The central issue at the base of this discussion is man’s approach to creation and what surrounds him: does Judaism believe that the entire creation is only designed to serve man, or perhaps every creature has inherent purpose and meaning, and man has the tremendous responsibility to protect it as well? Beyond this, does man have the responsibility to worry for the prosperity, or at the very least enable the continued survival of other species and creatures? Must he prevent harm to animals that are at risk of extinction and ensure that their natural habitat is not destroyed? Or perhaps he is only responsible for caring for his species? Alongside these questions one must remember that at times we are dealing with creatures that serve man as well (for example the responsibility to ensure the survival of bees, of whom processes of pollination in the world of flora are critically dependent), so that in the practical world the issue of relating to animals is integrated with additional aspects that deal with the sustainability of the human race.
In the topic of man’s approach to creation we can find many contradictory sources. Already in the creation story in Sefer Bereishit do we see contradictory descriptions of man’s relationship with animals [9]. In chapter two of Sefer Bereishit, man is the center of creation. God created man first and foremost, as dust from the earth, while creation of the animals only happens in the second stage, for man (Bereishit 2:18-19): “God Hashem said, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting counterpart for him. And God Hashem formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky”. From these verses one can understand that everything is designed to serve man, and this is the only consideration one should act according to. To contrast, in chapter one, each part of the creation process is stated as being “good” in its own right, and only at the end of the process is it stated, by hinting that it is not obvious, that one should also add man to this (Bereishit 1:26): “and God said: let Us make man in Our image and likeness”.
Not only this, but when God decided that He should create man, He also granted him an additional role (ibid.): “and they shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.” Much of the discussion of Adam and Chava’s relationship is dependent on precise interpretation of this ‘ruling’. Were humans granted with these words “power and authority to do as they wish with animals and creeping things” in the words of the Ramban [10]; or perhaps they give man a responsibility, as Philo of Alexandria writes, to be “a sort of vehicle and pilot, so that he will instruct and guide the creatures of the land and take care of the flora and fauna” [11].
Later in the creation story man enters Gan Eden, where more explicit instruction is stated regarding his purpose: “and God Hashem took man and placed him in Gan Eden to work it and to preserve it” [12]. This is how the verse is interpreted in the Zohar: “He said to Adam: up to this point I have toiled with work, from now onwards you shall work it” [13]. In another midrash it is stated:
“When God created Adam HaRishon, he took him and showed him all the trees in Gan Eden and told him, ‘see how beautiful and pleasant my work is and everything I created was created for you, pay attention not to damage and destroy my world, for if you damage it there is no one who will fix it after you’” [14].
In global thought, this concept of man’s role is known as “Stewardship” and means that a person is not the master over nature but a steward who acts diligently according to the responsibility given to them for the sake of all creation [15]. This responsibility is actualized, according to the commentators, through two different channels: the first is the physical and practical channel, as the role of Adam in Gan Eden is described by Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra: “to serve it – to water the garden. And to protect it – from all the animals so that they do not enter and dirty it” [16]. The second is the spiritual channel, as stated in Midrash HaGadol: “to serve it’ – this is Torah study, ‘and to protect it’ – these are the mitzvot” [17]. It is important to emphasize the gap between these channels: the first expresses the simple approach of sustainability and physical care for the environment in Gan Eden, the second expresses the approach of ‘religious sustainability’, i.e. the idea that the prosperity of and even the very existence of creation is dependent on the moral and religious conduct of man and not specifically his practical actions [18]. Despite this, the common denominator between them is the awareness of responsibility of man towards all of creation, from which one can derive behaviors expressing compassion and concern for all of creation [19]. And even beyond this: the piercing and terrifying knowledge that man can ruin all of creation, deteriorate it, and harm it in a way that no one will be able to rectify [20].
This perception, as emphasized by Professor Daniel Shalit, does not lower man’s status in order to bring him closer to nature, but sees the connection to nature as part of the responsibilities that he has to the image of God engrained within him:
“The Jewish rectification of the Eastern and Western depictions of man begins with its inclusion of both of their depictions of man in his approach to nature. Man is also a part of nature, like the eastern version, and even exists beyond it and interacts with it as subject, like the western version. But we are not dealing with a compromise of half-tea-half-coffee, but the human character that contains within it both components – thanks to a third component above them” [21].
In other words, the Jewish belief is not biocentric (nature at the center) nor anthropocentric (man at the center), rather theocentric: “this belief truly provides man with a unique status; however, this is only because he is a messenger of the Creator and subjugated by his directive. Nature does not stand at the center, nor does man, but the Creator of the World. Man must view himself as a sort of guardian appointed to the role of preserving the universe” [22].
