God’s Words Conceal Brilliance

613 Commands: #529 “Destruction”

Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim, Howard Salamon & Dani Roth

1 of the 613 commands is the prohibition against senseless destruction. The law is derived from Deuteronomy 20:19,20: 

When you besiege a city warring on it a long time to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the axe against them. For from them you may eat, but you must not cut them down. For are trees of the field a man, that come before you in a siege? Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siege-works against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced.

The meaning is simply not to waste needlessly: fruit trees can provide abundant produce over their lives. Not so non-fruit bearing trees. But why would man destroy fruit trees when in battle? Ramban explains that one must trust that God will grant victory over our enemies. Therefore you should not destroy trees you will need for food once inhabiting their cities. Sforno says “Destruction must not be wanton; it is justified only if it serves to harm the enemy residing within the city.”  

The phrase  “Are trees of the field a man that come before you in a siege?” suggests a few ideas: 

1) trees are immovable field items; their location—“the field”—is fixed. Therefore…

2) “they can’t come before you in a siege” like a man can.

Thus, trees “of the field” intentionally warns man against his inclination towards indiscriminate destruction of stationary trees posing no threat as “they can’t come before you in a siege.” This verse beautifully highlights 2 lessons. 

But man might act wantonly, as Sforno says, treating the enemy’s trees on par with the enemy. The attacking Jewish army is advised to control its aggression and wage war wisely. This law teaches that man possesses the ability to unleash indiscriminate hostility. This is dangerous, even towards trees. Why? For unguided hostility can then be expressed elsewhere—towards man—without just cause. Satisfying an emotion in one area causes all emotions to sense a release and seek satisfaction. Rabbi Israel Chait explained that once the Jews sinned with the Gold Calf, their sexual drives became unleashed and they committed illicit sexual acts, “They arose to rejoice” (Exod. 32:6) refers to illicit sexuality (Rashi; Ibid.). Thus, control of our aggression—even towards lifeless trees—has far-reaching benefits, as it trains us in restraining our instincts in all areas.

When you besiege a city it a long time to war on it, to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the axe against them.

Dani Roth asked, “Wielding the axe against them” is not needed, for with what else will you cut down trees? Dani explained this phrase intends to depict the graphic act of hostility, thereby emphasizing the wrong, excessive emotional expression of hostility. 

This prohibition [of destruction] does not apply to trees alone. Rather, anyone who breaks utensils, tears garments, destroys buildings, stops up a spring, or ruins food with a destructive intent transgresses the command “Do not destroy.” (Maimonides Laws of Kings and Wars 6:10; Sefer Hachinuch 529).  

This teaches that human destructiveness is broad with many potential expressions. It’s not limited to wartime. Human destructiveness crouches at the doorstep and we must remain on guard.

Sefer Hachinuch says that the pious men took great measures to shield against any destruction, even the loss of a mustard seed, and they would use all their power to spare any loss. This seems extreme, unless you understand that “They rejoiced in man’s good and drawing man close to Torah” (Sefer Hachinuch 529). Meaning, these pious men properly viewed all creation as God’s blessings to provide man with all his needs…to follow Torah. It’s a great sensitivity when a pious man will save even a mustard seed, as to him, even this is an expression of appreciating all God’s creations in the capacity of helping man follow Torah. No minuscule loss is tolerable.

Sefer Hachinuch goes on to describe the wicked as “friends of destructive people.” He refers to King Solomon: 

One who mocks the poor [the dead] disgraces his Creator, and one who is glad at his friend's downfall [destruction] will not be held innocent (Proverbs 17:5).

 The latter part of this verse condemns destruction. But what do the two parts of this verse have to do with each other, meaning mocking the dead versus enjoying somebody else's tragedy?

This person fears death so he must deny it. He breaks his identification with the dead person by mocking him, thereby distancing himself from the reality of his own ultimate death. But how is he disgracing his Creator? He does so by denying that he is created: laughing at the dead denies death and ipso facto denies that God created him as a being who will die. Denying deaths demands denying everything leading to death, including birth, i.e., his God-given temporary existence. He thereby denies God’s design of birth and death. He denies God.

Laughing at another person's downfall is a similar matter: although the person is not dead, he has suffered. When you're glad about your friend's tragedy, again it's because you don't identify that this is something you too are subject to.

Why are the wicked happy when others—or the world—are destroyed? This reminds us of the event that came before King Solomon (Kings I, chap. 3). Two women slept at night with their infants in their bosoms, and one suffocated her child. While the other woman was sleep, that first careless woman swapped the infants. Their case came before King Solomon. Hearing both women claim that the live infant was theirs, he commanded, “Cut the live child in two, and give half to one and half to the other.” This evoked the true mother’s response, “Don't kill the baby, give it to the other woman,” and the callous response from the first woman, “It shall be neither yours nor mine; cut it in two!” Their responses clarified who was the true mother, but it also shows us the level of destruction a person is capable of. The desire for destruction or desiring that others die, is generated from a self-centered focus where one cannot tolerate somebody else enjoying a better fortune than oneself. Rashi teaches that Noah's son Cham castrated Noah when he was drunk in order that Noah should not have more children and cause Cham to have a smaller inheritance. Both, the callous woman and Cham—2 destructive personalities—preferred a person’s death or harm, as it suited their selfish agendas. Their jealousy sought the destruction of others, as the jealous feelings ignite their animosities and seek complete destruction. It’s not destruction per that is evil, but destruction with the intent to harm another through that destruction. That’s why the verse the Chinuch uses refers to enjoying another’s tragedy. 

Destructiveness has many far-reaching effects. It’s not just about sparing fruit trees, but saving anything from destruction expresses the lofty respect of God’s will to salvage all man needs to provide for his Torah study. And this grand gift of Torah drives the pious go to extremes in sparing any minute destruction. Equally vital, refraining from destructiveness also trains us is restraining hostility which can flow over to other more severe expressions.