485) Is a Halachic environmental discourse even possible?

 

Introduction

This article −based extensively on the research by Rabbi Professor Kotel Dadon[1] − examines some Torah and rabbinic sources that indicate the existence of, and potential for, further Jewish ecological discourse. It then (ambitiously) attempts to seek ways to bring this debate into the four cubits of Halacha (religious law). 

Dadon begins by nailing his colours to the mast in terms of his position on climate change and environmental issues: 

“Climate change and the resulting environmental disasters are among the greatest moral and existential crises of our time” (Dadon 2023:131). 

The general environmental discourse today revolves around two conflicting approaches regarding the role humans play in the world. These are the anthropocentric and biocentic approaches.

 

The anthropocentric approach

According to the anthropocentric view, humans are and remain the overriding and dominant factor, but they have the obligation to take care of the environment responsibly, otherwise, the existence of the human race will be in danger of disappearing from this planet. 

Those who oppose this view argue that it is a dangerous position to adopt because it could lead to an: 

“irresponsible and dangerous utilitarian approach; moreover, man will not preserve an environment that he believes makes no direct contribution to man’s benefit, such as the deserts and the poles of the Earth” (Dadon 2023:132). 

Dadon points out that religion and the Bible are often blamed for this anthropocentric approach. He cites Lynn White Jr’s article where Genesis is viewed as the cause of humans acting towards the environment with a domineering and predatory attitude. 

“God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fertile and increase, fill the Earth, and master it: and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on Earth. God said, See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food” (Genesis 1:28–29). 

This position of human control is supported by the Book of Psalms: 

“You have made him master over your handiwork, laying the world at his feet, sheep and oxen, all of them, and wild beasts, too; the birds of the heavens, the fish of the sea, whatever travels the paths of the seas” (Psalms 8:7–9). 

Some rabbis like Rav Saadia Gaon, in his Emunot veDeaot, reflected this view as well, by emphasising that humans are indeed the essential and ultimate goal of creation.^[2] 

Lynn White Jr writes as early as 1967: 

”our environmental perception is deeply influenced by beliefs about human nature and the destiny of the human race, that is, by religion.”[3] 

White maintains that the moment Christianity triumphed over paganism in Europe, marked the beginning of the ecological crisis that currently faces us. 

The biocentric approach

The second approach is the biocentric approach. It is where nature, not humankind, is the dominating factor. In this view, humans are just one of the many expressions of nature. This approach is also known as ‘deep ecology’ because humans are granted no superiority over nature. In fact, all aspects of nature, which include the categories of living, plant, and even inanimate, are completely disconnected from any benefits they provide to human beings. 

“This approach gives the universe an almost ‘divine’ value and refers to its sacredness. Spinoza, who is known to have elevated all of nature to the level of God, Deus sive Natura, is very popular among the followers of this approach” (Dadon 2023:132). 

Those who oppose this view, claim it is a form of neo-paganism as it elevates nature to the level of the divine. They also argue that it is a dangerous position to adopt because it could lead to the favouring of nature over and at the expense of human beings. Thirdly this approach has echoes of the National Socialist movement in Germany which gave legal protection to animals and nature. 

As we have seen, some rabbis like Rav Saadia Gaon placed humans as the ultimate purpose of creation, thus supporting the anthropocentric position; but other rabbis like Maimonides in his Moreh Nevchim, seem to partially support the biocentric position by claiming that the creation of nature and other living entities is not necessarily related to human beings.[4] 

The Book of Job can also be seen to support a partial biocentric approach by diminishing the status of humans in the overall scheme of things: 

“How much less man, a worm, the son-of-man, a maggot” (Job 25:6).

“If you are righteous, What do you give Him; What does He receive from your hand?” (Job 35:7). 

The theocentric approach

Dadon points out that Judaism can vacillate somewhere between these two extremes of anthropocentric and biocentric approaches as support can be found for both positions. He therefore suggests a third option, the theocentic approach where G-d become the centre of creation. He suggests that this best describes the general position of Judaism on the matter of ecology and corresponds to a verse in Leviticus (25:23) “For the earth is Mine;” as well as a verse in Psalms (24:1) “The earth is the Lord’s and all that it holds.” 

On this view and in these verses, the world is not subject to the absolute ownership and authority of humans emphasising that it was given to man to “use and protect” (Genesis 2:15). Thus: 

“Man’s ecological duty to protect his environment is based on both anthropocentric and biocentric arguments… Man can use his uniqueness and superiority over nature in a selfish and destructive way or in a responsible and respectful way; the choice is in his hands.” (Dadon 2023:132-3). 

