0

The medrash in kohelet rabah 7:13 says to not destroy the planet on grounds that there's no one who will be able to repair the damages. Is this an endorsement for Jews to be concerned with climate change and the like? Would G.od really allow us humans to destroy ourselves in this manner? Furthermore, being that humanity's effect on the destruction of the planet is debated amongst scientists, what is Judasim's approach to science in this respect?

רְאֵה אֶת מַעֲשֵׂה הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי מִי יוּכַל לְתַקֵּן אֵת אֲשֶׁר עִוְּתוֹ, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, נְטָלוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירוֹ עַל כָּל אִילָנֵי גַּן עֵדֶן, וְאָמַר לוֹ, רְאֵה מַעֲשַׂי כַּמָּה נָאִים וּמְשֻׁבָּחִין הֵן, וְכָל מַה שֶּׁבָּרָאתִי בִּשְׁבִילְךָ בָּרָאתִי, תֵּן דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁלֹא תְקַלְקֵל וְתַחֲרִיב אֶת עוֹלָמִי, שֶׁאִם קִלְקַלְתָּ אֵין מִי שֶׁיְתַקֵּן אַחֲרֶיךָ

“See the work of God, for who can mend what He has warped?” (Ecclesiastes 7:13)“See the work of God, for who can mend what He has warped?” 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.

My question is whether this medrash implies that our "alleged damage" to the world is irreversible or not?

Rabbi Kaii
  • 9,499
  • 3
  • 10
  • 50
Shababnik
  • 1,862
  • 2
  • 24
  • 3
    The midrash seems to be referring to spiritual preservation. As for environmentalism, Judaism teaches us not to be wasteful and destructive, but I don't know that we're tasked with saving the planet in the broad physical sense. See also https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/30968/6592 – shmosel Jul 30 '23 at 05:06
  • The medrash mentions trees which doesn't seem to point toward spiritual preservation. – Shababnik Jul 30 '23 at 06:16
  • It's talking about preserving the physical world (to the extent the Gan Eden can be considered physical) by proper spiritual conduct. – shmosel Jul 30 '23 at 06:19
  • Is there a source for your claim that this is connected to spirituality? – Shababnik Jul 30 '23 at 07:21
  • 1
    It's in context of Adam and the destruction he brought to the world by sinning. Do you have a reason to interpret it otherwise? – shmosel Jul 30 '23 at 07:53
  • I understand that the meforshim on the pasuk explain it as our sins being a destructive force. Though can the medrash be interpreted the same way? – Shababnik Jul 31 '23 at 13:54
  • Welcome to Mi Yodeya. I'd suggest looking to Rabbi Zalman Shachter-Shalomi who created the term "Eco-Kosher". He believed that it is necessary for halacha to consider the ramifications of nature. As an example, the kashrus of an item may not be limited to the traditional parameters of kosher but should also include thoughtfulness of the items effect on nature. He would often say that it would be more Eco Kosher to use a questionable ceramic cup then using a styrofoam cup which is detrimental to the earth. – The Targum Aug 01 '23 at 19:29
  • The earth will never go away. If the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs wasn't enough to destroy the earth, no amount of nuclear weapons or climate change will kill it. We may destroy ourselves, but the earth will be here. The earth isn't going away any time soon. – Turk Hill Aug 09 '23 at 21:22
  • Is there a source for your claim that this is connected to spirituality? The Mesillas Yeshorim in the first chapter quotes this medrash. ואם הוא שולט בעצמו ונדבק בבוראו ומשתמש מן העולם רק להיות לו לסיוע לעבודת בוראו, הוא מתעלה והעולם עצמו מתעלה עמו... והנה על העיקר הזה העירונו זכרונם לברכה במדרש קהלת (רבה, ז) שאמרו, זה לשונם: ראה את מעשה האלהים וגו' (קהלת ז), בשעה שברא הקדוש ברוך הוא את אדם הראשון, נטלו והחזירו על כל אילני גן עדן ואמר לו, ראה מעשי כמה נאים ומשובחים הן, וכל מה שבראתי בשבילך בראתי, תן דעתך שלא תקלקל ותחריב את עולמי. https://www.sefaria.org/Mesilat_Yesharim.1.14?lang=he – Learnmore Aug 10 '23 at 02:00

3 Answers3

2

Interesting question.

