Tanakhתנ״ך

Understanding 'Ki Ha'adam Etz HaSadeh'

This phrase from Deuteronomy 20:19 appears in the context of prohibiting the destruction of fruit trees during siege warfare. Medieval commentaries offer varying interpretations of the verse's meaning and its relationship to the broader prohibition against needless destruction.

כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה

6 sources · all verified

Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.

What the sources say

The pasuk itself, Devarim 20:19, commands that during a siege one must not destroy the city's trees with an axe, grounding the prohibition in the phrase *ki ha-adam eitz hasadeh* — but the precise force of that phrase is the crux of the disagreement among the Rishonim.

Rashi (Devarim 20:19) reads *ki* here as meaning 'perhaps' or 'possibly,' rendering the phrase as a rhetorical question: is the tree of the field perhaps a man, that it can enter the besieged city and suffer famine and thirst like the city's inhabitants? — the point being that since it cannot flee, there is no reason to punish it.

By contrast, Ibn Ezra (Devarim 20:19) rejects that reading and argues that the tree is the very life of the human being — *ki chayei ben adam hu eitz hasadeh* — paralleling the construction in 'for it is a person's life that one takes as a pledge' (Devarim 24:6), so that the clause is a positive reason to preserve the tree rather than a rhetorical interrogative.

The Ramban (Devarim 20:19) similarly takes the phrase as an affirmative statement — the tree is the human being's sustenance, from which the soldier himself will eat after the city falls — and adds that reliance on God's promise of victory is itself the reason not to destroy what will soon be yours.

Drawing on the prohibition however it is parsed, the Mishneh Torah, Melachim and Wars 6:8–10 rules that the ban on destroying fruit trees extends well beyond siege conditions to any act of wanton destruction, a principle Sefer HaChinukh 529 broadens further to cover burning, tearing garments, or breaking vessels needlessly under the prohibition of *bal tashchit*.

Source 1 · Tanach
Verified

Deuteronomy 20:19

דברים כ׳:י״ט

Deuteronomy 20:19

The verse states that a tree of the field is not like a person, in the context of the prohibition of destroying fruit trees during siege. The plain sense contrasts human life and trees while leaving room for interpretive readings of the phrase.

כִּֽי־תָצ֣וּר אֶל־עִיר֩ יָמִ֨ים רַבִּ֜ים לְֽהִלָּחֵ֧ם עָלֶ֣יהָ לְתׇפְשָׂ֗הּ לֹֽא־תַשְׁחִ֤ית אֶת־עֵצָהּ֙ לִנְדֹּ֤חַ עָלָיו֙ גַּרְזֶ֔ן כִּ֚י מִמֶּ֣נּוּ תֹאכֵ֔ל וְאֹת֖וֹ לֹ֣א תִכְרֹ֑ת כִּ֤י הָֽאָדָם֙ עֵ֣ץ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה לָבֹ֥א מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ בַּמָּצֽוֹר׃

Source 2 · Rishonim
Verified

Ramban on Deuteronomy 20:19

רמב"ן על דברים כ׳:י״ט

Ramban on Deuteronomy 20:19

The passage explains that "the human is a tree of the field" means a person is comparable to a tree whose life can be harmed, and therefore one must not destroy a besieged city's trees, trusting that God will deliver it into your hands, since you will sustain yourself from those trees after conquering the city and even while encamped during the siege.

וְטַעַם כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה, כְּמוֹ כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל (דברים כ"ד:ו'). וְאַתֶּם לֹא תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן לְהַשְׁחִיתָהּ, כִּי תִּבְטְחוּ בַּשֵּׁם שֶׁיִּתֵּן אוֹתָהּ בְּיֶדְכֶם, כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה הוּא, מִמֶּנּוּ תֹּאכֵל וְתִחְיֶה וּבוֹ תָּבוֹא הָעִיר מִפָּנֶיךָ בְּמָצוֹר, לוֹמַר אַתָּה תִּחְיֶה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחֲרֵי שֶׁתִּכְבֹּשׁ הָעִיר, וְגַם בִּהְיוֹתְךָ בַּמַּחֲנֶה לָבֹא מִפָּנֶיךָ בַּמָּצוֹר תַּעֲשֶׂה כֵן.

