| א. טעם "בל תשחית" |
| A. The Reason for "Not Destroying." |
מצות לא תעשה תקכ"ט: שנמנענו מלכרות האילנות כשנצור על עיר, כדי להצר לאנשי העיר ולהכאיב ליבותם, ועל זה נאמר: "לא תשחית את עצה... ואותו לא תכרות" וכמו כן נכנס תחת זה הלאו שלא לעשות שום הפסד, כגון לשרוף או לקרוע בגד, או לשבור כלי לבטלה וכל ענינים אלה וכל כיוצא שיהיה בם השחתה, ואמרו ז"ל תמיד בגמרא: "והא קעבר משום 'בל תשחית'!"...
שורש המצוה ידוע, שהוא כדי ללמד נפשנו לאהוב הטוב והתועלת ולהדבק בו ומתוך כך תדבק בנו הטובה ונרחיק מכל דבר השחתה, וזהו דרך החסידים ואנשי המעשה, אוהבים השלום ושמחים בטוב הבריות, ומקרבין אותם לתורה, ולא יאבדו אפילו גרגיר של חרדל בעולם, ויצר עליהם בכל אבדון והשחתה שיראו, ואם יוכלו להציל, יצילו כל דבר מהשחית בכל כוחם; לא כן הרשעים אחיהם של מזיקין, שמחים בהשחתת העולם, והם משחיתים את עצמם. במדה שאדם מודד גם מודדין לו, כלומר: בה הוא נדבק לעולם, וכענין שכתוב "שמח לאיד לא ינקה". והחפץ בטוב ושמח בו – נפשו בטוב תלין לעולם. זה ידוע ומפורסם.
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'"...
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.
What is the difference between the two of them in their explanation of the reason for the commandment?
| ב. הרחבה לאיסור השחתה |
| B. The Expansion of the Prohibition of Destroying |
"for thou mayest eat of them"
In anything that we will need for the benefit of man, it is a commandment not to destroy [it], but rather to benefit from it.
How did they learn this expansion of the prohibition of destroying from our verse?
| ג. "כי ממנו תאכל" - מצוות עשה |
| C. "As you may eat from it" - a Positive Commandment |
"for thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down"
כי ממנו תאכל. מצות עשה.
ואותו לא תכרות. זו מצות לא תעשה.
"For from it you shall eat" is a positive commandment;
"but it you shall not cut down" is a negative commandment.
(א) נצטוינו כשנצור על עיר לאכול מן האילנות שבגבולה כל ימי המצור ואם נכרות אותם לבטלה דרך השחתה נעבור על עשה מוסיף על הלאו המפורש בו והוא אמרו יתעלה כי ממנו תאכל מ"ע ואותו לא תכרות מצות ל"ת, וראוי הרב לפי חשבונו במצות שימנה גם את זה. ודע כי זו המצוה בעשה ולא תעשה שלה כשנצור על עיר להלחם עליה לתפשה שנצטוינו לחמול עליה כאשר נחמול על שלנו אולי נכבוש אותה, אבל בצאתנו מעל ארץ אויב נשחית ונחבל כל עץ טוב וכן בימי המצור להצר לאנשי העיר בהשחתת האילנות שלא יחיו מהם כל זה מותר, לא אסרה תורה אלא השחתה בחנם...
(פירש "יד הלוי" לספר המצוות: מדלא קאמר 'ואם לא אכלו עברו על עשה' משמע דאין כוונתו דאם אכלו קיים מצות עשה. אלא כוונתו ל"לאו הבא מכלל עשה – שהוא עשה" כמו שכתב: "ואם נכרות אותם לבטלה דרך השחתה, נעבור על עשה, נוסף על לאו המפורש". והוא דומה לעשה ד"כל צפור טהורה תאכלו" שהכניס הרב (הרמב"ם) במנין המצוות דגם שם אין שום מצוה באכילתה אלא "לאו הבא מכלל עשה" טהורה תאכלו ולא טמאה).
We were commanded when we besiege a city, to eat from the tree upon its borders all the days of the siege. And if we cut them for no reason in the way of destructiveness, we would transgress a positive commandment, on top of the explicit negative commandment about it. And He, may He be elevated, stated it, "as you may eat from it" - [as] a positive commandment - "but you may not cut it down" - [as] a negative commandment. And it is fitting for [Rambam] to count also this, according to his calculation of the commandments. And you should know that this commandment - in both its positive and its negative [forms] - is when we besiege the city to fight against it, to snatch it. As we were commanded to be concerned about it the way we would be concerned about our own, [since] perhaps we will conquer it. But upon our leaving the land of the enemy, we destroy and wreck every good tree. Likewise during the days of the siege, it is permitted to hurt the people of the city by the destruction of the trees so that they will not live off of them. The Torah only forbade its destruction for no reason.
