Shofetim: Three Philosophies of Bal Tashchis (Wasteful Destruction)

Some mitzvos have well-hidden reasons. Others suffer the opposite fate: everyone assumes they understand their reasons without bothering to learn what the Torah says. Bal tashchis is one of those.

The Torah content for the first month of the new school year has been sponsored by the Brevique BrewLid. The BrewLid integrates coffee directly into the lid, offering a cleaner, more convenient, and eco-friendly coffee experience. By eliminating the need for machine contact, it reduces contamination risk, minimizes steps, cuts down on waste, and keeps the aroma around longer while delivering every last drop of flavor. If you love coffee and want to get in on the ground floor of BrewLid, check out the Kickstarter!

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

It’s debatable whether the destruction of the trees of Isengard would constitute a violation of bal tashchis. Nevertheless, it’s the imagery I always think of whenever I read this week’s parashah.

Shofetim: Three Philosophies of Bal Tashchis (Wasteful Destruction)

The Torah introduces the prohibition known as “bal tashchis” (lit. “do not destroy”) within a specific context:

Should you besiege a town many days to do battle against it, you shall not destroy its trees to swing an axe against them, for from them you shall eat, and you shall not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a human, to come away from you in the siege? Only a tree that you know is not a tree for eating, it you may destroy and cut down and build a siege-work against the town that does battle against you, until its fall. (Devarim 20:19-20)

The question I want to focus on is simple: What is the reason for the Torah’s prohibition of bal tashchis? Specifically, I want to understand the rationale behind this mitzvah in the context in which it is presented. The Torah seems to present a rationale with the statement, “for is the tree of the field a human, to come away from you in the siege?” The meaning of this phrase, however, is difficult to decipher.

Let’s set aside that question for a moment and delve into the halacha as codified by the Rambam:

We do not cut down fruit trees outside a city nor do we prevent an irrigation ditch from bringing water to them so that they dry up, as it is stated: “do not destroy its trees.” Anyone who cuts down a tree receives lashes. This does not apply only in a siege, but in all situations: anyone who cuts down a fruit tree in a wastefully destructive manner receives lashes. But we may cut [down a fruit tree] if it damages other trees, or a field belonging to others, or if is worth a lot of money. The Torah only prohibited cutting down a tree in a wastefully destructive manner. (Laws of Kings and Wars 6:8)

Contrary to the straightforward meaning of the verses, the prohibition of bal tashchis extends far beyond the destruction of fruit trees, as the Rambam continues (ibid. 6:10):

Not only [one who destroys] trees, but anyone who breaks utensils, tears garments, destroys a building, stops up a spring, or ruins food in a wastefully destructive manner transgresses [the Torah prohibition of] “lo tashchis.” However, he does not receive [Torah level] lashes – only makkas mardus (Rabbinic lashes for rebelliousness).

Some infer from the penalty of makkas mardus that the Rambam considers these other destructive acts to be Rabbinic in nature. However, R’ Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch (Yad Peshuta ibid.) argues that the Rambam includes these acts within the Torah prohibition. They are liable for makkas mardus because are not explicitly detailed in the Torah. This aligns with the Rambam’s formulation of bal tashchis in Sefer ha’Mitzvos: Lo Taaseh #57:

We are prohibited from cutting down fruit trees during a siege to starve its citizens and aggrieve their hearts, as He stated, “you shall not destroy its trees … you shall not cut them down.” Similarly, all forms of wasteful destructiveness are included in this Torah prohibition, such as burning a garment without reason or breaking a utensil without reason – such an individual transgresses “lo tashchis” and receives lashes …

This adds a layer of complexity to our original question. If the statement “for is the tree of the field a human, to come away from you in the siege?” is intended as a rationale for this prohibition, then how can we understand this reasoning in a way that extends to all wastefully destructive actions, even those that don’t involve trees?

Ibn Ezra (Devarim 20:19) offers a contextual explanation of the cryptically worded rationale for this mitzvah:

I have explained in the Sefer ha’Yesod that it is possible in any language to be brief and to apply an abbreviated style … The following is the meaning of our clause: “for the life of man is [supported by the] tree of the field,” similar to, “[One shall not take a mill or upper millstone as pledge,] for he would be taking a life as a pledge” (ibid. 24:6).