Taking a strictly legal perspective:

If it were to be forbidden to contribute to climate change, it would be worth analyzing the "shiur". In other words, we need to investigate what type of behavior specifically, and in what amount, would be forbidden.

Here are some specific actions that by tradition are permissible in any measure, but are reputed to contribute to climate change:

  • Lighting fires with any type of fuel

  • Throwing garbage in the ocean

  • Raising cattle

  • Cutting down trees for fuel or other uses

The assumptions I'm making here are:

  1. that if it were to be forbidden, it would be forbidden in minimal measure, or there would be a specific, clearly definable act that would be forbidden
  2. that the Torah would have preempted this discussion by forbidding such acts in certain measures

Note that this argument does not preclude the idea that it might be in keeping with good values to preserve the climate, but rather addresses what are the legal obligations of the individual.

Outside of that issue, it's worth investigating if we are required to encourage non-jews to preserve the climate. I don't believe it's anywhere in the Noahide laws.

All of that aside, there are some things that the Torah does not need to advise because they are of obvious benefit. If that's the case, it doesn't have a specific endorsement.

Ethan Leonard
  • 684
  • 1
  • 8
  • In response to your 2nd point, the Torah doesn't involve itself with science it leaves that up to the rabanan and the scientific worldview of the time. – Shababnik Aug 02 '23 at 13:22
  • My question is whether this medrash implies that our "alleged damage" to the world is irreversible as per this medrash or not? – Shababnik Aug 02 '23 at 13:25
  • @Shababnik I see. I thought it was about "is this an endorsement for Jews to care about climate change". However, even with your point about about science (which is borne out by the fact that the Torah does not instruct us on nutrition but instead tells us to care for out health and learn about how to do that), with climate change, there is no "moderation" to my knowledge; any burned fuel advances the greenhouse effect. If that's the case, why is it permitted expressly? This answer preempts the question you intended, because if there IS no damage, it is certainly not the topic of the medrash. – Ethan Leonard Aug 03 '23 at 06:57
  • Non-Jew's mission is building the world, making it civilised and liveable (based on Yishayahu 45:18), so indeed we should encourage them to do so when we have the opportunity. – Rabbi Kaii Aug 09 '23 at 09:50
  • 'there is no "moderation" to my knowledge; any burned fuel advances the greenhouse effect.' That seems wrong to me. Anything that takes from the world does "damage" to everyone else, in the sense that they can't take it anymore. I'm allowed to do it anyhow, in moderation. You need to quantify this. If I increase global temperature a billionth of a degree, we may all be justified in ignoring it. If I understand correctly, almost all major impacts are currently driven by China's CO2 and soon India's CO2 and eventually Africa's CO2, and whatever the rest of us do is becoming increasingly trivial. – MichoelR Aug 09 '23 at 16:45
  • @MichoelR there are indeed many things which are considered "מקום שחב לאחרים" , and are anyways permitted, but not only in moderation! (The only limit on this category, to my knowledge, is that they can only be acquired for the finder. This suggests (but does not state) that the permission to take from the world is meant to be limited by one's own consumption, but by nothing else.) This usurps your argument that a small measure ought to be permitted regardless of the category. Your argument, in fact, supports the idea that on a large scale, we are legally obligated to combat climate change. – Ethan Leonard Aug 14 '23 at 11:07
  • @RabbiKaii good, strong point. (It's of course still worth investigating on a case by case basis if the policy being discussed is expressly in advancement of this goal, which may be muddled by the communal costs of implementation, but the concept that it should be a value for them remains.) However, what I'm still unclear on is where this lies in their obligation. If a non Jew burns a forest down for no reason (causing no damage to private property), are they liable for the death penalty? If not, what precisely is the nature of this requirement for them? – Ethan Leonard Aug 14 '23 at 11:21
  • "This usurps your argument that a small measure ought to be permitted regardless of the category." I think you overstated my argument, and then overstated the refutation. I am waiting to hear evidence. There are many cases in Bava Basra where someone is not allowed to damage their neighbors, and other cases where Chazal said that the burden is on others and they are acting normally (enough). Can you plant a mustard field next to honeybees? How about a chemical plant next door? You need evidence for a particular case. – MichoelR Aug 14 '23 at 22:08
  • @MichoelR let's be clear on your argument: I thought it was: permission to take from the world in moderation despite "damage to others" suggests that moderation permits otherwise forbidden actions, such as (assumedly) destroying the world through climate change. That's why I argued that specifically taking from the world is not even like indirect damage to one's neighbor, which does have nuance of amount (like you said), but rather it is part of a category of depletion of resource, which it is not limited by "moderation", but rather by what the individual needs for themselves. – Ethan Leonard Aug 14 '23 at 23:14
  • Not sure what you mean by "what the individual needs for himself". If someone finds a pot of gold, he may not need all that money but he should be allowed to take it. If he finds a virgin forest, he certainly wouldn't be allowed to burn it down, but he's probably allowed to cut it for wood? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know where all this is coming from. – MichoelR Aug 15 '23 at 00:54
  • @MichoelR the rule is that there is no זכיה במקום שחב לאחרים. You're right about both examples and the terminology ("need"). I should have said "wants". The point is that it is limited by an individual's apetite alone (can't acquire on behalf of someone else) , which means it is not limited by the amount the individual takes, even if depletion of the resource would be harmful to others, so moderation is not the benchmark of permissibility, but rather the type of action. To reiterate my point above, it's permitted to burn fuels without moderation, unless we see some explicit evidence otherwise. – Ethan Leonard Aug 15 '23 at 01:24
2