This way, Dadon suggests a synthesis between the anthropocentric and biocentric approaches through the adoption of a theocentic approach: 

“This imperative contains the eternal conflict between the development of the world and the protection of the environment. Man has taken on two tasks: on the one hand, he is to cultivate the land in order to advance technological and industrial development for his needs. On the other hand, man is required to preserve creation and observe nature wisely. Only these two values together can bring man to the ideal use of what has been created in his honor” (Dadon 2023:133). 

The question, then, is what do we do with the difficult verse of Genesis 1:28 which proclaims how humans must rule over and have dominion over creation? Perhaps Rav Kook has a response to that question: 

R. Avraham Yitzchak haCohen Kook (1865-1935)

Rav Kook writes: 

“There can be no doubt to any enlightened or thoughtful person that the ‘dominion’ mentioned in the Bible in the phrase…[in Genesis 1:28] is not the dominion of a tyrant who deals harshly with his people and servants in order to achieve his own personal desires and whims. It would be unthinkable to legislate so repugnant a subjugation and have it forever engraved upon the world of God, who is good to all and whose mercy extends to all He has created, as is written, ‘the earth is founded upon mercy’ (Ps. 89:3)”[5] 

Rav Kook’s student, R. Aryeh Levin writes about his teacher: 

“I recall the early days, from 1905 onward, when…I came to Jaffa. There, I first went to visit our great master, R Abraham Isaac Kook…who received me with good cheer, as it was his hallowed custom to receive everyone. After the afternoon service, he went out, as was his custom, to stroll a bit in the fields and gather his thoughts, and I went along. On the way, I plucked some branch or flower. Our great master was taken aback, and then he told me gently, ‘Believe me. In all my days, I have taken care never to pluck a blade of grass or flower needlessly when it had the ability to grow or blossom. You know the teaching of the Sages that there is not a single blade of grass below, here on Earth, which does not have a heavenly force telling it ‘grow!’ Every sprout and leaf of grass says something [and] conveys some meaning. Every stone whispers some inner, hidden message in the silence. Every creation utters its song.’”[6] 

Rav Kook was influenced in this regard by a leading Kabbalist from Safed, R. Moshe Cordovero (1522–1570) who writes: 

“And upon this way, he [should] not disgrace anything in existence from that which exists, as all of them are with wisdom. And [so] he [should] not uproot a plant except for a need nor kill an animal except for a need....” (R. Moshe Cordovero, Tomer Devorah, 3:13). 

Rabbinic sources on caring for the environment

Some people sometimes mistakenly distinguish between private and public spaces: 

“It happened that a certain person was removing stones from his ground onto public ground when a pious man found him and said, ‘Fool, why do you remove stones from ground which is not yours to ground which is yours?’ The man laughed at him. Sometime later, he was compelled to sell his field, and when he was walking on that public ground, he stumbled over the stones he had thrown there. He then said, ‘How well did that pious man say to me, ‘Why do you remove stones from ground which is not yours to ground which is yours?’”[7] 

Public spaces will always be ours and we will be affected by the way we treat them. The second-century Tanna, R. Shimon bar Yocha famously makes a similar point: 

“Men were on a ship. One of them took a drill and began to drill under him. The others said to him: what are you doing? He replied, ‘What do you care? Is this not under my area where I am drilling?’ They said to him, ‘But the water will rise and flood all of us on this ship.’”[8] 

An early example of a Midrashic concern for the environment: 

“When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He took him and showed him all the trees in the Garden of Eden, and He said to him: ”See My creations, how beautiful and exemplary they are. Everything I created, I created for you. Make certain that you do not ruin and destroy My world as if you destroy it; there will be no one to mend it after you.”[9] 

From Temple times, there are examples of a concern not to waste resources:

The leftover blood from the outer altar which was mixed with the water used to wash the area was not discarded but sold as fertilizer.[10] Also, the used clothes of the kohanim (priests) were thrown away but turned into wicks for candles.[11] 

These are beautiful rabbinic examples of environmental concern, but they are not enough. If Judaism is to have any meaningful impact on the environmental discourse, we need to move from beautiful rabbinic anecdotes, Midrashim and moral stories to the authoritative and practical realm of Halacha. 

