Chapter 7 | Do Not Destroy – Bal Tashchit

The Prohibition and its Rationale

The most explicit restriction over man’s conduct in regard to natural resources is found in the prohibition of ‘Do Not Destroy’ (bal tashchit), brought down by the Torah as part of the complex of halachot that were stated to those departing to war (Devarim 20:19-20):

(19) When in your war against a city you have to besiege 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? (20) Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siegeworks against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced. ¹

In the commentaries, one can find four different ways of understanding the rationale behind this prohibition which fit the existing principles within Judaism that we have evaluated throughout this discourse.

The First Interpretation: Anticipating the Future and Human Frugality

The Rashbam, in his commentary on the Torah, understands the words “you may eat of them” as an explanation for the rationale behind the prohibition.

“you may eat of them – for behold, you require them for food after you capture the city and it will be yours”.

A similar approach arises from the opinion of the Ramban, who also grants significant weight to these words in the verse. In his insights into the Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam, the sixth positive commandment that the Rambam ‘forgot’ according to the Ramban is the mitzvah of “when we besiege a city, to eat from the trees within its borders for the entire siege”. ² The Ramban continues by restricting the halacha of bal taschit significantly:

And know this – that this is the commandment with its positive and negative [components], when we besiege a city to fight for and conquer it, we are commanded to have compassion for it as we have compassion for our [cities], perhaps we will conquer it. But when venturing out into enemy land we destroy and damage every good tree.”

The reason for differentiating between a city that we intend to conquer and a city that is located in an enemy land can be gleaned from the opinion of the Ramban in his commentary on the Torah:

The Torah cautioned not to destroy [the besieged city’s] trees to chop them down in a destructive manner not for a need of the siege, as is customary in [military] camps. The reason is that while the warriors destroy the city and the surrounding land, perhaps they will be able [to conquer it], you shall not do the same to destroy it, for God promised you that he would deliver it into your hands. For man is the tree of the field, from it you shall eat and survive, and when you approach the city before you in siege, [it is coming] to say you will live off of it after you conquer the city, and even while you are in the camp approaching the siege you shall [live off of it]. ³

The act of destruction, according to the Ramban, is an act of despair. It is the action of one who sees only the present before his eyes and does not take into account the days following the war. The Torah commands us to have faith in God and believe that the city will be captured by our hands, and through this to wisely delegate the use of its resources. Do not destroy the future with excess and frivolousness for the momentary whims of the present. According to this reading, the command does not demand of man to deviate from his limited personal interests. There is only the most basic requirement, vital in the ecological domain, to deviate from the present and anticipate the future.

The Second Interpretation: To Understand Others

Rabbeinu Yona of Gironde continues this line that his cousin, the Ramban, propagated while expanding it slightly:

We have been warned not to chop down any fruit tree, even to build a siege with it, as long as there are enough non-fruit bearing trees to satisfy [the need]. We have also been warned not to spend money for naught, even a pruta’s [=miniscule amount’s] worth… and our Sages, of blessed memory, have said (Yevamot 44a): man should not spill his well-water when others need it”. ⁴

Rabbeinu Yona agrees with the Ramban that the foundation of the prohibition is wasting and destroying resources for nothing, however he relates not only to the future of the person who is doing the wasting but also the future of his friend. Rabbeinu Yona connects the prohibition to a guideline mentioned in the Gemara, “man should not spill his well-water etc.”. In the Tashbetz Responsa (Volume 4, Column 1, article 27) it is explained that this guideline is based on the principle “we force [one to change their behavior] for an attribute of Sodom”, which involves the obligation to provide wellbeing for others when the person themselves does not lose anything as a result. The innovation in this matter is that despite the fact that a certain person is not in front of us asking to use the well-water or fruit of the tree, one must consider the possibility that there will be a person like this in the future, and due to this we must prohibit actions that damage the item. Thus, the Rishonim and halachic authorities disagree whether in this situation one may force a person not to spill out his well-water ⁵.

Despite the differences between the opinion of the Ramban and the Rabbeinu Yona, there is much overlap between the two, as Professor Yaakov Bazak remarks:

The vandal sees before himself the immediate need to release his destructive urges in that moment and does not consider at all the fact that it is possible that he himself may, in the next hour, require the payphone that he is currently destroying with little thought. All the more so that he is not turning his heart to the heavy damage that he incurs on others in order to experience the fleeting pleasure of slashing a car’s tires ⁶.

The Third Interpretation: Limitation of Power

Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, following his fundamental approach expressed in The Nineteen Letters, explains the prohibition of bal taschit as a limitation of man’s power in regard to creation:

The prohibition to destroy trees unnecessarily during a siege is stated only by way of example, and bal taschit prohibits destroying any item for no purpose. It is found that “do not – destroy” stated here is an overarching warning to man: he should not negatively take advantage of his status in the world to destroy things due to emotional outburst, desire, or even just out of carelessness. God placed His world at man’s feet in order to use it wisely, and only for this purpose did [God] give him the permission to “conquer” the land and “subjugate” it ⁷.

Rabbi Hirsch claims that the prohibition reflects a legal limitation of authority and permission granted to man over creatures ⁸. Any impact to this world requires a reason and justification and must be performed with wisdom and consideration, otherwise it has aspects of misappropriation of holy goods (meilah), breech of trust, and even features similar to idol worship, as he explains at length elsewhere:

Bal taschit is the first and most general calling that reaches your ears from the Exalted One, in a moment when you see yourself as master over the world and its inhabitants… none is closer to idol worship than one who is able to ignore the existence of the universe as the Creator’s work and belonging and be conceited enough to do with it as if it is his ⁹.

The spirit of this matter is also found in the short explanation of Rabbeinu Meyuchas there: “we have learned that the Omnipresent has mercy on his world” ¹⁰.

Fourth Interpretation: Rectification of Character Traits

The common denominator of the sources we have seen up to this point is the focus on the practical damage of an act of destruction, both for the future of the damager and the future of his colleagues or other creatures of the world ¹¹. However, in the Sefer HaChinuch we find a fundamentally different approach:

The root of the mitzvah is known, that it is to teach our souls to love good and usefulness and to cling to it, and through this the good will cling to us and we will distance [ourselves] from all evil and destructive matters, and this is the way of the pious and people of action who love peace and rejoice in the good of mankind bringing them to Torah. And one should not even cause the loss of a mustard seed in this world, and he should feel suffering for each loss and destruction he sees, and if they can save it, they should save everything from destroyers with all their power, and this is unlike their wicked brothers of damage, joyous in the destruction of the world ¹².

The attribute of destruction is the one of the wicked, in contrast with the way of the pious, which is to love the good and positive benefit. According to the Sefer HaChinuch, the goal of the prohibition is not to prevent this damage or another, but to engrain the awareness and psychological approach to suffering over all destruction and loss ¹³. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero describes this approach as one of mercy:

One must let their mercy spread over all creatures, not to shame them or cause their loss. For the Supreme Wisdom is spread over all creations, inanimate, vegetation, animals, and beings with speech, and for this reason we have been cautioned not to waste food. And following this logic it is proper that just like how the Supreme Wisdom does not shame any creation, so too man’s mercy shall be on all of [God’s] works… and following this logic one should not shame any creation that exists, for they all [were made] with wisdom, and one should not uproot vegetation or kill a living animal unless it is for a purpose, and ensure a pleasant death with an examined knife to have mercy as much as possible. This is the general principle: compassion over all creation not to harm them is dependent on mutual wisdom to elevate them level by level, from vegetation to living being, from animals to beings with speech, for then it is permissible to uproot vegetation and kill animals, to harm negatively in order to provide positively” ¹⁴. 

