Is the Tree of the Field a Human?
(יט) 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׃
(19) When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city?

(ג) כי האדם עץ השדה. הֲרֵי כִּי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּלְשׁוֹן דִּלְמָא, שֶׁמָּא הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה לְהִכָּנֵס בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּצוֹר מִפָּנֶיךָ לְהִתְיַסֵּר בְּיִסּוּרֵי רָעָב וְצָמָא כְּאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר? לָמָּה תַּשְׁחִיתֶנּוּ?:

(3) כי האדם עץ השדה FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD A MAN [THAT IT SHOULD BE BESIEGED BY THEE]? — כי has here the meaning of “possibly”, “perhaps” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 23:5) — is the tree of the field perhaps a man who is able to withdraw within the besieged city from before you, that it should be chastised by the suffering of famine and thirst like the inhabitants of the city? Why should you destroy it?

Thanks to Eli Bass for creating the original source sheet, which can be found here: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/212680

1.

אבן עזרא על דברים כ׳:י״ט:א׳

כי האדם עץ השדה. כבר ביארתי בספר היסוד כי יתכן בכל לשון לקצר לאחוז דרך קצרה כמו חמור לחם רק מלת לא לא יתכן להיותה נחסרת כי הטעם יהיה להפך ומדקדק גדול ספרדי אמר כי חסר ה״‎א וכן הוא הכי האדם עץ השדה

וזה הטעם איננו נכון בעיני כי מה טעם לאמר לא תשחית עץ פרי כי איננו כבני אדם שיוכל לברוח מפניך ולפי דעתי שאין לנו צורך לכל זה וזה פירושו כי ממנו תאכל ואותו לא תכרות כי האדם עץ השדה והטעם כי חיי בן אדם הוא עץ השדה וכמוהו כי נפש הוא חובל כי חיי נפש הוא חובל:

  1. Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 20:19:1

    FOR IS THE TREE OF THE FIELD MAN. I have previously explained in the Sefer Ha-Yesod that it is possible in all languages to be brief and to apply an abbreviated style, as in “a donkey [loaded with] bread” (I Sam. 16:20). However, it is impossible to leave out the word lo (no, not), for in this case the meaning would be reversed. A great Spanish grammarian said that a heh has been omitted. Our clause should be interpreted as if written, hakhi adam etz ha-sadeh (for is the tree of the field man).

    Now this interpretation does not appear correct to me. Why would Scripture say that you shall not destroy fruit trees, because, unlike a human being, they cannot run away from you? I believe there is no need for all this. The following is the meaning of our clause. For thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down, for the tree of the field is man; that is, the life of man is supported by trees. Compare, For he taketh a life to pledge (Deut. 24:6), which is short for, for he taketh that which sustains man’s life to pledge.