(Yad HaLevi on the Sefer HaMitzvot explains: Since he did not say, "And if they did not eat from it, they transgressed a positive commandment," it is implied that his intention is not that if they ate from it, they fulfilled a positive commandment. Rather his intention is about a negative commandment that comes from a positive commandment - that it is a positive commandment. As he wrote, "And if we cut them for no reason in the way of destructiveness, we would transgress a positive commandment, on top of the explicit negative commandment." And this is similar to the positive commandment of "You shall eat every clean bird" (Deuteronomy 14:11) which [Rambam] included in his count of the commandments. As there as well, there is no commandment in eating it; but rather it is a negative commandment that comes from a positive commandment - eat clean [ones] and not impure [ones].)
1. What is so curious in the words of the Sifrei that is resolved by the words of Ramban?
2. כיצד יש להבין לפי דברי הרמב"ן את המילים "ממנו תאכל – זו מצות עשה"?
2. How should the words "'from it you shall eat' is a positive commandment," be understood according to the words of Ramban?
3. Explain Ramban's words, "on top of the explicit negative commandment about it"; which explicit negative commandment did he have in mind?
4. מהי הראיה מדברי נביאים להגבלת האיסור שמביא הרמב"ן בסוף דבריו: "אבל בצאתנו מארץ אויב נשחית... כל זה מותר"?
4. What is the proof from the Prophets for the limitation of the prohibition, cited by Ramban at the end of his words, "But upon our leaving the land of the enemy, we destroy... it is permitted?"
5. For what reason does Yad HaLevi, in his explanation of the words of Ramban, cite Deuteronomy 14:11; in what way is that verse similar to our verse?
| ד. "כי האדם עץ השדה" |
| D. "For is the tree of the field man" |
"for thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee?"
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?
והקשה הרא"ם עליו:
And R. E. Mizrachi raises this difficulty about it:
אבל לפי זה אין טעם לה"א "האדם", כי היה לו להיות "כי אדם עץ השדה" או כי עץ השדה אדם?
But according to this, there is no reason for the [letter/pronoun] hay (the), [in] haadam (the man). As it should have been, "is adam (man) a tree of the field," or "is a tree of the field adam (man)?"
מה שאמר בסמוך "כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים וגו'" היא עצה נכונה בהישרה מדותית נכונה, והיא שלא יעשו דבר של השחתה ומפלה במלחמות, כאילו היתה הכוונה לכך, רק אם יהיה להם הכרח לפי מבוקשתם. וזה, שהמנהג בלוחמים להרוג ולהשמיד כל הנמצא חוץ למצור הוא כדי לצור אותם, שלא ימלא לבם אותם לצאת לספק להם לחם ומזון ויתר הצרכים אלא שיאספו כולם תוך העיר וימהרו לאכול ממה שבידם מהמזונות ותבוא העיר ברעב. ואם כן – העצים והאבנים אשר נמצאים חוץ לעיר, אשר לא יקוה מהשמדתם שום תועלת, למה ישחיתום?! אין זה כי אם רוע לב! ולזה באה העצה הנכונה בפעולותיהם... לא תשחית את עצה לנדח עליו גרזן". ונתן טעם ואמר "כי האדם עץ השדה לבוא מפניך במצור" ותהיה ה"א – האדם כה"א (במדבר ט"ז כ"ב) "האיש אחד יחטא ועל כל העדה תקצוף?"; (בראשית י"ט ט') "האחד בא לגור וישפט שפט?" (קהלת ג' כ"א) "מי יודע רוח בני האדם העולה היא למעלה?" שכן קמוצות והוראתן לשון שאלה לפי כוונתן. והכוונה (של פסוקנו) לכך: אני מצוך על זה, כי האדם עץ השדה לבוא מפניך במצור? לשון שאלה. וקרוב לזה כתב רש"י ז"ל.
