כי האדם עץ השדה. כבר ביארתי בספר היסוד כי יתכן בכל לשון לקצר לאחוז דרך קצרה כמו חמור לחם רק מלת לא לא יתכן להיותה נחסרת כי הטעם יהיה להפך ומדקדק גדול ספרדי אמר כי חסר ה״א וכן הוא הכי האדם עץ השדה וזה הטעם איננו נכון בעיני כי מה טעם לאמר לא תשחית עץ פרי כי איננו כבני אדם שיוכל לברוח מפניך ולפי דעתי שאין לנו צורך לכל זה וזה פירושו כי ממנו תאכל ואותו לא תכרות כי האדם עץ השדה והטעם כי חיי בן אדם הוא עץ השדה וכמוהו כי נפש הוא חובל כי חיי נפש הוא חובל: FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD MAN.18Hebrew, ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh. The latter literally means for man is a tree of the field. This, as I.E. goes on to say, does not make sense. Hence the interpretations which follow. I have previously explained in the Sefer Ha-Yesod19A Hebrew grammar composed by I.E. The book survives only in fragments. that it is possible in all languages to be brief and to apply an abbreviated style, as in “an ass bread”20Translated literally. (I Sam. 16:20).21An ass bread is short for an ass laden with bread. However, it is impossible to leave out the word lo (no, not),22If one wants to employ an abbreviated style. for in this case the meaning would be reversed.23Onkelos renders ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh as if written ki ha-adam lo etz ha-sadeh (for the tree of the field is not a man). In other words, Onkelos claims that the word lo has been left out of the verse. I.E. disagrees. Hence his comment. A great Spanish grammarian24I.E. does not identify the grammarian. said that a heh25An interrogative heh. has been omitted.26From the word ki in ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh. Our clause should be interpreted as if written, hakhi adam etz ha-sadeh (for is the tree of the field man).27Our verse reads, ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh. The latter literally means for man is a tree of the field. Hence the unnamed grammarian’s interpretation. Now this interpretation does not appear correct to me. Why would Scripture say that you shall not destroy fruit trees, because, unlike a human being, they cannot run away from you?28This is the meaning of our verse if we render ha-khi adam etz ha-sadeh as, for is the tree of the field man. I believe there is no need for all this.29To interpret ki ha-adam etz ha-sadeh as if written ha-khi adam etz ha-sadeh. The following is the meaning of our clause. For thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down, for the tree of the field is man; that is, the life of man is supported by trees.30In other words, ki ha-adam (for man) is short for ki chayye ha-adam (for the life of man). Compare, For he taketh a life to pledge (Deut. 24:6), which is short for, for he taketh that which sustains man’s life to pledge.
ואותו לא תכרות. דבק עם לבא מפניך במצור הנה לא תשחית עץ פרי שהוא חיים לבן אדם רק מותר שתאכל ממנו ואסור לך להשחיתו כדי שתבא העיר מפניך במצור והעד על זה הפירוש שהוא נכון שאמר וכרת ובנית מצור: BUT THOU SHALT NOT CUT THEM DOWN. This is connected to that it should he besieged of thee.31In other words, you shall not cut down the fruit trees to use their wood to build siege works. Look, do not destroy a fruit tree, which is a source of sustenance for human life. Be that as it may, you are permitted to eat of it but you are prohibited from destroying it so that the city will be besieged because of you. The fact that Scripture then states thou mayest destroy and cut down,32The trees that do not produce fruit. that thou mayest build bulwarks (v. 20), is proof of this.