Similar to the Sefer HaChinuch, the Ramak changes the discussion from the benefit of mankind to the approach to the world and its creatures, and in his writings, he explicitly adds that the prohibition of destruction reflects a demand for compassion and respect towards all creations. An abridged summary of the approaches is found in the commentary of Samuel David Luzzato here:

Don Isaac [Abrabanel], Rabbi Ovadiah Sforno, and the Minchah Blula explain that ‘you shall eat of it’ when you capture the city, therefore it is not good for you to destroy [the fruit trees]. In my opinion, the Torah was not given for this purpose, in order to teach mankind to calculate when to benefit themselves, but it was given for the opposite, to strengthen within our hearts the compassion and mercy that are contrary to our [personal] benefit. Both Philo ¹⁵ and Josephus Flavius explained this mitzvah from the side of compassion and mercy and distancing of cruelty. And that which I view myself is that the central point of the mitzvah is that one should not chop down a tree after he eats its fruits, and granted that this is to distance man from the attribute of ungratefulness, accustom him to love that which improves his wellbeing, and that he should not throw it behind his back the moment that he does not see further benefit from it ¹⁶.

Nechama Leibowitz also adopts this approach, while rejecting the alternatives:

It is not prohibited here to act wildly towards nature in order to change it for the needs of man and his wellbeing; the work of a constructive culture is also not prohibited for us, nor destruction for the sake of building – only the work of destruction for destruction’s sake is prohibited to us.

And if one asks: why should the Torah prohibit destructive, corrupting, and ruinous actions when this whole time the things that can be corrupted, ruined, and destroyed are man’s property? We will not rely on placing the concept of “what’s mine is mine”, expressing the ownership of man, against the statement that “for God is the land and its contents, its inhabitants and those dwelling in it”, rather we will try to understand the prohibition of bal tashchit even within the concern for destructive results of man who destroys himself. And how great are the words of the Gemara, which are the source of the opinion of the Rambam mentioned earlier: “one who rips his clothes out of anger, and breaks his utensils out of anger, and wastes money out of anger – should be in your eyes akin to an idol worshipper. For thus is the craft of the evil inclination: today it tells him: “Do this”; the next day it tells him: “Do that”; until it tells him: worship idols and go and serve” (Shabbat 105b) ¹⁷.

According to this approach, the goal of this prohibition is not for others but to tailor the character of man himself to be one that recoils from destruction and wastefulness.

Between the lines of the sources dealing with the rationale behind the mitzvah glimmers practical differences in regard to its restrictions. Below we will discuss a number of fundamental practical questions which can teach us the significance of the mitzvah in the general topic of halacha and ecology.

Wastefulness, Benefit, and ‘the Destructive Manner’

The most complex and practical issue in the topic of the prohibition of destruction is the definition of a certain use as ‘destructive’. The Rambam determines the following classification:

We do not chop down fruit trees… but we chop it down if it is harming other trees, or because it is causing damage to another’s field, or because it is of high value. The Torah only prohibits in a destructive manner ¹⁸.

From the words of the Rambam it can be understood that the prohibition applies specifically when the damage to the item is done with intent to cause harm and destroy, while any other use, as wasteful as it is, is not included in the prohibition. However, in the words of the Gemara and the halachic authorities we can find examples of applications that are prohibited despite the fact that they were not performed out of desire to destroy. Thus, for example, the Gemara in Mesechet Shabbat relates to various forms of wastefulness in the domain of sustenance:

Rabbi Chisda says: one who can eat barley bread and eats wheat – violates bal tashchit. Rav Pappa says: one who can drink beer and drinks wine – violates bal tashchit. And this is not accurate, bal tashchit [=the prohibition to harm] one’s body takes precedence [and this action is therefore permissible] ¹⁹.

The Gemara indeed rejects these specific examples, because barley bread and beer are harmful to one’s health and “bal tashchit of one’s body takes precedence”, but that which can be understood from it is the clarification that a person is responsible to nourish himself intellectually and not to consume resources whose value supersedes the minimum required for him. Rabbi Menashe Klein reaches a practical conclusion based on this:

For one who does not yet smoke, in my humble opinion it is certain that one cannot bring himself into habituating smoking: first, for it is a damaging item etc. and also because of bal tashchit, when he spends money on smoking for nothing ²⁰.

An additional example is found in another discussion in Mesechet Shabbat:

Rabbi Zutra says: one who covers an oil torch or exposes a naphtha candle – violates bal tashchit ²¹.

