Conundrum: Why Wasn’t the Verse Ki Ha’adam Etz HaSadeh (Deut. 20:19) Used as a Prooftext for the Halakhic Concept of Man Being Gidulei Karka (Something That Grows From the Ground)?

In the middle of a chapter dealing with warfare on a besieged city, the Torah prohibits destruction of a fruit-bearing tree and states: Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you under siege? (Deut. 20:19). While some commentators (e.g., Rashi) see this as a question, others see this as a statement comparing a human being to a tree. While Ibn Ezra and Rabbenu Bachya understand this verse metaphorically as man who is dependent on the tree, other commentators view it more literally. Gur Aryeh, Shelah 14 compares man to a tree. Eretz haZvi II 344 hints that man is a tree. Sridei Esh I:141 sees man similar to a tree and actually uses the phrase karka (ground) to denote where man is planted.

The plain meaning of the text is referring to the ancient Near Eastern warfare strategy where invading armies used local trees to construct a siege on the city they were attacking. This is recorded in a number of ancient accounts. For example, the siege of Megiddo by the pharaoh Thutmose III (ca. 1490-1436 BCE) where the city was walled up using timber from the local fruit trees: “Capture w[ell], capture w[ell, Oh my victorious [army!] . . . Lo[ok]… troop [commanders to equi[p their army in order to inform] every [man] of his position, they having measured [this] city, encircling (it) with a ditch, enclosing (it) with fresh branches of all their fruit trees.” A similar practice is recorded regarding his campaign against Mesopotamia: “From it I took grain and plucked their barley. I cut down all their orchards and all their fruit trees. Their territory has been cut off, my majesty demolished it, it having turned into […] on which there are no trees.” This strategy was also employed by Assyrian kings. In the record of the campaign of Shalmaneser III against Hazael of Damascus (841 BCE), he states, “I pursued after him. I confined him in Damascus, his royal city. I cut down his orchards.” A similar statement is made by Tiglath-Pileser III regarding his campaign against Rezin of Damascus (732 BCE): “I confined him like a bird in a cage. His gardens, […] orchards without number I cut down; I did not leave a single one.”

There is an abstruse concept in halakhic literature of man being in the category of gidulei karka (literally “something that grows from the ground”): see Rashi TB Hulin 139b d“h v’adam; Rashi TB Kiddushin 7b d”h she’yesh lahem; Taz Shulhan Aruch Orach Chaim 366; Shach Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 95 based on TB Sanhedrin 2a; TB Megilla 23b, TB Sanhedrin 15a, TB Kiddushin 7a; Rashash on TB Pesahim 21 d“h rivav. Yet the proof text used by the Talmud is the verse You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time (Lev. 25:46). It would seem to me that a much stronger proof text would be in Deuteronomy 20:19, ki ha’adam etz hasadeh, especially since the Talmud (BT Yevamot 4a) deems it appropriate to make contextually-driven inferences (known as semuchin) in the Book of Deuteronomy and infer details of one law from an adjacent law simply by their juxtaposition (darshinan semuchin b’mishneh Torah). An exhaustive search (174 references in Jewish literature) on this term as linked to gidulei karka came up empty handed.

It may be that in this instance, the Sages are demonstrating their preference for the more plain sense interpretation of Deuteronomy 20:19 as a question, and not an actual comparison of people to trees, which is the preferred interpretation of Rashi as well. Following this simple reading of the text, more in line with the pshat, the verse would have no bearing on the halakhic status of people being defined as gidulei karka.