EN ES
The Laws › Commandment #361
Commandment #361 · Negative · Laws of War · Environmental Ethics

Do Not Destroy Fruit Trees

לֹא תַשְׁחִית אֶת עֵצָהּ
Source: Deuteronomy 20:19  ·  Maimonides, Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative #610
כִּי תָצוּר אֶל עִיר יָמִים רַבִּים לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ לְתָפְשָׂהּ לֹא תַשְׁחִית אֶת עֵצָהּ לִנְדֹּחַ עָלָיו גַּרְזֶן כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ תֹאכֵל וְאֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה לָבֹא מִפָּנֶיךָ בַּמָּצוֹר
“When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?”

The Law of the Siege — What the Axe Cannot Do

Deuteronomy 20:19: “When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?” The verse distinguishes two categories: fruit-bearing trees may not be cut at all; non-fruit trees (Deut 20:20) may be cut for siege works but only non-fruit-bearing ones. The prohibition in commandment #361 covers the fruit tree specifically. The rhetorical question that closes verse 19 — “Are the trees human, that they should be besieged?” — makes the moral logic explicit: the tree has no quarrel with you. Cutting a fruit tree to punish the city punishes a being that bears no responsibility for the city’s resistance.

The Torah’s war code (Deut 20:10–20) forms a comprehensive ethical framework: offer peace before besieging (vv. 10–11), spare the lives of distant peoples who capitulate (vv. 10–12), distinguish those who must be fought from those who may not be harmed (vv. 16–18). Commandment #361 is the land-side complement to these human protections: even the trees of a besieged city are protected from wanton destruction. The military objective — taking the city — does not authorize destroying everything in reach. Destruction must be purposeful and proportionate.

Bal Tashchit — From the Battlefield to Everyday Life

The Talmud (Kiddushin 32a) and the Rambam (Hilkhot Melakhim 6:8–10) extend the fruit-tree prohibition into a comprehensive principle: bal tashchit — do not destroy. The principle is derived directly from Deut 20:19 but applies in all contexts: tearing a garment needlessly, breaking vessels in anger, stopping up a spring, letting food rot, extinguishing a lamp still in use — all of these are described as violations of the spirit of bal tashchit. The Rambam lists them as examples of the underlying prohibition against destroying what is useful.

The principle reflects a consistent Torah theology about the relationship between human beings and the created world. Leviticus 25:23: “The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me.” Israel does not own the land; it holds it in trust. What is true of the land is true of all created things: they are entrusted to human care, not surrendered to human disposal. The fruit tree of the besieged city encodes in miniature what the Jubilee encodes in full: the earth belongs to its Creator, and those who inhabit it are its stewards, not its lords.

Solomon’s Temple and Purposeful Use — The Permitted Cutting

1 Kings 5:6–18: Solomon negotiated with Hiram of Tyre for cedar and cypress timber from Lebanon. The cutting was purposeful — for the Temple — and conducted under formal agreement with the trees’ owners. This is the model of permitted use: purposeful, authorized, and directed toward a constructive end. The distinction between bal tashchit violations and permitted use is the presence or absence of purpose. The besieging soldier who cuts a fruit tree to weaken enemy morale has no constructive purpose for the tree; he merely destroys it. Solomon’s builders, cutting with the cedar’s owners’ consent for a building that would stand centuries, fulfill the stewardship obligation rather than violate it.

The prophet Ezekiel envisions the land in its restored state as intensely productive (Ezek 47:12): “All kinds of trees for food will grow on both banks of the river... their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing.” The fruit tree is eschatological symbol as well as legal object. Its protection from the axe in wartime is consistent with its role in the prophetic imagination: a tree that feeds rather than falls.

For reflection and group study
Deuteronomy 20:19 closes with a rhetorical question: “Are the trees of the field human, that they should be besieged by you?” The tree has no stake in the conflict. What does the Torah’s decision to protect a non-party to the conflict reveal about its understanding of proportionality in war — and about what war is permitted to destroy?
Bal Tashchit prohibits destruction without constructive purpose. Solomon cut cedars for the Temple; the rabbis permitted cutting wood for warmth. The prohibition applies to needless destruction. What does this purposefulness requirement suggest about how the Torah understands human agency over the created world — is it stewardship, partnership, or something else?

Read the source passage in the Torah reader.

Read in the Torah Reader — Deuteronomy 20:19