Warfare, Trees and People

Throughout Sefer Devarim, numerous Commandments dealing with warfare appear.[1] Since this book was presented by Moshe to the Jewish people just prior to their entering the land of Israel and beginning its conquest, it is understandable why such Mitzvot would be concentrated in the fifth of the five books of the Tora. Parshat Shoftim is the site of the fairly well-known injunction against the destruction of fruit trees during the course of besieging one of the Canaanite city states.

When you are besieging a city for many days as part of a war intended to capture it, do not destroy its tree by raising an axe to it, because from it you will eat and it you should not destroy, “Ki HaAdam Eitz HaSadeh” (lit. because man is the tree of the field) to come from before you in the siege.

Only a tree about which you know it is not a tree of food, it you can destroy and cut down and build (with its wood) a siege engine against the city that is making war with you until it falls.

The idiomatic phrase associating man with tree in v. 19 has drawn considerable attention from biblical commentators and Jewish thinkers. The verse appears to temper man’s place at the zenith of the hierarchy of Creation suggested in the first chapter of Beraishit:

And God Blessed them (Adam and Chava, i.e., homo sapiens) and God Said to them: Be Fruitful and Multiply and Fill the earth and Subdue it and Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the heavens and all the animals that crawl on the earth.

And God Said: Behold I am Giving to you all of the grass that seeds seeds (that is self-seeding and thereby reproduces itself) that is on the face of all the earth and all the trees that have fruits of the tree, seeding seeds, to you they will be “LeAchla” (for eating/consumption/usage).

And although in the following chapter of the Creation Story, the rights that man is given in Beraishit 1 are tempered by responsibilities concerning the immediate environment in which he is inserted,

And HaShem, the Lord, Took man and Placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to guard it,

it would seem logical that in a wartime situation, man’s immediate needs, whether they have to do with obtaining a food supply or raw materials necessary to win a battle, would take precedence over protecting and allowing to continue to exist undisturbed any natural assets of the area in which he finds himself. Some Biblical commentators clearly articulate a measured, rational approach to Devarim 20:19-20 rather than an absolutist one.[2]

Every instance of “Ki” that follows the word “Lo” is to be understood as “Ellah” (lit. but, except).[3] Therefore “Do not cut down (fruit trees) except the trees of the field that will allow a man to come before you in the siege,” i.e., such a tree you can cut down (regardless of whether they are fruit trees or not). These are the trees that are near the city behind which men from the city can hide and escape thereby, as it is said, “to come from before you in the siege”… (Therefore) a non-fruit bearing tree, whether it is close to or far from the city, you are allowed to destroy in order to construct a siege engine, but a fruit tree that is far from the city do not cut down; only those that are close to the city (can be destroyed) which prevent the soldiers (on your side) from getting close to the walls.

Ibn Ezra, who usually presents logical understandings of the biblical text, in this instance appears to disagree with RaShBaM, and does not allow for cutting down fruit trees even when winning a battle or even an entire war might require it:

... “…From it you will eat and it you should not destroy because man is the tree of the field”, and the sense of the verse is that the life of man depends upon the trees of the field. This is similar to (Devarim 24:6) “Do not take as collateral the borrower’s millstones (this Commandment is addressed to a lender who is giving a loan to a poor individual),[4] because you are endangering his life (fig., livelihood; he will not be able to provide for his basic necessities without the means of turning grain into flour, and therefore your loan to him will not enable him to survive)”… Behold you are not to cut down a fruit tree because it provides life to people. You are permitted only to eat from it and it is prohibited for you to cut it down in order to thereby conquer the city which you are attacking. And the proof that this is the correct interpretation is the phrase (mentioned in connection with the non-fruit bearing trees), “…cut down and build a siege engine”.

