Deuteronomy 20:19

"Is a man a tree of the field?" Here, the word "ki" functions in the sense of "perhaps": "Perhaps a tree of the field is human, and should be included in the proscription [of the town] before you, and should suffer with hunger and thirst just like the human inhabitants of the city?" Why would you destroy it!?

When you beleaguer a city all the seven days to war against it, to subdue it on the Sabbath, you shall not destroy the trees thereof by bringing against them (an instrument of) iron; that you may eat its fruit, cut it not down; for a tree on the face of the field is not as a man to be hidden (put out of sight) before you in the siege.

man is a tree of the field I have already explained, in Sefer Hayyǝsod , that in every language there is a tendency to omit words in order to be concise. Nevertheless, one never omits the word “not”, because then one’s meaning is reversed. A great Spanish grammarian asserted that the sentence is missing an interrogative heh , as if Scripture were asking rhetorically, “is a tree of the field a man?” — but in my view this interpretation is not correct, because it makes no sense to explain a prohibition against destroying a fruit tree, on the grounds that a tree is not a man (and is thus incapable of running away). In my opinion there is no need for any of this. The meaning, rather, is as follows: You may eat of them, but do not cut them down, for man is a tree of the field (i.e., the life of man depends on the trees of the field). A similar construction appears in “for it is taking a life in pawn” [24: 6], which clearly means “it is taking the means of a man’s livelihood in pawn”.

The phrase but do not cut them down is conceptually tied to the phrase to come before you in the siege, to wit: You may not destroy fruit-bearing trees, which are a source of life to mankind, but you may eat of their fruit; you are forbidden to destroy them so that the besieged city will surrender before you. The subsequent phrase cut to build up siegeworks is proof that this is the correct interpretation.

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” [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, 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. 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. 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 down is that you are permitted to cut them down to build bulwarks and also to destroy them until it be subdued, 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 covert to the city from stones of stumbling., 8:14.

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 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.

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,

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

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.

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

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.

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.” 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!