Chapter 5 | The Third Pillar: Pikuach Nefesh and Anticipating the Future

“When you come to the land and you plant trees’ – God said to Israel, ‘even though you will find it full of all goodness, do not say that you will dwell and not plant, rather be careful to plant. Just like you came and found saplings that others have planted, so too you should plant trees for your children’… had God not removed death from the heart of man, man would not build or plant, for he would say: ‘tomorrow I will be dead, why am I standing and working for others?’. Therefore, God removed the day of death from the hearts of man so that man will build. If he merits – he will have [plants] for himself, if he does not merit, for others” 

• Midrash Tanchuma (Warsaw), Parshat Kedoshim, articles 7-8

Introduction

Many topics in the domain of ecology do not approach the individual directly harming the public, but the conduct of the entire public in a manner that endangers its continued existence and prosperity in the future. In professional language this is defined as “sustainable development” such as “development that addresses the needs of the present without compromising on the capability of future generations to address their needs” ¹. Thus, for example, greenhouse gas emissions are a phenomenon that cannot be viewed as a direct act of ‘damage’, or even indirect damage (grama), yet according to the assessment of most experts, humanity’s collective emission of gas causes global warming that can lead to natural disasters, costing many lives. Not only this, but there are even more direct situations, such as water source pollution, microplastic molecules in the air and water sources, which cause genuine harm even in the short term.

Environmental dangers are connected to worldwide processes as well. An example of this is the threat to the State of Israel as a result of environmental processes. The State of Israel has the only continental border with Africa. If the draining of resources causes uncoordinated mass emigration – the State of Israel will be the first that will be flooded with this wave, and the matter will be a genuine strategic threat for its existence ². There are those who claim that the Jewish discourse around issues of sustainability must additionally be based on the topic of pikuach nefesh (lifesaving), in the same domains that one can see a direct connection between neglecting it and the genuine risks to people’s lives ³.

Does there exist, though, a halachic obligation to worry about the future of humanity? Should one relate to the reality where environmental disasters are lying in wait as a situation of pikuach nefesh?

The Obligation to Preserve Life

The Rambam writes in Hilchot Rotzeach Ve’Shmirat HaNefesh (11:4):

“‘for any obstacle that has risk to life, it is a positive commandment to remove it, protect against it, and be extremely cautious in the matter, as it is stated ‘protect yourself and guard your soul’. And if he did not remove it and left the obstacles that lead to danger, he nullified a positive commandment and violated [the negative commandment of] ‘you shall not leave blood [in your home]’”

The source of the commandment is found already in the Torah (Devarim 22:8): “when you build a new house, you shall make a fence around your roof, and you shall not leave blood in your home for he will surely fall from it” ⁴. We also find it in the words of the Baraita (Moed Katan 5a) that the courts would work to remove harm from the public space: 

“It was taught in a Baraita: we go out to remove the thorns from the paths, repair the streets and alleyways, and to measure the ritual baths. And any ritual bath that does not have forty se’ah is filled to forty se’ah. And from where do we know that if they did not go out and do all of this that all of the blood spilled is considered by the Torah as if [the courts] spilled it? – the Torah states ‘and blood shall be upon you’.

What arises from these sources is that there is an obligation to actively work to remove obstacles from the public, even more so that it is prohibited to create them. And thus, there are many halachot that limit human activity out of consideration for the dangers that can be caused indirectly. For example, the Sages prohibited selling metal that can be fashioned into weaponry to those who are suspected of murder [5]. They also prohibited redeeming captives for more than they are worth so as not to encourage the captors to take more hostages [6]. It is unnecessary to say that these actions do not qualify as ‘a damaging person’, and despite this it is prohibited due to anticipating the future dangers associated with it.

Granted that when we are dealing with the harm of a single person, there are relatively limited definitions of ‘dangers’ that one is obligated to run from, and there are those who permitted entering a state of danger if it is not immediate ⁵. However, the authorities write that regarding a danger of the masses one must be concerned even when dealing with an indirect and low chance of harm ⁶. Because of this, all the rabbinic greats instruct that there is a bona fide obligation to listen to ⁷medical guidelines that concern the fight against epidemics, even where there is no specific patient before us ⁸. Even though the actions of every individual can be nullified by the majority and none have their own power to cause genuine harm, one must act as if the entire public will act like him ⁹.

