The Talmudic
law bal tashchit ("do not destroy") is the most predominant
Jewish precept cited in contemporary Jewish writings on the environment.
This article gives an extensive survey of the roots and different interpretations
of the precept from within the tradition.
The precept of
bal tashchit has its roots in the Biblical command not to destroy
fruit-bearing trees while laying a siege to a warring city. The Rabbis
expanded this injunction into the general precept of bal tashchit,
a ban on wanton destruction. Such a precept was interpreted in different
ways, along a continuum whose poles I have described the minimalist and
maximalist position. In the minimalist position, interpreters limit the
application of bal tashchit to only those situations in which the
destruction of natural resources and property cannot be justified in terms
of its economic or esthetic worth to the Jewish community. In the maximalist
position, interpreters expand the application of bal tashchit to
any situation in which nature and property are destroyed for something
other than human needs....
The origin of the
principle of bal tashchit is in the attempt to explicate one specific
Biblical passage from Deuteronomy which is describing what constitutes
proper behavior during time of war. I include two translations of the
original Hebrew, in order to emphasize the difficulty in understanding
the Hebrew verses, and the interpretative possibilities which emerge from
the ambiguity of the text itself.
Jewish
Publication Society translation
|
Deut.
20: 19-20
|
King
James Bible translation
|
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 under siege? Only trees that you
know to 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
destroyed.
|
|
When
thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take
it, thou shall not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an ax against them:
for thou mayest eat of them, the thou shalt not cut them down for the tree
of the field is man's life to employ them in the siege. Only the trees which
thou knowest that they be not trees for food, thou shalt destroy and cut
them down; and thou shall build bulwarks against the city that maketh war
with thee, until it be subdued. |
The passage
deals with proper ethical behavior with regard to trees during wartime. Fruit-bearing
trees should not be chopped down. The reason behind such a prohibition seems
to be cryptically supplied by the verse itself. In the King James translation
we read "for the tree of the field is a man's life," implying some
causal relationship between the human being and the trees, such that cutting
down the tree is, in effect damaging the human being as well. Yet the JPS translation
offers a different interpretation of the verse: "Are trees of the field
human to withdraw before you under siege?" It translates the verse as a
question rather than a statement. It implies a rhetorical question which denies
a relationship between human begins and trees: trees are not human beings and
therefore should not be a victim of their disputes.
The discrepancy
among the translations echoes medieval commentators' varying interpretations
of the verse. The JPs translation seems to be agreeing with Rashi's interpretation
of the verse. Rashi accentuates the categorical distance between the human being
and the tree to create a rationale for why the tree should not be cut:
"For
the man is the tree of the field"
(Deut. 20:19)
|
|
The word ki is used
here in the sense of "perhaps, should ..." Should the tree be considered
to be (like) a human being, able to run away from you into the besieged town,
to suffer their the agonies of thirst and hunger, like the townspeople
if not, why then destroy it? (Commentary on Dt. 20:19)
Rashi's interpretation
of the verse is based on his understanding of the Hebrew word ki
as being interrogative, turning our text into a rhetorical question. Is
the tree of the field to be part of the same (moral) world as the human
being? No. The tree of the field is not the target of the siege; the people
of the town are. No one has the moral right to destroy the trees because
of a dispute among human beings. The trees must not be destroyed because
of a dispute among humans.
Rashi in effect has
argued for an environmental ethic which views (fruit) trees as having
existence independent if human wants and needs. In spite of its strong
anthropomorphic language, Rashi's position gives ethical consideration
to the trees although it is still not clear why that should be so. The
case is accentuated by the setting of the verse itself. In wartime, it
is difficult to maintain an ethical outlook on any issue how much the
more so with regard to nature...
Yet Rashi seems to
have taken the verse out of context. For if we accept Rashi's interpretation
"is the human being a tree of the field?" how we to understand
the very next verse, in which permission is given by God to cut down non-fruit-bearing
trees? What is the distinction between fruit-bearing and non-fruit-bearing
trees that protects on and not the other? Rashi's interpretation does
not offer am means for distinguishing. Indeed, the text asks if whether
a human being is the tree of the field, whereas Rashi asks whether the
tree of the field is like a human being. Rashi's reversal of the syntax
of the sentence helps to support his interpretation but it is not supported
by the original phrasing of the text.
Ibn Ezra's (1089-1164)
interpretation, later echoed by the King James version, attacks Rashi's
position on both grammatical and logical grounds and offers an alternative
possibility:
"In
my opinion,,, this is the correct meaning: that from (the trees) you get food,
therefore don't cut them down, 'for man is the tree of the field,' that is
our lives as human beings depend on trees." (commentary on Deut. 20:19)
Human responsibility
for the tree is based on human dependence upon the tree. Trees are a source
of food, and thus cutting them down reduces one's food supply for after
the siege...
Ibn Ezra's explanation makes
sense in the context of the verse. Fruit trees are not to be chopped down for
their importance as food for human beings is clear. Non-fruit-bearing trees,
on the other hand, have not immediate importance for the human being, and therefore
it is permissible to chop them down. The prooftext "because the human being
is a tree of the field" shows us our link to the natural world, and how
our abuses of nature can result in abuse of ourselves.
Eilon
Schwartz directs the Heschel Center for Environmental Learning and Leadership,
dedicated to the fostering of an emerging social-environment vision for Israeli
society. He also teaches at the Melton Center for Jewish education of the Hebrew
University and writes on the philosophy of environmental and Jewish education.
|
From:
Tree Earth and Torah: A Tu B'shvat Anthology edited by Ari Elon,
Naomi Mara Hyman and Arthur Waskow, JPS 1999; pp. 115-117. |
TREES
Table of Contents
|