Ki HaAdam Etz HaSadeh – The Tree and the Man
The topic I would like to focus on today is the subject found between the discretionary war and the Eglah Arufah, where the Torah deals with a Mitzvah that has significant implications not only for matters of war but also for everyday life, at all times and in every moment. The Torah says:
If you besiege a city many days to wage war against it, to capture it, do not harm its trees by chopping it with an ax, because you eat from it you are not to cut it down; For, is the tree in the field a man to join the besieged to escape you? Only a tree that you know that it is not a fruit tree may you harm or cut down; and you will build battlements against the city that is waging war against you until it is conquered.
The question arises: why did the Torah forbid the destruction of trees in a discretionary war? It's very simple – if you intend to conquer the place, you will presumably benefit from it, so why destroy it?! From here, Chazal learned about the prohibition of destroying fruit trees. Regarding this prohibition, there are many Halachot. Not only is it forbidden to destroy fruit trees, but it is also forbidden to block water channels that flow to the trees.
The Sifrei says: Do not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. If I only have a prohibition against using an axe; how do I know it also includes diverting water from it? The Torah therefore teaches Do not destroy its trees, in any manner. The closing words, teaches that a person's life depends on the tree. From here, we learn that if Hakadosh Baruch Hu has compassion on the tree, kal vachomer He has compassion on the fruits of the tree. If the Torah warns you about a tree that produces fruit, how much more so about the fruits themselves!
The Rambam elaborates on the prohibition of bal tashchit – the general rule forbidding destructiveness. He writes in Hilchot Melachim (6:8) regarding besieging a city:
We should not cut down fruit trees outside a city nor prevent an irrigation ditch from bringing water to them so that they dry up. Anyone who cuts down such a tree should be lashed. This does not apply only in a siege, but in all situations. Anyone who cuts down a fruit tree with a destructive intent, should be lashed. Nevertheless, a fruit tree may be cut down if it causes damage to other trees or to fields belonging to others, or if a high price could be received for its wood. The Torah only prohibited cutting down a tree with a destructive intent. It is permissible to cut down any non-fruit bearing tree, even if one has no need for it. Similarly, one may cut down a fruit bearing tree that has become old and produces only a slight yield which does not warrant the effort required to care for it. What is the yield that an olive tree must produce to warrant that it should not be cut down? A quarter of a kav [one sixth of a Se’ah] of olives. Similarly, a date palm which yields a kav of dates should not be cut down.
This prohibition does not apply to trees alone. Rather, anyone who breaks utensils, tears garments, destroys buildings, stops up a spring, or ruins food with a destructive intent transgresses the command 'Do not destroy.' However, he is not lashed. Instead, he receives stripes for rebellious conducts instituted by the Sages.
The Siftei Kohen quoting the Recanati, offers a spiritual reason for the Torah’s prohibition against cutting down trees. Based on the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah), every plant on Earth is influenced by a corresponding spiritual force above; therefore, destroying something below causes harm above. A fruitless tree, however, no longer channels this spiritual energy and may be removed. The Gemara (Bava Batra 91) relates the tragic consequence of cutting a tree prematurely – the death of Rabbi Chanina’s daughter – and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer lists six profound events – including cutting down a fruit tree – whose sounds reverberate across the world, though humans cannot hear them. These teachings emphasize the hidden cosmic and spiritual repercussions of a seemingly mundane action like harming a tree.
For no man shall see Me and live. The departure of the soul is likened to the cutting of a tree because at that moment, the power that told it to grow ceases. Yet, we’re told Only a tree that you know is not a fruit tree you may destroy and cut down. What knowledge is needed here? Even non-fruit-bearing trees are known! This wording hints that one who is liable for death should not be executed unless it is known for certain that he has no fruit – i.e., that no scholar will emerge from him!
Where else do we find such a case? We find it with Moshe Rabbeinu in Egypt. When Moshe spotted the Egyptian beating the Jew, prior to killing him, the Torah tells us that Moshe looked both ways: Rashi comments that Moshe saw that no man would emerge from him who would convert.
Another place we find this is with Elisha HaNavi, when he went and repaired the waters, and some mischievous youths came and called to him: "Go up, baldy! Go up, baldy!" We’re then told He turned around, saw them, and cursed them. In the Gemara (Sotah 46b), Rav says he saw them literally, meaning he set his eyes upon them so they would be punished from Heaven. Rabbi Yochanan, however, says Elisha saw that there was not even a trace of a Mitzvah in them, and therefore it was not appropriate to be lenient in their punishment. On this answer, the Gemara asks: But perhaps in their descendants Mitzvot would be found? Rabbi Elazar answers: Neither in them nor in their descendants until the end of all generations.
The Sefer Tzror Hamor echoes the idea that the Torah’s prohibition against cutting down trees reflects their deep connection to human life. Since the Torah says and you shall besiege it, perhaps they will stand against it in siege and distress for many days. Therefore, we’re also told – since human life depends on the trees. He explains that since trees provide essential sustenance, harming them – even by cutting branches or striking with an axe – is a form of destruction. The Torah says for from it you shall eat, to emphasize the practical and symbolic bond between a tree and a person. Just as a person has a soul and produces fruit through Mitzvot, a fruit tree has a vegetative soul and produces physical fruit. Therefore, it deserves protection. Tzror Hamor then connects this sensitivity to the value of human life: just as one must not uproot a tree that provides fruit, one must not harm a person who contributes spiritually through Torah and Mitzvot. But one who bears no fruit – spiritually or otherwise – may not merit the same protection.
Torah Scholars and the Tree Metaphor
The Gemara in (Ta'anit 7a) says:
Rabbi Yochanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For man is a tree of the field”? And is man actually a tree of the field? Rather, it is because it is written in the same verse: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” and it is written in the next verse: “Them you may destroy and cut down.” This indicates there are certain trees which may be cut down. How so? If a Torah scholar is worthy: “You may eat of them but you may not cut them down,” but if he is not worthy: “He you may destroy and cut down.”
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: Why are Torah matters likened to a tree, as it is stated: “It is a tree of life to them who lay hold upon it”? This tells you that just as a small piece of wood can ignite a large piece, so too, minor Torah scholars can sharpen great ones. And this is what Rabbi Chanina said: I have learned much from my teachers and even more from my friends, but from my students I have learned more than from all of them.
A question arises from this: What does "you shall destroy it" mean? Is there a commandment to kill unworthy Torah scholars?! Rashi explains, man is compared to a tree of the field – just as if it is a fruit tree, you may eat from it and not cut it down, so too with Torah scholars: if he is worthy, learn from him; and if not worthy, avoid him. Tosafot adds: If the Torah scholar is worthy, you should learn with him and not separate from him to go to another teacher; but if not, do not learn with him. And when we say that one learns from a Torah scholar even if he is not worthy, like the case of Rabbi Meir who learned from Acher (Elisha ben Avuya), this is only if the student is a Torah scholar himself, for he won’t learn from his deeds. But if he is not a Torah scholar, he should not learn with him.