This principle of responsibility is found in the Torah, not only in the description of the fundamental philosophies in Sefer Bereishit, but also tailored into an obligatory mitzvah, as we will see further on.
Man’s Utilization of Creation
Through our perception of man’s place in creation we can expand the topic of man’s permit to use the world as he wishes. In many sources, it is stated that man’s domination of the world is not necessarily clear. Thus, for example, when introducing the chapter of ‘Keitzad Mevarchin’ in Mesechet Berachot (35a): “Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel: anyone who benefits from this world without a blessing – it is as if he benefitted from divinely consecrated goods, as it is stated: ‘for God is the land and its inhabitants’. Rebbe Levi brought a contradiction: it is written ‘for God is the land and its inhabitants’ and it is written: ‘the heavens are for God and the land is for man!’ This is not difficult, here [the former verse] – before he makes a blessing, and here [the latter verse] – after he makes the blessing.”
Man approaches the world with the basic assumption is that we are dealing with a world that is not his, and that the very use of it requires asking permission [23]. This approach to the world naturally includes restrictions, as Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch explains (The Nineteen Letters, Letter 4):
“Only from God, from whose hand power is drawn, does man have the right to conquer the land. But together with this right he also has a responsibility to conquer only that which is permissible to him and use it according to the wishes of the Giver alone”.
And thus, immediately when man is placed in Gan Eden is he commanded to restrict use of creation, in the likeness of the prohibition to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The prohibition that is manifested already at the first encounter of man with creation is the belief that use of the world has boundaries [24]. However, one must still ask: does man’s responsibility over creation apply restrictions to actions that can harm it?
It is easy to respond to this question when we are dealing with unnecessary harm. The prohibition of ‘do not destroy a fruit tree’ (bal tashchit) exists in regard to flora, the halachot of animal cruelty (tza’ar ba’alei chaim) prohibit man from destroying and corrupting for destructions sake. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero explains this quite clearly:
“One must have his mercy spread over all creatures, he should not degrade them and not cause them damage for the Divine Wisdom is spread over all creations, matter, flora, fauna, and the conscious… and he should not uproot vegetation for no need and should not kill living beings for no need” [25].
However, in most ecological topics we are not dealing with one who wishes to destroy creation for naught, but various uses that man requires. One should regardless ask: is there any restriction on actions that are performed for the sake of man, when they cause severe or disproportionate harm to his environment?
The monumental discourse around this issue is based on the prohibition of kilayim. The Torah prohibits interbreeding plants and animals of differing types, and when explaining the rationale the Ramban writes: “Because God created the species of the world, and instructed their will to go about as their species does and never change until the end of time. And one who combines two species changes and denies the actions of creation, as if he considers himself that God had not completed his world as necessary” [26]. Elsewhere the Ramban emphasizes that vital changes in creation can also lead to significant damage to creation itself: “and even this is a reason for the prohibition of kilayim, for flora will come from these combinations that will perform strange actions, create deviations in the conduct of the world for bad or for good, aside from the fact that they themselves are a deviation from creation” [27]. Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch learned a general principle from this: “do not forget that God placed you in his world to serve and protect it, however you should not become involved in the natural order of the world and cause disturbance through greed” [28]. Rabbi Avrahim Yitzchak HaCohen Kook teaches similarly that the purpose of the prohibition is “to enroot in the heart of man the obligation to ensure they do not destroy nature” [29]. The foundation of this philosophy is the deep faith that God created the world. However, there is a very deep place even in the atheistic world for a humble approach towards man’s place in creation and understanding that harming the environment can at times harm man himself. Despite this, this interpretation of the prohibition of kilayim is not definitive or exclusive, and many interpret the prohibition as a distancing from practices of idol worship [30] or as a directive with no understood reason [31].
Environmental Conservation: a Goal or a Means to an End?
Based on everything we have said, one can identify a fundamental argument regarding the question of whether environmental conservation is a value in its own right that one must work to pursue. A prominent representative of the approach viewing environmental conservation and preservation of nature as a significant independent value is Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, the Rishon LeTzion and former Chief Rabbi of Israel:
“The need to preserve the environmental quality is not only because it is good and beneficial, and the obligation to conserve the environment from any harm is not because this will damage others or society. From a religious perspective, conservation of the environment and concern for a healthy, positive life is a fundamental mitzvah and man’s obligation to his Creator. Harming quality of life and the environment involves ungratefulness instead of recognition of the good given by the Creator, it negatively impacts man’s faith and the fundamental mitzvot of loving God and fearing Him. The warning ‘make sure that you do not ruin and destroy my world’ involves being cautious not only due to concern for the world’s existence, but a warning not to damage the honor of the Blessed One who is revealed through creation… to conserve the acts of creation as good and rectified and to ensure that one does not ruin the good and beautiful… any harm to creation causes a detraction from [God’s] love and fear” [32] .
