A thought on Parshas Shoftim
"...ki ha'adam eitz ha'sadeh..."
"...for is a tree in the field a person...?" (20:19)
The Torah forbids us to wreak wanton destruction even when encroaching upon an enemy city during a siege. We may not cut down, for example, fruit-bearing trees. Our war is not against the environment; it is against our mortal foe. Those trees yield fruit to be eaten, not to be ravaged. Our verse adds four words which we need to interpret:
"ki ha'adam eitz ha'sadeh"
which mean, literally, for the man is the tree of the field. Now, taken literally, it is hard to fathom the meaning of that clause. This is why many (such as Rashi) write that the lead word ki, which can have at least four different usages, is used here to mean "dilma" which in turn means "for could it be?" asked as a question. Hence, Rashi understands the clause to mean "do not think of cutting down that tree! For could it be that a tree is comparable to a person that you should need to destroy it the way you destroy your enemies?"
We can readily understand Rashi's interpretation. According to Rashi, since the word ki here takes on the interrogative form, the verse literally means what we just said it means. It is not an interpretation, but a literal translation now.
However, the Chezkuni prefers to keep the word in its literal literal state. Ki generally means for, or because. The clause says "do not cut down fruit trees because a person is a tree in the field."
Now, I have met some people who are outstanding in their field, but I know very few people who are out, standing in their field. What does the Chezkuni have in mind when he writes that the verse declares that we are tree people?
He explains that we are dependent on fruit. We are dependent on food in general. In fact, we are dependent upon many things, and when a person is dependent upon something, when he needs something, then he is identified with that thing. I will elaborate, because this is a deep thought.
On the battlefield, when a soldier is ravenous and has to eat whatever he can find, and he finds a fruit tree, then he needs that fruit. He is depending upon that tree to feed him. So his fate is merged with the fate of that tree. If it goes down, then down he goes. That is why our verse asserts that this man is that tree in the field.
The same goes for us whenever we depend upon something. I need money. I need a rebbe. I need someone to love me and someone to love. I need my sefarim and on Sukkos I need my arba minim and I grow to depend upon these things, or those people, or such objects in order to get by. It may be a time-limited need or an enduring one, but when I am dependent upon some thing or some one in order to persist at what I seek to do, then I really do merge and identify with it or him or her or them.
This is what doing a mitzva with kavanna creates. I merge with an act. This is what learning li'shma facilitates. Yisroel v'oraisa v'Kudsha Brich Hu chad hu. The synthesis of the person who cleaves to Torah with HaShem's Torah means that he is at one with Torah. This is why we stand up for a Torah scholar just as we stand up for the Torah itself when it passes by us.
I encourage each of us to give this some contemplative thought over Shabbos: what do we find ourselves dependent upon, and how much do we seek to be identified with that object? Are you a fruit tree person? A food person? A money man? A carpool, wristwatch, cassette tape, tobacco, alcohol, telephone, novel or fashionable outfit dependent person?
You are what you depend on.
Hoping that this tree issue does not stump you. Let it branch out in a useful direction! Turn over a new leaf! Get to the root. Have a fruitful Shabbos. D Fox
"...for is a tree in the field a person...?" (20:19)
The Torah forbids us to wreak wanton destruction even when encroaching upon an enemy city during a siege. We may not cut down, for example, fruit-bearing trees. Our war is not against the environment; it is against our mortal foe. Those trees yield fruit to be eaten, not to be ravaged. Our verse adds four words which we need to interpret:
"ki ha'adam eitz ha'sadeh"
which mean, literally, for the man is the tree of the field. Now, taken literally, it is hard to fathom the meaning of that clause. This is why many (such as Rashi) write that the lead word ki, which can have at least four different usages, is used here to mean "dilma" which in turn means "for could it be?" asked as a question. Hence, Rashi understands the clause to mean "do not think of cutting down that tree! For could it be that a tree is comparable to a person that you should need to destroy it the way you destroy your enemies?"
We can readily understand Rashi's interpretation. According to Rashi, since the word ki here takes on the interrogative form, the verse literally means what we just said it means. It is not an interpretation, but a literal translation now.
However, the Chezkuni prefers to keep the word in its literal literal state. Ki generally means for, or because. The clause says "do not cut down fruit trees because a person is a tree in the field."
Now, I have met some people who are outstanding in their field, but I know very few people who are out, standing in their field. What does the Chezkuni have in mind when he writes that the verse declares that we are tree people?
He explains that we are dependent on fruit. We are dependent on food in general. In fact, we are dependent upon many things, and when a person is dependent upon something, when he needs something, then he is identified with that thing. I will elaborate, because this is a deep thought.
On the battlefield, when a soldier is ravenous and has to eat whatever he can find, and he finds a fruit tree, then he needs that fruit. He is depending upon that tree to feed him. So his fate is merged with the fate of that tree. If it goes down, then down he goes. That is why our verse asserts that this man is that tree in the field.
The same goes for us whenever we depend upon something. I need money. I need a rebbe. I need someone to love me and someone to love. I need my sefarim and on Sukkos I need my arba minim and I grow to depend upon these things, or those people, or such objects in order to get by. It may be a time-limited need or an enduring one, but when I am dependent upon some thing or some one in order to persist at what I seek to do, then I really do merge and identify with it or him or her or them.
This is what doing a mitzva with kavanna creates. I merge with an act. This is what learning li'shma facilitates. Yisroel v'oraisa v'Kudsha Brich Hu chad hu. The synthesis of the person who cleaves to Torah with HaShem's Torah means that he is at one with Torah. This is why we stand up for a Torah scholar just as we stand up for the Torah itself when it passes by us.
I encourage each of us to give this some contemplative thought over Shabbos: what do we find ourselves dependent upon, and how much do we seek to be identified with that object? Are you a fruit tree person? A food person? A money man? A carpool, wristwatch, cassette tape, tobacco, alcohol, telephone, novel or fashionable outfit dependent person?
You are what you depend on.
Hoping that this tree issue does not stump you. Let it branch out in a useful direction! Turn over a new leaf! Get to the root. Have a fruitful Shabbos. D Fox
posted by Rabbi Dr. Fox at 1:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home