The responsibility to prevent future dangers is part of a greater obligation to anticipate the future and prevent the consumption in the present of the resources needed in the future ¹⁰. The first who implemented this principle was Yosef the Righteous, who ensured efficient supply of produce in years of plenty so that it shall last for the years of famine as well ¹¹. Similarly, the simple reason for the commandment of the Shemitta year, in the words of the Rambam (Guide to the Perplexed 3:39), “so that the produce of the earth will increase and that [the earth’s] rest shall strengthen it” ¹². In other words, man is commanded to anticipate the future and avoid destructive use of natural resources. From the other side, halacha encourages actions that are considered “settling the world”, such as: digging wells ¹³], planting trees ¹⁴, and other works and crafts ¹⁵. From these sources and others, Rabbi Shmuel Tuvia Stern reached the conclusion that one of the obligations of the State of Israel is “to make laws and edicts to protect all treasures of the land so that all of the land’s inhabitants can benefit from them” ¹⁶.

“God Protects the Fools”

From the previous articles it thus arises that the Torah demands that man and society consider the coming years, and even future generations, preventing harm caused to the masses. The primary difficulty left over is the ability to determine clear boundaries for the prohibition, and how much man is responsible for limiting his actions in the world for various goals of sustainability.

Jewish halacha recognizes the legitimacy of accepted methods of conduct, even if they involve a degree of risk, and it is permissible for man to go about them. Alongside the obligation to preserve life stands the principle that the Sages determined: “God protects the fools”. Had it not been so there would have been a total halachic prohibition to eat unhealthy foods or travel at all in a car due to the concern for car accidents. The logic at the base of this principle is explained by Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman as such that the normative behavior “minhag derech eretz” is considered a matter that no person can abstain from, and therefore he does not have the obligation to protect himself from its repercussions “and then he is protected from the Heavens” ¹⁷. Despite this, there are those who write that the permit is specifically when naturally we are dealing with a very low risk and the concern is primarily metaphysical or especially distant ¹⁸. Additionally, the permit is stated specifically when “the public treads over” the reality of the situation, and not when a new reality of ecological danger is created that did not exist in the past ¹⁹. Similarly, the authorities determined many additional limitations to using this rationale that create difficulty implementing it in our issue ²⁰.

Another claim that is brought up is that the ecological crisis and the methods to deal with it are not agreed upon by all experts in the matter. Granted, environmental issues touch upon pikuach nefesh as well and for some it is dealing with dangers that can be measured and proven. A familiar principle in halacha is that one should be stringent even with doubtful pikuach nefesh, and therefore when there are experts who believe that there are risks in the matter, we violate the Shabbat in order to prevent it, even if there are those who disagree ²¹. Additionally, in matters that require professional expertise, halacha instructs following the majority position of experts, even when dealing with issues of future assessments such as evaluating the risks of a certain construction process or decision regarding the best way to raise a child ²². Anyways, when there is a broad consensus amongst scientists, one should act in accordance, and the majority of topics that deal with ecology and sustainability this is truly the case ²³. 

Despite this, one should weigh the severity of the risk in contrast to the harm caused to quality of life and economic development, for this also could lead to harm as well. The individual is allowed to risk his life for income. This arises from the Gemara in Mesechet Bava Metzia describing the motivation that propels the worker: “why does this [harvester] climb the ramp and suspended on a tree, giving himself over to death [if he falls]? Is it not for his wages?” ²⁴. From this the Noda BeYehuda permits hunting animals even when it is dangerous ²⁵, however he emphasizes that the permit is stated only for one who needs it for his sustenance and not one who endangers themselves for entertainment ²⁶. And thus, there are those who write that it is prohibited to travel in places that are life-threatening, even distantly ²⁷, and even the halachic authorities are lenient regarding his permit specifically in situations where the danger is not palpable ²⁸. In light of this, there is room to limit flights and similar actions that cause tremendous damage for economic needs alone. However, there is room to say that the economic activity dependent on a prosperous tourism branch is also a societal need, as Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg writes regarding using cars, permitting them despite the risks involved because it is considered “a need of the world and its advancement” ²⁹. And just like it is permissible for the public to wage an offensive war (milchemet reshut) for economic reasons, despite the risks, so too it is permitted to determine the boundaries of what is permissible and prohibited while balancing environmental needs and the market’s ³⁰. The topic of balancing prosperity with ecology is complex and a matter of disagreement ³¹. Because of this, even though the spirit of Halacha obligates society and its leaders to prevent future risks, it is difficult to determine the precise method to do this ³².

To the next chapter

To the previous chapter

Jewish Sustainability – Home Page and Table of Contents

---