Rabbi Bakshi-Doron emphasizes the value that exists within preserving nature as it is as well as its inherent aesthetic, [33] with no connection to its use by humans [34]. The opposing approach providing weight to preservation of nature was explained by Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein:
“the idea that there is a complete balance between man and his environment and that one should view man as part of it – is entirely opposed to the concept of anthropologic morality that Judaism as a whole is based upon. Our cornerstone is that on a fundamental level there is no balance, and that the Creator of the heavens and earth granted ownership to man. Ownership means – lack of equality between the subject and object and man and his environment. Our approach is entirely anthropocentric and we should not be ashamed of such…”[35] .
Secular ecology is generally interested in nature specifically… halacha’s attitude is entirely different. The prohibition of ‘bal taschit’ does not come to grant respect to nature itself but as a creation in line with and belonging to God… we have no business preserving the environment but reality’s existence [36] . Rabbi Lichtenstein describes the Jewish approach as anthropocentric, with man in the center, in contrast to approaches according to which Judaism places man and the environment at a certain level of equality as creations of God[37] . Based on this he differentiates between the natural state of things, where according to him there is no moral or halachic value at all, and the very existence of reality, specifically as it was granted for human use, that we must preserve. Later on in his writings he negates providing excessive value to preserving “the good and beautiful” in creation: “there is room for aesthetic in halacha, but not at a fundamental level”. This differentiation exists in environmental sciences as well, between the approach of preservation, trying to protect nature in its purest form from human contact, and the approach of conservation, trying to ensure the continued survival of creation alongside human utilization[38].
Professor Rakover, who presented a less extreme approach in his work, summarized: “the love of nature cannot come at the expense of the love of man” [39]. There are those who expressed this hesitation from granting importance to nature in even more extreme ways, when they point to the fact that those who spearhead the defense of flora and fauna as a goal in itself oftentimes tend to hate Judaism or Jews[40]. Therefore, many authors tend to place the Jewish ecological doctrine on additional principles that will be discussed in further sections[41]. The balanced and metered approach in Judaism has very deep philosophic underpinnings, however even on the practical plane it is beneficial, for it can allow many people who associate the topic of environment with extreme progressiveness, to find the place between the two which will allow them to act according to their own beliefs.
To the next chapter
To the previous chapter
Jewish Sustainability – to the home page and table of contents
Footnotes
[9] For an analysis of these descriptions from the perspective of the approach to sustainability, see: Yonatan Eikenbaum, Sustainability from Bereishit, pages 16-23; Fox, Michal Smart, ―Genesis as a Foundation for a Jewish Environmental Ethic,‖ (from Operation Noah: Defending God’s Endangered Creatures: Textsand Commentaries,‖ Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, 1997, pp. 8-15). [10] Ramban, Bereishit 1:26 [11] Philo, “On the Creation”, Writings of Philo of Alexandria, edited by Susan Daniel-Nataf, volume 2, Jerusalem 5751, article 88. See a similar reading with: Neril, Rabbi Yonatan and Dee, Rabbi Leo. “The Concept of Environment in Judaism: An Ecological Perspective Based on Jewish Tradition”. The Concept of Environment in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, edited by Christoph Böttigheimer and Wenzel Maximilian Widenka, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2023, pp. 1-76. [12] Bereishit 2:15. [13] Zohar Chadash, volume 1, Parshat Bereishit 9b. See the Zohar (volume 1, 47b): “that God created to do – to improve and rectify everything every day”. [14] Kohelet Rabba, Parsha 7:1 [15] See: Ehrenfeld, & Bentley, P. J. (1985). Judaism and the Practice of Stewardship. Judaism, 34(3), 301; Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, The Stewardship Paradigm – A thought for Tu Bishvat, available on the internet. [16] Commentary of Ibn Ezra, Bereishit 2:15. [17] Midrash HaGadol, Devarim 11:13. This is the traditional reading of the command “take care that you do not ruin it”, see for example in Mesilat Yesharim, chapter 1: “if a person is drawn after the world and distances himself from his Creator, he has thus been harmed, and has harmed the world with him”. [18] Manford Grestenfeld, Environmental Conservation in Jewish Tradition, Jerusalem 2002 (elsewhere: Grestenfeld, Environmental Conservation), pages 