Ibn Ezra does not appear to consider the possibility that trees near the city might be prolonging the engagement by providing havens for the enemy, as does RaShBaM; he sees Devarim 20:19-20 as exclusively dealing with the natural raw materials from which one can draw in order to construct implements of war. Since fruit-bearing trees are already “spoken for” in terms of providing food, if not in the immediate short-term, then certainly once the city has been conquered,[5] therefore the Tora Bans their usage for a lesser purpose, i.e., wood for weapons.[6] Rabbeinu Bachya agrees with Ibn Ezra, but generalizes from the specific case of a fruit tree, to other articles, both natural and man-made, which a person may be tempted to destroy for one reason or another:

…It is not the type of behavior of a nation that is wise and understanding to destroy something worthy (of being put to good use) for no benefit. Therefore you should exert no energy in this regard to destroy a tree of the field, but rather you should take care not to destroy or even harm it, and instead take from it its (natural and therefore originally intended) benefit, i.e., “because from it you will eat”, and if you destroy it, it will result in your damaging and losing this benefit.

While the immediate context of the verses in Devarim 20:19-20 are two basic categories of trees,[7] Rabbeinu Bachya establishes the principle that entities that clearly offer benefits in their natural states, should be utilized exclusively for these purposes and not be altered. It is unclear if the commentator is categorically opposed to altering any and all articles or objects once it is recognized and acknowledged what the primary benefit that they offer might be, or whether he would agree that even if there already was some benefit available, if such a benefit could be “improved upon”, whether such an alteration would be acceptable.[8]

Other commentators do not so much understand the desire on the part of the attacking forces to cut down trees as a cost-benefit calculation regarding the construction of implements of warfare or future food supplies, but rather as part of a war-like mentality that creates a mindset of general destruction of all things perceived as belonging to the military objective:

The word “Ki”[9] is to be understood as “lest”, i.e., “lest the tree of the field be considered a person (belonging to the enemy) that it is to come before you as part of the siege”, to be afflicted with the afflictions of starvation and thirst like the people of the city? Why would you destroy it?

…Do you think that the tree of the field is to be besieged by you like a person, that you have the right to cut it down and abuse it by means of famine and thirst in the same manner that you afflict the inhabitants of the city whom soldiers starve by means of a blockade? Since this is clearly not the case, why would you destroy it?

Another commentator interprets the wanton destruction of fruit trees with regard to the conquest of the land of Israel in terms of a spiritual shortcoming, something that those engaged in a “Milchemet Mitzva” (a war that is Divinely Commanded)[10] should not be harboring:

The destruction of trees for no constructive purpose is carried out by an army to cause damage when it is unsure whether it will prove victorious and ultimately inhabit the land (over which they are fighting).[11] But you who are certain regarding the conquest of the land and taking up residence in it, it is improper to destroy trees that provide food. You will conquer the land without doubt and you will eat from it when you avoid destroying it.

Whereas all of the aforementioned commentators view the phrase, “Ki HaAdam Eitz HaSadeh” as either drawing attention to a short-sighted practical matter having spiritual implications, i.e., if you destroy the fruit-bearing trees, what are you going to live on once you are victorious? Do you have insufficient faith to believe that you will eventually live here?”, or as a rhetorical question that is essentially absurd, i.e., “it is obvious that human enemies and trees are not to be equated; so why are you attacking the trees?”, a third approach suggests that the prohibition against destroying fruit trees arises specifically from the overpowering similarities between trees and people. And just as human life is essentially sacred and should not be indiscriminately taken when there is no pressing need to do so, the same applies to trees.

It is for this reason that the destruction of food-providing trees is considered such a serious prohibition that lashes can be given as a punishment for its violation,[12] because a person is compared to/equated with a tree of the field. And behold this comparison appears in several different forms, as we explained in our commentary to BaMidbar 24:6.[13] The explanation of this specific parable (in Devarim 20) is as follows: Just as with respect to people that the besiegers of a city send secretly into the city in order to assist the attackers by opening the city via fulminating disagreement and controversy among the city’s inhabitants, and when the attackers succeed in entering and kill the residents, it would never occur to them to also kill the spies who entered the city and helped them to emerge victorious,[14] so too a food-bearing tree exists for the benefit of the besiegers who benefit from its fruit when they pick it from the tree…

There is an essential difference between the language of Ibn Ezra and Rabbeinu Bachaya, who understand the phrase “Ki HaAdam Eitz HaSadeh” as referring to the benefit and life-giving quality of the fruit tree, in contrast to NeTzIV (“HaEmek Davar”) who understands these trees as functioning not merely as supports to human life, and therefore secondary to people as all food sources inherently must be, but rather as comparable to the manner in which certain people actually conduct themselves within a military context. As a result of the text’s analogy in Devarim 20:19 between trees and people according to this latter view, cutting down the fruit tree becomes a figurative[15] act of murder.

