Deu 20:10-20 | KD

‏ Deuteronomy 20:10-20

If the hostile town, however, did not make peace, but prepared for war, the Israelites were to besiege it; and if Jehovah gave it into their hands, they were to slay all the men in it without reserve (“with the edge of the sword,” see at Gen 34:26); but the women and children and all that was in the city, all its spoil, they were to take as prey for themselves, and to consume (eat) the spoil, i.e., to make use of it for their own maintenance. Deu 20:15-18

It was in this way that Israel was to act with towns that were far off; but not with the towns of the Canaanites (“these nations”), which Jehovah gave them for an inheritance. In these no soul was to be left alive; but these nations were to be laid under the ban, i.e., altogether exterminated, that they might not teach the Israelites their abominations and sins (cf. Deu 7:1-4; Deu 12:31). כּל־נשׁמה, lit., every breath, i.e., everything living, by which, however, human beings alone are to be understood (comp. Jos 10:40; Jos 11:11, with Deu 11:14). Deu 20:19-20

When they besieged a town a long time to conquer it, they were not to destroy its trees, to swing the axe upon them. That we are to understand by עצהּ the fruit-trees in the environs and gardens of the town, is evident from the motive appended: “for of them (ממּנּוּ refers to עץ as a collective) thou eatest, and thou shalt not hew them down.” The meaning is: thou mayest suppress and destroy the men, but not the trees which supply thee with food. “For is the tree of the field a man, that it should come into siege before thee?” This is evidently the only suitable interpretation of the difficult words השּׂדה עץ האדם כּי, and the one which has been expressed by all the older commentators, though in different ways. But it is one which can only be sustained grammatically by adopting the view propounded by Clericus and others: viz., by pointing the noun האדם with ה interrog., instead of האדם, and taking אדם as the object, which its position in the sentence fully warrants (cf. Ewald, §324, b. and 306, b.). The Masoretic punctuation is founded upon the explanation given by Aben Ezra, “Man is a tree of the field, i.e., lives upon and is fed by the fruits of the trees,” which Schultz expresses in this way, “Man is bound up with the tree of the field, i.e., has his life in, or from, the tree of the field,” - an explanation, however, which cannot be defended by appealing to Deu 24:6; Ecc 12:13; Eze 12:10, as these three passages are of a different kind. In no way whatever can האדם be taken as the subject of the sentence, as this would not give any rational meaning. And if it were rendered as the object, in such sense as this, The tree of the field is a thing or affair of man, it would hardly have the article.