Source 3 · Rishonim
Verified

Rashi on Deuteronomy 20:19

רש"י על דברים כ׳:י״ט

Rashi on Deuteronomy 20:19

Rashi explains the verse as a rhetorical question: is the tree of the field a person to flee before you in war? His reading emphasizes that the Torah is not treating trees as human beings in the legal context of siege.

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?:

כי האדם עץ השדה FOR 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?

Source 4 · Rishonim
Verified

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 20:19

אבן עזרא על דברים כ׳:י״ט

Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 20:19

Ibn Ezra reads the verse more straightforwardly, connecting it to the surrounding prohibition of needless destruction in war and clarifying the syntax of the phrase about the tree of the field.

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: 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:

FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD MAN. I have previously explained in the Sefer Ha-Yesod that it is possible in all languages to be brief and to apply an abbreviated style, as in “an ass bread” (I Sam. 16:20). However, it is impossible to leave out the word lo (no, not), for in this case the meaning would be reversed. A great Spanish grammarian said that a heh has been omitted. Our clause should be interpreted as if written, hakhi adam etz ha-sadeh (for is the tree of the field man). 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? I believe there is no need for all this. 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. 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. BUT THOU SHALT NOT CUT THEM DOWN. This is connected to that it should he besieged of thee. 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, that thou mayest build bulwarks (v. 20), is proof of this.

Source 5 · Rishonim
Verified

Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:8-10

משנה תורה, הלכות מלכים ומלחמות ו׳:ח׳-י׳

Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 6:8-10

Rambam codifies the laws of bal tashchit, including the wartime prohibition on cutting fruit trees and the broader ban on needless destruction. His presentation turns the verse into binding halakhah.

אֵין קוֹצְצִין אִילָנֵי מַאֲכָל שֶׁחוּץ לַמְּדִינָה וְאֵין מוֹנְעִין מֵהֶם אַמַּת הַמַּיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּיבְשׁוּ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כ, יט) "לֹא תַשְׁחִית אֶת עֵצָהּ". וְכָל הַקּוֹצֵץ לוֹקֶה. וְלֹא בְּמָצוֹר בִּלְבַד אֶלָּא בְּכָל מָקוֹם כָּל הַקּוֹצֵץ אִילַן מַאֲכָל דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל קוֹצְצִין אוֹתוֹ אִם הָיָה מַזִּיק אִילָנוֹת אֲחֵרִים. אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּזִּיק בִּשְׂדֵה אֲחֵרִים. אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָיו יְקָרִים. לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה:

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, as Deuteronomy 20:19 states: 'Do not destroy its trees.' 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.

Source 6 · Rishonim
Verified

Sefer HaChinukh 529

ספר החינוך תקכ״ט — ד"ה שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁחִית אִילָנֵי מַאֲכָל – שֶׁנִּמְנַעְנוּ

Sefer HaChinukh 529:1

The mitzvah entry on not destroying fruit trees expands the verse into a general principle against waste and destructive behavior, explaining the educational purpose behind the command.

שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁחִית אִילָנֵי מַאֲכָל – שֶׁנִּמְנַעְנוּ מִלִּכְרֹת הָאִילָנוֹת כְּשֶׁנָּצוּר עַל עִיר כְּדֵי לְהָצֵר לְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר וּלְהַכְאִיב לִבּוֹתָם, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר (דברים כ יט) לֹא תַשְׁחִית אֶת עֵצָהּ וְגוֹ' וְאוֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת, וּכְמוֹ כֵן נִכְנָס תַּחַת זֶה הַלָּאו, שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת שׁוּם הֶפְסֵד, כְּגוֹן לִשְׂרֹף, אוֹ לִקְרֹעַ בֶּגֶד אוֹ לְשַׁבֵּר כְּלִי לְבַטָּלָה, וּבְכָל עִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ וּבְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּם שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהֶם הַשְׁחָתָה. וְאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה תָּמִיד בַּגְּמָרָא (קידושין לב, א) וְהָא קָא עָבַר מִשּׁוּם בַּל תַּשְׁחִית, וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵין מַלְקִין אֶלָּא בְּקוֹצֵץ אִילָנֵי מַאֲכָל, שֶׁהוּא מְפֹרָשׁ בַּכָּתוּב, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר הַהַשְׁחָתוֹת מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת (עי' רמב"ם מלכים ו י). שֹׁרֶשׁ הַמִּצְוָה יָדוּעַ, שֶׁהוּא כְּדֵי לְלַמֵּד נַפְשֵׁנוּ לֶאֱהֹב הַטּוֹב וְהַתּוֹעֶלֶת וּלְהִדָּבֵק בּוֹ, וּמִתּוֹךְ כָּךְ תִּדְבַּק בָּנוּ הַטּוֹבָה, וְנַרְחִיק מִכָּל דָּבָר רַע וּמִכָּל דְּבַר הַשְׁחָתָה. וְזֶהוּ דֶּרֶךְ הַחֲסִידִים וְאַנְשֵׁי מַעֲשֶׂה, אוֹהֲבִים שָׁלוֹם וּשְׂמֵחִים בְּטוּב הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבִים אוֹתָן לַתּוֹרָה, וְלֹא יְאַבְּדוּ אֲפִלּוּ גַּרְגֵּר שֶׁל חַרְדָּל בָּעוֹלָם, וְיֵצַר עֲלֵיהֶם בְּכָל אֲבַדּוֹן וְהַשְׁחָתָה שֶׁיִּרְאוּ, וְאִם יוּכְלוּ לְהַצִּיל יַצִּילוּ כָּל דָּבָר מֵהַשְׁחִית בְּכָל כֹּחָם. וְלֹא כֵן הָרְשָׁעִים אֲחֵיהֶם שֶׁל מַזִּיקִים, שְׂמֵחִים בְּהַשְׁחָתַת עוֹלָם, וְהֵמָּה מַשְׁחִיתִים אֶת עַצְמָם, בְּמִדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ. כְּלוֹמַר, בָּהּ הוּא נִדְבָּק לְעוֹלָם, וּכְעִנְיָן שֶׁכָּתוּב (משלי יז, ה) שָׂמֵחַ לְאֵיד לֹא יִנָּקֶה. וְהֶחָפֵץ בַּטּוֹב וְשָׂמֵחַ בּוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ בְּטוֹב תָּלִין לְעוֹלָם, זֶה יָדוּעַ וּמְפֻרְסָם.

To not destroy fruit trees: That we have been prevented from chopping down trees when we besiege a city to distress the people of the city and to sadden their hearts. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 20:19), “you may not destroy its tree, etc. and you shall not chop it down.” And likewise not to do any damage — such as burning or ripping a garment or breaking a vessel for no reason — entered under this negative commandment And in all of these matters and in all that is similar to them, they, may their memory be blessed, would always say in the Gemara (Kiddushin 32a), “But behold, he is transgressing on account of ‘do not destroy.’” And nonetheless we only administer lashes for one that cuts down a fruit tree, since it is explicit in Scripture. But with other destructions, we [only] give him lashes of rebellion. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:10.) The root of this commandment is well-known — it is in order to teach our souls to love good and benefit and to cling to it. And through this, good clings to us and we will distance [ourselves] from all bad and destructive things. And this is the way of the pious and people of [proper] action — they love peace and are happy for the good of the creatures and bring them close to Torah, and they do not destroy even a grain of mustard in the world. And they are distressed by all loss and destruction that they see; and if they can prevent it, they will prevent any destruction with all of their strength. But not so are the wicked — the brothers of the destructive spirits. They rejoice in the destruction of the world, and they destroy themselves — [since] in the way that a person measures, so is he measured; which is to say that he clings to it forever, as the matter that is written (Proverbs 17:5), “the one who rejoices in calamity, will not be cleared (of evil).” And the one who desires the good and rejoices in it, “his soul will dwell in the good” forever. This is known and famous.