That which is stated proximately, "When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time, etc.," is proper counsel for correct character improvement. And that is that they should not commit acts of destruction and demolition in wars, as if this were their intention - but rather only if it is required for them according to their objectives. And this is since the custom of warriors to kill and annihilate everything found outside the siege in order to besiege [the people in the city], is in order that their hearts will not move them to go outside to acquire food and other needs for themselves, but will rather all stay within the city and quickly eat what they have of food, so that the city will come to famine. And if so, why should they destroy the trees and stones that are found outside the city, the annihilation of which will not give them any advantage at all?! This is only evil-heartedness! And about this comes the proper counsel for their actions... "you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them." And it gives a reason and states, "because is a tree of the field man, that it will go in front of you into the siege?" And the [letter,] hay [of] haadam, is like the hay of (Numbers 16:22), "ha (is it that) one man sins and You will be enraged at the whole congregation"; (Genesis 19:9), "Ha (Is it that) one who comes to sojourn here will surely judge [us]"; (Ecclesiastes 3:21), "Who knows the spirit of people; ha [is it that] it rises above?" As they are vocalized with a kamatz, and according to their intent, it is an expression of questioning. And hence the intention [of our verse] is - "I am commanding about this; because is a tree of the field man, that it will go in front of you into the siege" - as an expression of questioning. And Rashi, may his memory be blessed, wrote something similar to this.
1. "כי" המשמש בלשון "דלמא" אינו מצוי הרבה במקרא. הבא דוגמא ל"כי" המשמש בלשון זו לדעת רש"י מפרשת עקב.
1. "Kee," that serves as an expression meaning "perhaps," is not frequently found in Scripture. Cite an example of kee that serves as such an expression, according to Rashi, in Parshat Ekev.
2. כיצד מיישב בעל העקדה את קושיית הרא"ם על רש"י, ומהי חולשת תשובתו (מבחינת דקדוק הלשון!)?
2. How does the author of the Akeidah resolve R. E. Mizrachi's question on Rashi; and what is the weakness of his answer (from a precise grammatical perspective)?
| ה. "כי האדם עץ השדה" - העמק דבר |
| E. "Is the tree of the field man" - Haamek Devar |
"for is the tree of the field man"
Because man is compared to a tree of the field. And behold this comparison is found in several ways... And the explanation of the comparison [regarding the siege of war, which is only with a fruit tree] is that it is like [when] there is a man sent secretly by the besiegers (on the outside of the city) to be inside the siege in order to assist the besiegers break open the city by causing division inside; and behold when the city is broken open and they kill the people of the besieged city - would they think of also killing those same people that came into the siege for the purpose of the besiegers and for their benefit?! So too does the fruit tree come for the benefit of the besiegers, since they benefit from its fruit at the time when they pluck the fresh fruit off the tree. Hence it is fitting to appreciate it.
1. In what way is his explanation different than Rashi's (cited in the previous section)?
2. How does the author of Haamek Devar explain the words, "to go in front of you into the siege?"
3. What is the syntactical weakness of his explanation?
| ו. "תשחית, תכרות" |
| F. "Destroy, cut down" |
"thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof... for you many eat from it, but you shall not cut it down"
דעת יששכר, (יששכר בער ליטוער אופען תקפ"ז):
לפי דעתי הדרך היותר קרוב לפשוטו הוא זה: "לא תשחית את עצה לנדוח עליו גרזן" – מהלשון "עליו" משמע השחתה במקצת העץ, ואח"כ "ואותו לא תכרות" פירוש: "זו ואין צריך לומר זו" שכולו לא תכרות. וכמוהו (תהלים קכ"א) "לא ינום ולא יישן שומר ישראל" פירש הרד"ק: מכל שכן שלא יישן. והמאמר "תשחית וכרת" שבפסוק שלאחריו פירושו "לא זו אף זו": לא זו בלבד שמותר להשחית אלא אף זו שמותר לכרות כולו. וכמוהו (תהילים י"ט י"א) "הנחמדים מזהב ומפז" פירש הרד"ק: לא זו בלבד שנחמדים מזהב אלא אף זו שנחמדים מפז.
Daat Yissaschar (Yissaschar Ber Litauer, 1827):
In my opinion, the approach closest to the simple meaning is this: "Do not destroy its tree, to take an ax to it" - from the wording, "to it," it implies destruction of part of the tree. But afterwards, the explanation of "and you shall not cut it" is - this, and there is no need to say, that - that you should not cut down all of it. And like this [is] (Psalms 121:4) "the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps," [which] Radak explains [as], all the more so does He not sleep. And the explanation of the statement, "destroy... cut down," in the verse after it is, "not only this; but also that": It is not only this, that it is permissible to destroy [it]; but also that, that it is permissible to cut it all down. And like this [is] (Psalms 19:11), "more beloved than gold and fine gold," [which] Radak explains [as] not only this, that they are more beloved than gold; but also that, that they are more beloved than fine gold.
1. What is the stylistic curiosity in both of our verses that the author of Daat Yissaschar is addressing?
2. במה אין בפירושו יישוב מספיק לקושי הנ"ל?
2. In what way does his explanation not suffice to resolve the above difficulty?