A Rabbinic thinker who develops the equation of trees and men to a profound level is MaHaRaL MiPrague. It appears that his thinking stems from an analogy parallel to Devarim 20:19 that is to be found in the Oral Tradition, which in turn quotes verses from Yirmiyahu:[16]

He (R. Elazar ben Azarya) used to say: Anyone whose wisdom exceeds his good deeds, to what is he compared? To a tree whose branches are numerous, but whose roots are few. Then the wind comes, and uproots it and turns it upside down, as it is said, (Yirmiyahu 17:6) “And he shall be like an isolated tree in an arid land and shall not see when good comes; he shall dwell on parched soil in the wilderness, on a salted land, uninhabited.”

But one whose good deeds exceed his wisdom, to what is he compared? To a tree whose branches are few but whose roots are numerous. Even if all the winds in the world were to come and blow against it, they could not budge it from its place, as it is said, (Ibid. 17:8) “And he shall be like a tree planted by the waters , toward the stream spreading its roots and it shall not notice the heat’s arrival, and its foliage shall be fresh; in the year of drought it shall not worry, nor shall it cease from yielding fruit.”

…You should know that although man is strongly associated with the earth, he also is profoundly possessed of intellect. Nevertheless the term “Adam” (man) is derived from “Adama” (the earth), which demonstrates that the root of man is the body which is his essence, (and is essentially limited in terms of how far it can develop) while the intellect within man continues to grow and spread until it reaches higher than the heavens. And in this way man is comparable to a tree that stands on the earth and whose branches continue to increase and spread upwards. This is what the text means when it states, “Ki HaAdam Eitz HaSadeh”…

Actions are associated with the body of man which is considered his essence, because the act of performing a Commandment is not associated with the intellect, but rather the body…

And when a person’s actions are many, he is considered like a tree that has numerous roots…

And you can ask: If a person is compared to a tree, and it is obvious that a tree that has both many branches and many roots is more likely to be uprooted than a tree with few branches and many roots, then one reaches the conclusion that a person who does many Mitzvot and also has a well-developed intellect is more vulnerable than a comparable person with minimum intellect?...

This is not a question, because you must know that via his intellect, an individual enters the highest level, and when a person in terms of his actions (which are few and therefore not parallel to his intellect) is unworthy of this highest level, then he is like a tree who has few roots and many branches…

But rather one who has both many roots and many branches, he is like a tree that has even more roots than branches…

In other writings, MaHaRaL appears to refine and even recast the concept that he originally introduced in his commentary to Pirkei Avot:

Truly, a man is referred to as a “tree of the field”, as it is written, “Ki HaAdam Eitz HaSadeh”, but he is an upside-down tree, because a tree’s roots are below, sunk into the earth, as opposed to man whose roots are above, because his soul constitutes his roots, and it originates in Heaven. His hands are the branches of the tree, and his feet are branches upon branches, his body being the essence of the tree…

…It is stated in Sota 45b: “Aba Shaul says that a baby evolves starting from its umbilicus.”[19] It is comparable to a tree that sends forth its roots this way and that way. Therefore the umbilicus is to a human being as the root is to a tree…This is what is meant by “Ki HaAdam Eitz HaSadeh”. And you will find that speech is deemed (a person’s) “fruit”, because it can be called (Yeshayahu 57:19) “Niv Sefatayim” (expression of the lips) just as produce is called (II Melachim 8:6) “Tenuvat HaSadeh” (produce of the field)…

Does MaHaRaL see the tree in man, or man in the tree? Whichever constitutes his point of departure, he lends an interesting lense to the care that we must take when relating to both nature and our fellow human beings. Shabbat Shalom.

