1. Read the following verses in Hebrew and English.
(יט) 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׃ (כ)
רַ֞ק עֵ֣ץ אֲשֶׁר־תֵּדַ֗ע כִּֽי־לֹא־עֵ֤ץ מַאֲכָל֙ ה֔וּא אֹת֥וֹ תַשְׁחִ֖ית וְכָרָ֑תָּ וּבָנִ֣יתָ מָצ֗וֹר עַל־הָעִיר֙ אֲשֶׁר־הִ֨וא עֹשָׂ֧ה עִמְּךָ֛ מִלְחָמָ֖ה עַ֥ד רִדְתָּֽהּ׃ (פ)
(19) When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down.
Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city?
(20) Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siegeworks against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced.
2. What questions or reactions do you have? Is there anything strange? Surprising?
3. How would you translate the italicized verse? Do you agree with the translation offered above?
a. Can you think of any alternatives?
4. What, in your own words, is the message that the verse is trying to get across?
5. Read the following comments and compare their explanations with your own.
(ג) כי האדם עץ השדה. הֲרֵי כִּי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּלְשׁוֹן דִּלְמָא, שֶׁמָּא הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה לְהִכָּנֵס בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּצוֹר מִפָּנֶיךָ לְהִתְיַסֵּר בְּיִסּוּרֵי רָעָב וְצָמָא כְּאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר? לָמָּה תַּשְׁחִיתֶנּוּ?:
IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD A MAN [THAT IT SHOULD BE BESIEGED BY THEE]? — כי has here the meaning of “possibly”, “perhaps” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 23:5) — is the tree of the field perhaps a man who is able to withdraw within the besieged city from before you, that it should be chastised by the suffering of famine and thirst like the inhabitants of the city? Why should you destroy it?
(ד) כי האדם עץ השדה לבא מפניך במצור - כל כי שאחרי לא מתפרש אלא, אותו לא תכרות אלא עץ השדה לבא - האדם - מפניך במצור -אותו תכרות. הם הקרובים לעיר שנסתרים בהם אנשי העיר הבורחים מפניך ובאים בתוך העיר, כדכתיב: ותבא העיר במצור.
(ה) כי האדם - אלא האדם עץ השדה - אלא עץ השדה האדם לבא מפניך במצור, שגורם את האדם לבא מפניך במצור.
(4) 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
(5) 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.
כי ממנו תאכל ואותו לא תכרות כי האדם עץ השדה והטעם כי חיי בן אדם הוא עץ השדה
...
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:
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).
...
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.
6. How are they explaining/translating the verse? Use the following guiding questions to help you:
a. How are they translating כי ?
b. Are they ending the verse with a period? With a question mark? An exclamation point?
c. Is the emphasis that we may cut down certain trees, or that we may not?
d. Is the verse expressing the fact that we are alike to trees of the field? Or different?
7. Are any of their explanations consistent with yours?
8. Which do you find most convincing?
9. Is there anything that the three of them have in common?
10. Compare the various possible explanations with the following translations:
| Jewish Publication Society | For is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee? |
| King James Version | For thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege. |
| Revised Standard Version | Are the trees in the field men that they should be besieged by you? |
| Common English Bible | Do you think a tree of the field is some sort of warrior to be attacked by you in battle? |
| Wycliffe | For it is a tree, and not a man, and it cannot increase the number of fighters against thee. |
| Webster Bible | For the tree of the field [is] man's [(life)] to employ [them] in the siege. |
| The Millenium Bible | For the tree of the field is man's life. |
11. How do any of these translations compare with the explanations? Do any of them match?
12. Are any of these translations offering any new ideas not yet suggested or discussed?
Final Reflection
13. Given the different possible interpretations (your own and the sources included), what might the verse in the Torah be saying about the relationship between humankind and trees? How might this fit into some of our previous discussions of שמירה and עבודה ?