Read on for article

There is a lot to read about this week: kings, prophets, warfare, civil rights, legal systems, welfare, and community responsibility. But I want to focus on one simple statement that I venture has more different interpretations in Hebrew and English than almost any other.

My translation, “When you besiege a city in war to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, by wielding an ax. Because you may eat from them, you must not cut them down. For man is the tree of the field to retreat from a siege.”(Deuteronomy 20;19).

The Talmud suggests that this is to be understood as a general law against needless destruction of anything, human, animal, vegetable of mineral ( Baal Tachshit  TB Bava Kama 91b). And indeed, given our preoccupation nowadays with the natural world, ecology and the complexity and sensibility of plants, this might be the most modern of interpretations.

However, many traditional readings of this text put this statement as a question. As if to say is a human being really just like a tree? And if one cares for trees, how much more so should we care for humans in battle.  On the other hand, the question-mark indicates that a human cannot be compared to a tree. One is mobile, the other is not.

There are lots of different Jewish traditional translations. I will simply pick on three currently popular ones.
The Jewish Publication Society

When you besiege a city a long time in making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy the trees by wielding an axe against them, for you may eat from them, so you should not cut them down, for is the tree of the field man that it should be besieged because of you? Do they mean “don’t punish the trees for the battle lust of humans?

Steinsaltz Humash
For is the tree of the field a man, to retreat from you during the siege?
And he adds  “ Your war should be directed at people, not nature.”

ArtScroll Bible
Is the tree of the field a man that it should enter the siege before you?”
Here are a few of the different translations in non-Jewish English that one can find in different editions.

English Christian Bible
When you besiege a city for a long time and have surrounded it you shall not cut down the trees that may be eaten from neither should you spoil the country around with axes for it is a tree, not a man and so it cannot increase the number of those that fight against you

English Revised 
When you besiege a city for a long time and make war against it to take it you shall not destroy the trees by wielding an axe against them for you may eat them so you should not cut them down for is the tree of the field man that it should be besieged by you?

New American Bible
When you are war with the city and have laid siege to it for a long time before you capture it you shall not destroy its trees by putting an axe to them you may eat of them, but you mustn’t cut them down all the trees of the field human beings that they should be included in your siege?

Good News 
When you try to capture a city do not cut down its fruit trees even though the seed lasts for a long time eat the fruit but do not destroy the trees the trees are not your enemies.Two Medieval Jewish giants give their interpretation.

Maimonides(Rambam) says that this is a law against wanton destruction, whether human or natural. And remember a man is not a tree and just as you must not wantonly destroy a tree so you must not wantonly destroy a man.

Nachmanides ( Ramban) quotes Ibn Ezra

“For the man is the tree of the field, for you will eat of its fruit and live, and through it the city will be besieged by you, meaning, you will eat from it after conquering the city, and when you are encamped, engaged in the siege, you should do likewise. The meaning of the expression, them you may destroy and cut down is that you are permitted to cut them down to build bulwarks and also to destroy them until the city is it subdued, for sometimes the destruction [of the trees] is for the purpose of capturing the city; for example, when the people of the city go out and fetch the wood  they may hide there in the forest to fight against you. “
I give these varieties because they illustrate two important principles that are often overlooked in the feverish desire to claim a single correct  interpretation of the Hebrew original. Or to limit the variety of possibilities. We live in a world of too much dogma and political or religious correction. Our education systems are too monolithic and narrow.  I hope this reminds us that we can find the version or translation or interpretation of a text that appeals to us.