[1] Commandments having to do with warfare in Sefer Devarim include:

a) The destruction of members of the 7 Canaanite nations 7:1-2; 20:16-17

b) Soldiers are not to be afraid when they enter battle 7:21; 20:3-4

c) A Kohen should be appointed who will go out to war 20:2

d) Soldiers excused from a voluntary war 20:5-7

e) Offering conditions for surrender before attacking 20:10-15

f) Laws of sieges (discussed in this essay) 20:19-20

g) Rules applicable to female war captives 21:10-14

h) Rules regarding a military camp 23:10-15

[2] An absolutist view would not allow for any exceptions when it would come to the destruction of fruit trees regardless of their proximity to the city under attack and the manner in which they were being employed by the enemy.

[3] Devarim 20:19

“…Lo Tashchit Et HaEitza LiNdoach Alav Garzen Ki Mimenu Tocheil V’Oto Lo Tichrot Ki HaAdam Eitz HaSadeh LaVo MiPanecha BeMatzor”.

[4] See “Rescinding Loans, Respect and Self-Respect” at http://www.kmsynagogue.org/Reeh4.html

[5] The long-term benefit of food appears to trump the short-term advantage of winning a battle in a war in the sense that once the city is conquered, its conquerors will be able to comfortably inhabit their new conquest only if there are ready sources of food. If all of these have been destroyed, then the victory becomes a hollow one. The enemy may have been driven out, but the victors will not be able to take up residence for quite some time. Yehoshua 24:13 appears to count on the fact that once the Jews conquer parts of Canaan, they will be able to utilize the food supply that others had toiled to create:

“And I will Give to you a land that you have not worked hard in it, and cities that you did not build, yet you will dwell in them. Vineyards and olive orchards that you did not plant, you will eat.”

[6] Aside from the practical considerations of long-term food supply, the Tora’s emphasis upon the preservation of fruit trees at the expense of creating weapons of war may also reflect a certain antipathy that Jewish tradition has for waging war, in the sense that it may be a necessary evil, that if one can avoid without endangering one’s deeply held beliefs and principles, he should do so. Consider the following Mishna:

Shabbat 6:4

A person should not go out on Shabbat (from a private domain to a public domain, or 4 “Amot” in a public domain in the absence of an Eiruv) with(wearing) either a sword, a bow, a shield, a mace, or a spear. And if he does so (inadvertently), he will have to bring a sin offering.

R. Eliezer says: These are decorations for him (and therefore no sin is committed by his wearing these objects).

And the “Chachamim” say: They are indignities to him, as it says (Yeshayahu 2:4) (regarding the Messianic period) “And they will beat their sword into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks and they will no longer learn war”. (The assumption of the Mishna is that war will someday be done away with so that man can live securely and properly.)

[7] If R. Bachaya’s comment would be limited to fruit trees, then we could point to the verses in Berashit which establish that from the time of Creation, fruit of trees are designated as food for man and animal (Beraishit 1:29-30). But once he expands the specific case of fruit trees to a principle that might apply to a broad variety of natural entities, i.e., things which provide human benefit, then one can wonder how is the ultimate, maximum benefit of an object determined and by whom?

[8] Are the prohibitions against grafting plants and animals (VaYikra 19:19; Devarim 22:9) then akin to the restriction against cutting down fruit trees in R. Bachaya’s view? Should man relegate all of his research and development activities exclusively to synthetic substances? If man is in fact a partner with HaShem in the ongoing act of Creation (see e.g., Shabbat 10a), then is it appropriate to restrict his use of the “raw materials”?

[9] See fn. 4.

[10] A “Milchemet Reshut” is defined as an optional war, intended by the initiator of the war, usually a king the likes of David, to expand one’s territory. A “Milchemet Mitzva”, on the other hand, is either a war Commanded by God, such as the conquest of Canaan, or any defensive war when the Jewish people are attacked by others and it becomes necessary to defend themselves. The latter case is also presented in the Tora in the “micro-“ case, in Shemot 22:1, where in the eventuality that an intruder comes into one’s home and it is unclear what his intentions might be, it is permitted to defend oneself even to the point of killing the trespasser.