Ibn Ezra understands the statement, “for man is a tree of the field” as a poetic way of saying, “for man’s life is sustained by the trees of the field.” The needless destruction of a source of sustenance reflects a distorted view of this valuable resource provided by Hashem for our benefit. If you’ve ever winced upon seeing perfectly good food being thrown away at a restaurant, wondering why it couldn’t be given to those in need, then you’ve grasped the essence of this mitzvah. But does this explain bal tashchis as it applies to non-tree objects? Only in the loose sense that goods which enhance our lives—such as utensils, clothing, and homes—shouldn’t be squandered.

Sforno’s (ibid.) explanation is also contextual, but he emphasizes a different phrase in these verses:

The cutting down of trees in a destructive manner is done by armies to harm (the enemy) when they are not certain they will be victorious and dwell in the land. You, however, who are assured you will conquer the Land and settle in it, must not destroy the fruit-bearing trees, for you shall eat from them, for you will conquer the Land no matter what, and you will eat from it when you don’t destroy it. “for from it shall you eat” – without a doubt, you will conquer the Land and (ultimately) eat from its trees, provided you don’t destroy them.

According to Sforno, the Israelites’ needless destruction of fruit trees would betray a lack of trust that Hashem will bring about their victory. If a Jewish soldier truly believed that the Land and its fruit would soon belong to him and his family, how could he bring himself to destroy the good he will surely inherit? This is a compelling interpretation of the verses, but it is difficult to extend this reasoning to wars where victory is not assured. Moreover, like Ibn Ezra, Sforno’s reasoning only applies to non-tree goods in a loose way: a person would only destroy a useful object if they were absolutely certain it would never provide any use to them. Since we can’t have this assurance due to the uncertainty of our future circumstances, then we shouldn’t engage in such destruction.

Shadal (ibid.) takes issue with both Ibn Ezra and Sforno (among others) for the same reason:

Clericus and the Korem understood this to mean, “Do not cut it down, for perhaps you will need it, as the days of the siege will be long and the warriors will lack food, and they will have need of the fruits of the trees.” Abravanel, Sforno, and the author of Minḥah Belulah [Avraham Menachem Rapa Porto] explained, “You will eat of it when you conquer the city, so it will not be to your benefit to cut it down.” In my opinion, this is not why the Torah was given, to teach humankind to make calculations for their own advantage. On the contrary, this is why it was given: to strengthen compassion and mercy in our hearts, even if they work to our disadvantage. Both Philo [Special Laws 4:227-228] and Josephus Flavius [Antiquities 4:299] interpreted this commandment in terms of compassion and kindness, and distancing from cruelty. (translated by Dan Klein, in his not-yet-published Shadal on Devarim)

Shadal is bothered by the ethically neutral pragmatism of the explanations he cited. He offers his own theory:

The way I see it, the main point of this commandment is that one should not cut down a tree after eating of its fruit. This is indeed for the purpose of distancing people from the trait of ingratitude, and to accustom them to esteem that which has done them good, not to throw it behind their back once they can no longer expect any advantage from it.  An analogous provision is, “You must not exercise mastery over her [the war captive], after having deflowered her” (Deut. 21:14). Also similar is a popular expression from the time of the Talmudic Sages, “A well that you drank from, do not throw a stone into it” (Bava Kama 92b).

Shadal maintains that it is only prohibited to destroy trees after partaking of their fruit, since the mitzvah is designed to counter ingratitude, and ingratitude is only possible after one has received a benefit. This view, though halachically radical, offers a seamless explanation for the Rambam’s extension of the mitzvah beyond fruit trees. Any object from which one has derived benefit would fall under this prohibition for the same philosophical reason presented in the Torah. The wasteful destruction of such goods promotes ingratitude, and the Torah seeks to prevent us from exhibiting ingratitude even in our conduct toward inanimate objects.

---

What is your favorite explanation of bal tashchis? As you can tell if you’ve made it this far, I’m particularly interested in compelling readings of the pesukim which also account for the extended prohibition.

Like what you read? Give this article a “like” and share it with someone who might appreciate it!

Want access to my paid content without actually paying? If you successfully refer enough friends, you can get access to the paid tier for free!

Interested in reading more? Become a free subscriber, or upgrade to a paid subscription for the upcoming exclusive content!

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Instagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
Old Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H
Amazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel