Shoftim: the ax and the trees

 Shoftim: the ax and the trees

There are three trees in this weeks parsha.  

The last tree mentioned is the one that the besieging army should (probably)  not cut down.  It is the famous tree that is not a man. 

כִּֽי־תָצ֣וּר אֶל־עִיר֩ יָמִ֨ים רַבִּ֜ים לְֽהִלָּחֵ֧ם עָלֶ֣יהָ לְתׇפְשָׂ֗הּ לֹֽא־תַשְׁחִ֤ית אֶת־עֵצָהּ֙ לִנְדֹּ֤חַ עָלָיו֙ גַּרְזֶ֔ן כִּ֚י מִמֶּ֣נּוּ תֹאכֵ֔ל וְאֹת֖וֹ לֹ֣א תִכְרֹ֑ת כִּ֤י הָֽאָדָם֙ עֵ֣ץ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה לָבֹ֥א מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ בַּמָּצֽוֹר׃

When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy its trees by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayst eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by thee?

 The soldier who will certainly willingly kill another of his own kind, an opposing soldier, is told to question cutting down the tree. The soldier is equipping a siege, making tools to attack the enemy city. His army is starving that city. The text has instructed that he kill every adult male after the conquest.  But he should not cut down the tree, for "is the tree a man? "

Such a questioning approach is a stylistic rarity in the Torah. It is appropriate to the context.  The parsha is about decisions, and the authorities that provide expert, or legally enforced, opinions that impact those decisions. The answer to the question, asked before the ax is wielded upon the tree, determines the practical outcome of the process: does the tree get cut down. Before the irreversible act, consider: not only the consequences, but also the meaning of the act.  How much of the aggression has been redirected? Are you cutting down a tree, or are you fighting the enemy? Whom are you hurting; why; what are the long term consequences?

Another tree in the parsha conspires in a negligent manslaughter. The story is famous. 

וַאֲשֶׁר֩ יָבֹ֨א אֶת־רֵעֵ֥הוּ בַיַּ֘עַר֮ לַחְטֹ֣ב עֵצִים֒ וְנִדְּחָ֨ה יָד֤וֹ בַגַּרְזֶן֙ לִכְרֹ֣ת הָעֵ֔ץ וְנָשַׁ֤ל הַבַּרְזֶל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ וּמָצָ֥א אֶת־רֵעֵ֖הוּ וָמֵ֑ת ה֗וּא יָנ֛וּס אֶל־אַחַ֥ת הֶעָרִים־הָאֵ֖לֶּה וָחָֽי׃

as when a man goes into the forest with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle, and strikes his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee to one of those cities, and live:

The talmud ( Makoth 78b) suggests that the wood chips, not the blade of the ax, killed the victim. This may have been a very, very indirect homicide. No matter how little attribution devolves to the wielder of the ax, there may be an avenger who holds him to account; a vindicator who demands a life for a life.  The institutions prescribed by the parsha must shelter the accidental killer. It is only the premeditated murderer  who must be cut down; handed over to the blood avenger. 

This tree story also emphasizes the need for investigation and analysis prior to a significant, irreversible act. The court is the protector of the guilty as well as the innocent. In the simple understanding of the story, the ax blade slipped off the handle; the woodsman should have secured the blade better, but he did not intend to kill another man ( only a tree). The story is always complex, the courts must protect us from passion. 

The first tree in the parsha seems to a landscape architecture zoning law. 

לֹֽא־תִטַּ֥ע לְךָ֛ אֲשֵׁרָ֖ה כׇּל־עֵ֑ץ אֵ֗צֶל מִזְבַּ֛ח יְ

Thou shalt not plant thee an ashera of any tree near the altar of the Lrd thy Gd, which thou shalt make thee.

Rashi understands this to mean that no tree may be planed near the altar and no ashera tree, a tree in the service of idolatry, may ever be planted anywhere. 

This is the bad tree, the tree that should not be planted and, if present, should be chopped down and removed.  A  being that is pleasant to see,  aromatic, a silent provider of shade ( and oxygen) can be and object of rebellion against Gd and the system of justice prescribed. Aesthetics loses  to the rules. 

The last part of the parsha does not involve a tree ( although there is an ax); it  involves an innocent calf that is beheaded in a ritual outside of the temple service. A calf that had never worked is axed; is the heifer a stand in for the ( probably unemployed) killer? It is the symbol of the responsibility of the local authorities to guard against homicide; it is the assertion that courts and police will deter murder in their purview... a modern political campaign issue. The murder must be avenged, even if the perpetrator is never found. 

מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָרַצְחָנִים, בָּטְלָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה

From the time when murderers proliferated, the ritual of the heifer whose neck is broken was nullified.

Be careful and ask questions before you swing the ax.