Moving into the four cubits of Halacha

In theory, Judaism can be understood as permitting a limited and responsible dominion over the earth. Humans, however, have not fulfilled this obligation and the original plan has not worked as we face existential environmental challenges of immense proportions. Religious Jews can sit back and say that all these environmental concerns are only indirectly and obliquely referenced in rabbinic literature and that our main concern should be the four cubits of the Shulchan Aruch (the Halachic Code of Law) which focuses on more pressing religious and ritual matters. 

We, therefore, need Orthodox religious leaders to join the ‘outside’ voices and speak about these issues otherwise the catastrophe we face will remain a ‘foreign’ and ‘alarmist’ issue of non-Jews or only a perceived concern of the assimilated Jewish left, just like their other ‘ill-conceived’ occupation with social matters and constructs. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening any time soon. 

There is a glimmer of hope, though. Dadon mentions that there are some Jewish thinkers who are trying to bring environmental issues into the realm of Halacha. They argue along the following lines: 

“Jewish law needs to be more active in the wake of the ecological crisis and extend prohibitions such as ‘idolatry’ to the issue of toxins and pollution and that kosher dietary laws should include and emphasize the value of sustainability and environmental responsibility. In addition, some scholars have attempted to take a legal stand on contemporary environmental issues using key Talmudic themes in tort [civil] law, such as fire and the pit” (Dadon 2023: 136). 

This means that they are trying to extend the existing Talmudic categories laws like ‘Fire’ which causes damage to a neighbouring property, and the ‘Pit’ which a person digs in a public space and presents a danger that a passerby may fall in and get injured. 

The existing Halachic category of ‘Fire’ could include damage by stationary substances that cause damage when external forces, like the wind, carry pollutants and toxic chemicals; or when they seep into the groundwater. The existing Halachic category of the ‘Pit’ could include damage caused by fixed hazards that are established and remain in public spaces, such as industrial waste. Such thinkers are beginning to make the: 

“legal questions from the Talmud relevant to contemporary debates about environmental policy and ethics in order to legally and morally influence the industrialized economic system” (Dadon 2023:136). 

When electricity was first discovered, the Halachic world immediately applied its mind to the nature of electricity and the permissibility or impermissibility of its use on Shabbat. No one sat back and claimed this was a modern matter that did not concern Torah Jews. The vast majority of rabbis did exactly what some Jewish thinkers are trying to do today with environmental issues, but somehow, they succeeded in changing the Halachic landscape in an unprecedented and irrevocable manner. No one today can imagine Shabbat without time switches and parked cars. There was tremendous Halachic debate over which category of the then-existing thirty-nine prohibited Shabbat activities, electricity fell. Some Moroccan rabbis had a slightly different take on the Halachic nature of electricity but there was still active debate and ultimately the clear and acceptable application of pre-existing Halachic principles to matters that did not exist in Talmudic times. 

The rabbis had no problem changing the face of Shabbat observance by introducing stringencies limiting and defining modern electrical use that the rest of the world was widely embracing. People were prepared to forgo the greatest and most convenient invention since the creation of the world, walk miles to shul on Shabbat and sometimes do without hot food and lights. Why is it taking so long for the Hakachic world to do exactly the same and apply similar reasoning to existential questions regarding the future of this planet?

---

[1] Dadon, K., 2023, ‘Ecology in Judaism’, Science, Art and Religion, vol. 2, issue 3-4, 131-138.

[2] Emunot veDeot  (Heb. trans. Rabbi Josef Kapach). 6th ed. Jerusalem: Machon Mishnat HaRambam; 2004; Chapter 4, pp. 150–152.

[3] White, L.J Jr, 1967, ‘The historical roots of ecological crisis’, Science, 155(3767), 1203–1207.

[4] Maimonides. Guide for the Perplexed (Heb. trans. Rabbi Josef Kapach). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook; 1977. III:13, pp. 298–302.

[5] Hazon haTzimhonut vehaShalom. In: Fried Y, Riger A, eds. Afikim baNegev II, in Lahai Ro’i. Jerusalem; 1961; p. 207.

[6] Raz, S. A., 1976, Tzadik in Our Times, Translated by Charles Wengrov, Jerusalem, 108–109.

[7] Tosefta, Bava Kama, 2:1.

[8] Midrash Vayikra Rabbah, 4:6.

[9] Midrash Kohelet Raba, 7:13.

[10] Mishnah Yoma 5:6 (see Kehati).

[11] Mishnah Sukkah 5:3.