This Etz Yosef explains that Hashem is bringing a limit on what was taught before. In a previous teaching, we were informed that Hashem created Adam first, rather than Avraham, because if Avraham sinned, then nobody would be able to fix it. However, if Adam sinned, Avraham would be able to fix it.

Therefore, says Etz Yosef, this teaching is clarifying that the damage that Avraham will repair is not referring to the damage of the curses resulting from Adam's sin. Those, he cannot repair.

So this is not referring to climate change, Hashem is warning Adam that there will be some damage he will do when he eats the tree that cannot be repaired by anyone, and that damage is the cursed land, death etc. which fall upon the land forever.

Rabbi Kaii
  • 9,499
  • 3
  • 10
  • 50
  • That is not the plain meaning of the midrash. The midrash is referring to destructive behavior in relation to God's creation, the earth. While the midrash was unaware of climate change, this includes climate change. – Turk Hill Aug 09 '23 at 19:19
  • @TurkHill I don't know if I am as good at reading midrash as you, to me this is a drash, so "the plain meaning of a midrash" hurts my brain lol. – Rabbi Kaii Aug 09 '23 at 19:28
  • Of course, we have to remember that whatever is of God’s doing is unalterable by man. – Turk Hill Aug 09 '23 at 21:11
-1

There are two main positions held by mainstream religious Jews regarding climate change.

A quick summary of the theory of climate change: CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the Earth's climate to warm to the point that it will eventually become so hot at the poles that the icecaps will melt, resulting in a rise in sea levels that will devestate large swaths of currently inhabited land, including 75% of the world's major cities.

One group of mainstream religious Jews looks at this phenomenon and immediately sees the Rambam's Negative Commandment #57 against wanton/needless destruction.

Interestingly, this commandment, which is based on Devarim 20:19 is read out by the Gemarra to refer to needless destruction in general, but in the Torah refers specifically to trees (the case in the Torah is the fruit trees belonging to an enemy city under siege and how even in such a situation it is forbidden to destroy them).

The other mainstream group of religious Jews looks at this phenomenon and immediately refers to Genesis 9:11-14 and says, "oh, the fear is that the world will be destroyed by a flood? G-d explicitly said, "And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

The latter argument is further bolstered by the Gemarra in Avodah Zarah 3B-4A, which states

"And if you wish, say instead that this is referring to the World-to-Come, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: There is no Gehenna in the World-to-Come. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will remove the sun from its sheath [minnarteikah], where it is situated during these times, and heats [umakdir] that world with it. The wicked will be punished by it and consumed by the heat, but the righteous will be healed by it. The wicked will be punished by it, as it is written:

“For, behold, the day comes, it burns as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that comes shall set them ablaze, said the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch” (Malachi 3:19).

This verse is interpreted as follows: Neither a root shall remain for them in this world, nor will a branch grow for them in the World-to-Come. This teaches that the sun itself will burn and consume the wicked in the future. And the righteous will be healed by it, as it is written in the next verse: “But to you that fear My Name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings” (Malachi 3:20). And moreover, not only will they be healed by it, but they will even be rejuvenated by it, as it is stated in the continuation of that verse: “And you shall go forth and leap as calves of the stall.” [end quote from the Gemarra]

This Gemarra appears to imply that a process similar to what we perceive as global warming may actually be extremely beneficial.