[11] In such an instance, the attitude that precipitates a “scorched earth” policy might be: “If I am unsure whether I will ultimately inhabit this land, let no one live here and therefore let everything be destroyed.”

[12] For any specific action prohibited by the Tora using a language of “You shall not do” or “Do not do”, if there are witnesses to the transgression who give the perpetrator warning prior to his act, and after acknowledging that he understands the warning, he goes ahead and sins anyway, a maximum of 39 lashes are authorized as punishment—see Devarim 25:2-3.

[13] NeTzIV is referring here to his commentary on BaMidbar 24:6. “…Like aloes which HaShem has Planted, and cedar trees beside the river”, where we encounter another instance of people—in this case specifically the Jews—are compared to trees.

NeTzIV on BaMidbar 24:6

…And the Tora has already made the comparison (between people and trees) in Parshat Shoftim “Ki HaAdam Eitz HaSadeh”. However, there are four types of trees:

a) Thorny bushes that are not picked because they offer no benefit…They were only created to harm others and to serve as weapons… These are comparable to evil doers who harm others.

b) Thorny trees that nevertheless offer shade by means of its branches and leaves. These are comparable to those who excel in “Derech Eretz” (courtesy and mannerliness).

c) Fruit trees. These are comparable to those who perform Commandments, because a Mitzva is compared to a fruit, as in Avoda Zora 19b…But one does not get benefit by their mere existence.

d) Cedar trees that one can benefit from the trees themselves, if for e.g., one wishes to build a structure. These are comparable to masters of the Tora, whereby such a person becomes ever purer in all of his ways, even his common conversation. There are some cedars that benefit a single individual who lives in a house constructed of them. There are other cedars which allow for people to cross bodies of water and thereby benefit so many more individuals. Similarly there are some scholars that have more limited effect, while others influence the masses…

Whereas in the instance in BaMidbar, NeTzIV interprets how various species of trees with different attributes represent different groups of people (similar to the well-known Midrash regarding the four species of plants held together on Sukkot—see VaYikra Rabba 30:12), in Devarim NeTzIV concerns himself exclusively with fruit trees.

[14] A well-known example in TaNaCh whereby someone in a besieged city is ultimately spared the fate of the rest of the inhabitants because of her assistance in achieving the city’s conquest is Rachav in Yericho—see Yehoshua 2, 6.

[15] Although as was pointed out previously, the punishment for the destruction of the fruit tree is lashes rather than execution, the Talmud sees certain parallels between these two punishments—see Makkot 13b. It can be argued that death is not qualitatively different from injury, in this case lashes; it is merely the result of a more sustained application of punishment. An injury involves the destruction of living cells. At a certain point, either so many have been destroyed, or the ones destroyed as so vital to life, that death sets in. Consequently there is a continuum of punishment, and death is merely an end point. (Of course, an opposite argument could be made maintaining that death is qualitatively different from any and all things leading up to it and therefore should not be mentioned in the same breath together with injury or lashes.)

[16] MaHaRaL astutely notes that since in Yirmiyahu there are two verses, 17:6 and 8, each dealing with a tree in either better or worse circumstances, R. Elazar ben Azarya proceeded to conclude that whereas all people and trees are comparable, just as there are trees that are better and worse situated, the same is true about people, who may be better or worse in terms of their Mitzva performance and Tora knowledge.

[17] In the different editions of Pirkei Avot, the numbering of the Mishnayot are inconsistent. The ArtScroll Siddur numbers this Mishna as 3:22.

[18] This is the title of MaHaRaL’s commentary on Pirkei Avot.

[19] The anonymous first Tannaitic position, that disagrees with Aba Shaul, states that the baby begins to develop from its head. While such a position is hard to imagine physiologically, it can be relatively easily understood symbolically in terms of what is the essence of the individual, particularly in light of MaHaRaL’s emphasis upon man’s intellect constituting his essence.