the competence of the king, such as leading the nation in war, especially aggressive wars beyond the boundaries of the land of Israel. (20, 1-9) The priests also have a role to play during the preparation of what are termed מלחמת רשות, “halachically permissible wars,” although they are not fought in order to repel invaders. The priests and judges cooperate in some of their duties, especially the עגלה הערופה, the calf killed when a murder in the field was unresolved. (21,1-9)