Both groups clearly have solid textual suport for their positions, and both groups have rabbis big and small in their camps.

יהושע ק
  • 5,146
  • 2
  • 14
  • 27
  • 3
    This is a false dichotomy. God also promised that the Jewish people will not cease to exist and yet the prohibition on murder remains in force. – Double AA Jul 31 '23 at 22:52
  • Quite true @DoubleAA. But I am not giving prescriptive psak on 'what a Jew should believe about climate change' I'm describing two widely held positions and the texts underpinning them. – יהושע ק Jul 31 '23 at 22:55
  • You are describing two uncontroversial claims about Judaism that all Jews hold by – Double AA Jul 31 '23 at 23:10
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I don't think your example is symmetric. Murder is definitely causing a detrimental effect, while burning fossil fuels is only debatably going to bring destruction to the world; according to the view that relates the assured continuation of the world to climate change, Hashem won't allow the world to suffer that ruin, which means that the act of burning fossil fuels doesn't cause a definite detrimental effect. – Ethan Leonard Aug 01 '23 at 19:00
  • @EthanLeonard That doesn't follow since we don't know in what way God will keep His promise. And how do you know "Murder is definitely causing a detrimental effect"? – Double AA Aug 01 '23 at 19:07
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I'm saying in the way that they interpret it. The point of the answer was not to argue with the positions but to explain them. Murder definitely causes a detrimental effect because the person definitely dies. – Ethan Leonard Aug 01 '23 at 19:25
  • @EthanLeonard All the answer did was describe two uncontroversial claims about Judaism that all Jews hold by: wanton destruction is bad and God won't allow the world to be destroyed entirely. Exactly parallel to my example. – Double AA Aug 01 '23 at 19:27
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I don't think that's exactly right. The point of the answer, if I understood it correctly, was to connect those claims to climate change. Those connections are absolutely controversial, and they lead to opposing views on climate change. If you believe that G-d won't allow the world to be destroyed entirely, regardless of man's actions, that can be understood to mean that ignoring climate change doesn't necessarily cause any harm at any level, so it's altogether different than murdering a single Jew, which causes harm without destroying all Jews. This has been explained sufficiently. – Ethan Leonard Aug 02 '23 at 00:21
  • @EthanLeonard If you believe that G-d won't allow the world to be destroyed entirely, regardless of man's actions, that cannot be understood to mean that wanton destruction is not harmful since we already know it is harmful, just like we "already know" that murdering a single Jew is harmful (something you still haven't proven). – Double AA Aug 02 '23 at 01:07
  • The only relevant claim to be discussing is if certain actions cause wanton destruction which is purely a scientific claim. Nothing in Judaism will tell you if burning fossil fuels is harmful in some way or not. This answer seems to pretend that we can divine that answer by listing which verse "comes to mind" first. – Double AA Aug 02 '23 at 01:09
  • The flood argument sounds a lot like https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.11a.10. Climate change is not going to cause the whole world to be under water. – Heshy Aug 02 '23 at 09:05
  • I think that as with many other questions, getting the facts right first is essential. Here the facts aren't well-established, at least not to the extent claimed. The latest IPCC report does not - I think - claim that "75% of the world's major cities" will be devastated. AFAIK the report says that climate change will probably cost in the neighborhood of 10% of world GDP by the end of the century. That's an awful lot of money, but it's not like a mabul. Seems more like a Bava Basra question of what's best for society. – MichoelR Aug 09 '23 at 16:34
  • I also wonder if what's happening would be called "needless destruction", when the alternatives usually suggested do things like keeping China and Africa in long-term poverty. These are judgment calls and difficult ones. – MichoelR Aug 09 '23 at 16:36
  • I also think this post would be greatly improved if it gave sources for the statement that "both groups have rabbis big and small in their camps." I find it hard to believe that anyone is in the second group who has actually studied the issues. I rather imagine that the first group is really divided in two, in the ways I mentioned above. That is, those who think the issue is huge and urgent, and those who think that other things override or outweigh it. – MichoelR Aug 09 '23 at 16:38