Environmental responsibility. Some commands in the terror were understood so narrowly by the sages

that they were rendered almost inapplicable. One example is the Iahani Dachat, the city

led astray into idolatry about which the terror states that you must kill all the inhabitants of

the city by the sword.

Another is the Ben Sura or Mura, the stubborn and rebellious child brought by his parents to the court

and if found guilty, put to death. In both these cases, some sages interpreted the law so

restrictively that they said lo hayava law

attid lihiote there never was and never will be a case in which the law was applied as for as

as for the condemned city rabbi aliezer said that if it contained a single mazzuzza the law was not

enforced in the case of the rebellious child,

Rabbi Judah taught that if the mother and father didn't look or sound alike, the law didn't

apply. According to these interpretations, the two laws were never meant to be put into practice,

but were written solely, so that we should expound them and receive reward.

Rosh for Kabalzhak. They had only a educational, not a legal function.

In the opposite direction, some laws were held to be far more extensive than they seemed

at first sight. One striking example occurs in this week's

parishage refers to the conduct of a siege in the course of war. The terror states, when you laid

siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees

by putting an axe to them because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them

down. Are the trees people that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know

are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

The prohibition against destroying fruit-bearing trees was known as the

...