27-36. [19] Da’at Chochmah VeMussar, volume 3, Gate of Knowledge (from the author’s son). [20] Regarding the religious difficulty to accept this philosophy, which is opposed to the belief that the world is the Creator’s responsibility alone, see: Rabbi Benayahu Tevila, What is Our Obligation Towards Creation?, Tzarich Iyun, 7th of Tishrei, 5782. [21] Daniel Shalit, Ecology from Jerusalem, “Nekudah”, edition 183, Tevet-Shvat 5755, December 1994. [22] Rabbi Ronen Lubitz, Green to God’s Word, Amudim 763 (5773), pages 2-3. See also the words of Rabbi Eliyahu Ben Amozeg, Israel and Humanity, page 157: “by being a king and priest, man is fulfilling the purpose of the earth’s creation and acts as a medium by which our planet unites with the entire universe. This two-fold task is summarizes the actions of man as a partner of God. Man elevates nature to him and connects it with the Creator”. [23] In the Midrash brought in the words of Rashi (Bereishit 1:26), it is further stated that the very hierarchy of man and animal is dependent on his actions: “and he shall rule (vayerdu) the fish of the sea’ – this wording is both rule (ridui) and descend (yerida), if he merits he will rule the animals and beasts, if he doesn’t merit he will be descended before them and the beast will rule him. [24] Leo Dee and Yonatan Neril, Eco Bible: volume 1, p.12. [25] Tomer Devorah, chapter 3. [26] Ramban, Vayikra 19:19. See also the words of the Ramban at the beginning of Bereishit (1:12): “And God saw that it is good – the species would live for eternity”. [27] Ramban, Devarim 18:9. [28] Chorev, chapter 57. [29] Otzrot HaRa’ayah, volume 2, page 901. Regarding the doctrine of Rav Kook on the subject see: Rabbi Prof. Nachum Rakover, The Relationship of Man to His Environment in Rav Kook’s Works, Shaarei Tzedek 6 (5765), pages 194-201. [30] Moreh Nevuchim 3:37. [31] Rashi, Vayikra 19:19. [32] Binyan Av – Discourse and Essays, volume 3, article 47. [33] See the Midrash brought in the words of Rashi (Shemot 26:13): “the Torah taught human nature that man conserves the beautiful”. [34] This is what Rabbi Eliezer Shenwald writes as well, The Defense of Flora – on Ecology through a Torah Lens, Tzemicha Be’Eretz HaTzvi, pages 57-62, for the Torah instructed us to conserve the environment “not only with the understanding of the benefit that this protection grants but out of the desire to protect and defend nature in its own right”. [35] It seems that Rav Lichtenstein is hinting to the criticism of Lynn White Jr., who accused Judeo-christian culture for their anthropocentric approach which stands at the basis of the western industrial society, see: White, Jr., Lynn, ―The Historic Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, ‖ orig. printed in Science, 155, March 10, 1967, pp. 1203-1207. Regarding other engagements with White’s perspective, see: Rabbi Elchanan Smith, Analysis of the Week’s Parsha, “Creation and the Ecological Crisis”, https://bit.ly/48YagRm. [36] Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Man and Nature – the Social Perspective, Philosophy – Judaism in Nowaday’s Society, pages 101-108. [37] See for example the words of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel: “in paganism, divinity was a part of nature, and man and his god both where objects of nature. The belief of oneness, by teaching that God is the Creator, that nature and man are both colleagues created from God, redeemed man from his exclusive faithfulness to nature… removing holiness from nature did not lead to estrangement of nature, but brought man closer to all creatures through a brotherhood of praise and exaltation. The earth is our sister, not our mother”. [38] See for example: Minteer, B.A., Corley, E.A. Conservation or Preservation? A Qualitative Study of the Conceptual Foundations of Natural Resource Management. J Agric Environ Ethics 20, 307–333 (2007). [39] See Rabbi Prof. Nachum Rakover, Environmental Conservation: Ideological and Legal Aspects in Jewish Sources, Jerusalem 5754 (elsewhere: Rakover, Environmental Conservation), page 18. [40] Michael Vigoda, “the Exodus from Egypt and Environmental Conservation – Philosophic and Legal Aspects”, Parshat HaShavua 12, publication of the Legal Office and Sha’arei Mishpat College, 5761; Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Neo-Paganism in the Public Square and its Relevance to Judaism”, 37 Jewish Politica l Review, 11:3-4, 1999, pp. 11-38. See: Yosef Shalhav and Moti Kaplan, the Ultra-Orthodox Community and Environmental Conservation, Jerusalem 2003, pages 31-36. [41] For more about the balanced and metered approach of Judaism towards environmental conservation for its own sake, see: Vogel, David. “How Green Is Judaism? Exploring Jewish Environmental Ethics.” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 2, 2001, pp. 349–63; Rabbi Yehoshua Pepper, “That You Have Made a Little Less” – On the Boundaries of Human Responsibility, Tzarich Iyun, 8th of Cheshvan 5782.