The Gemara relates to a person who acts wastefully with his lighting, and determines that he violates a prohibition, despite the fact that it does not seem he had the specific intention to destroy the oil or naphtha. Rabbi Yosef Chaim, the Ben Ish Chai, expands the prohibition to additional wasteful uses:

Question: there are people who customarily light seven candles on Shabbat Eve and pour a large amount of oil into them so that they are lit until Shabbat day in the evening.

Response: [regarding] why they place a lot of oil, enough for it to be lit the entire day of Shabbat until the evening, I have not found a source for this nor an indication in holy scriptures and I say this matter is not good and we must nullify it, because they violate bal tashchit through this, for how is a candle beneficial at noon?²². In other words, even for illumination, and of course other electronic devices, one should not light them or turn them on at a time or place that does not require it, and one who does so violates bal tashchit ²³.

The question of the ‘need’ that permits use is very difficult to define, and there are those who base it on the argument of the Rishonim regarding the topic of ‘Okrin Al HaMelachim’. In the Gemara in Mesechet Avodah Zara (11a), it is stated that when a king dies, we cut apart his horse’s horseshoes. The Tosafot there ask how this custom fits with the prohibition of bal tashchit ²⁴, and they respond: “since we are doing it for the honor of the king, this is not destruction but akin to 100 mana (=expensive) burial shawls” ²⁵. From their statement it arises that as long as the matter was performed for some purpose, even if it is not proportional (100 mana burial shawls), it does not violate bal tashchit. The Tosafot in Mesechet Bava Metzia, to contrast, when asking the same question, respond that the permit to deshoe the king’s horse is “because the honor of the king and the Nasi take precedence” and the prohibition “is displaced due to their honor” ²⁶. From their words it arises that the act of destruction can be prohibited even if it has some purpose, and only because of the halachic value of honoring the king is the violation displaced in this case ²⁷. In light of this the Aruch HaShulchan writes: “just like how the Torah cautions one [to protect] his friend’s life and money, [the Torah] cautions one to protect his life and money, that he should not spend them on worthless matters and man should only spend money for necessities” ²⁸. Rabbi Yaakov Ariel writes similarly: “one who needs raw material in exaggerated quantities indirectly supports the destroyers of the universe in the prohibition and is considered as an aide for a prohibited matter” ²⁹.

An additional question is if the prohibition of bal tashchit is able to place an active obligation to do acts such as recycle used items. The Gemara in Mesechet Chullin (91a) states that Yaakov Avinu stayed alone at Yabuk pass because he worked to gather “little jugs” that were left in the camp. The Gemara concludes from this that “the money of the righteous is dearer to them than their lives… for they do not extend their hand in thievery”. It can be understood from the words of the Gemara that there is merit in a person working hard to preserve their possessions and ensure they do not get lost ³⁰. In light of this Rabbi Daniel Farbstein writes: “one should be careful not to throw out items and clothes that have no need to a place where they will be lost, and he may send them to a public place where people oftentimes retrieve it” ³¹. Granted the Shevet HaLevi Responsa (volume 9, article 159) writes: “the limitations of bal tashchit only apply when performing an act of destruction, but one who renders his utensils ownerless and leaves them in the street in an ownerless way, while granted that it can be considered destructive, it cannot be definitively, for likely others will come and take it, and this is not within the bounds of destruction” ³². It should also be noted that it was remarked regarding Rabbi Aharon Kotler that he was strict to have additional passengers in the taxi with him “because he held that if he did not bring other passengers who were heading in the same direction as he was traveling, he would be violating the words of the Sages that one should not spill out his well-water when others need it” ³³.

In summary, even though the boundaries of the halachot of bal tashchit are difficult to quantify and implement, they tailor a movement that demands proper and beneficial use as much as possible in all parts of creation, avoiding actions that degrade any created thing. Later on, we will evaluate how this movement is expressed practically through various halachic dilemmas.

To the next chapter

To the previous chapter

Jewish Sustainability – to the home page and table of contents

---