Zoo Torah: Correction, and The Religion of Conservation Part II

Enjoy

Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University

Correction:

Several months ago, I sent out an essay in which I sought to explain
why apparent exceptions to principles in the Gemara do not give reason
to doubt the truth of those principles. To this effect, I cited the
view of Rabbi Yonasan Eybeshitz and Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg that
rules given by the Gemara which concern biological phenomena are not
intended to include every single case but are intended instead as
general rules that may well have minor exceptions. I attempted to
illustrate this with the fascinating case of "Mike the headless
chicken" which I offered as an example of an exception to the rule of
"psik raisha velo yamus."

However, it was pointed out to me that since part of Mike's brain stem
did remain, this is not a correct example, since the Gemara presumably
referred to the entirety of the creature's head being removed. I accept
the correction and deeply regret the error.

I also had made a serious error of judgment here. The goal of teaching =
Rav
Eybeshitz's general principle was to show that the Gemara's principles
are true even where there seem to be cases that contradict them. I
wrote it precisely so that people should not open their Shas and
challenge the authority of every statement. But, to my dismay, it was
pointed out that some people believed that my essay would lead people
to draw that very conclusion! Baruch Hashem, I have rabbeim who will
call me to task for errors, and I listen to their advice. It was bad
judgment for which I apologize.

(I would like to thank those people who have since sent me other,
correct examples of Rav Eybeschitz's principle.)


The following essay is extracted and adapted from my forthcoming book,
Man and Beast: Torah Perspectives And Laws Concerning Man's
Relationship With The Animal Kingdom. This book is being prepared for
release within the next few months. If you would be able to assist
with the publication of this book, dedication opportunities are
available. Please write to me at zoorabbi@xxxxxxxxxxxx for details.
Thank you!

- Rabbi Natan Slifkin


The Religion of Conservation, Part II

IV. The Extent of Respect

>From a secular perspective, the reasons for conservation (utilitarian
value of various creatures and the importance of the ecosystem to
perpetuating it) do not apply on a small scale. There is no reason not
to gratuitously stamp on an ant or pull a branch off a tree. But from
a Torah perspective, on the other hand, even such small abuses of the
natural world are prohibited.

"Even the least of creatures should be extremely important in his eyes
and he should pay attention to it=85 One's mercy should extend over all
creatures, not to treat them disrespectfully or destroy them. For the
Higher Wisdom is spread upon all creations, inanimate matter, plants,
live creatures and people. And for this reason, we are warned against
treating food disrespectfully. Along these lines, it is befitting that
just as the Higher Wisdom does not disdain any creature, and causes
everything, as it is written, "You made them all with wisdom" (Psalms
104:24), so should man's mercy be upon all God's works=85 Along these
lines, a person should not treat anything disrespectfully, for all
were made with wisdom. He should not uproot a plant except where
necessary and he should not cause the death of a living creature
except where necessary, in which case he should ensure them an
appropriate death, with a checked knife, to be as merciful as
possible." =96 (Tomer Devorah 2,3)

A disciple of the Arizal writes:
"My master was careful never to kill any insect, even the smallest and
least of them, such as fleas, lice and flies =96 even if they were
causing him pain." - Rabbi Chaim Vital, Shaar HaMitzvos, Noach

Rabbi Aryeh Levine tells a wonderful story:
"I recall the early days from 1905 onward, when it was granted me by
the grace of Hashem, the Blessed One, to go up to the Holy Land, and I
came to Jaffa. There I first went to visit our great master Rabbi
Abraham Isaac Kook who received me with good cheer, as it was his
hallowed custom to receive everyone. We chatted together on themes of
Torah study. After an early minhah (afternoon prayer service) he went
out, as his hallowed custom was, 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 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 teachings of the Sages that there is not a
single blade of grass below, here on earth, which does not have a
heavenly force above telling it, Grow! Every sprout and leaf of grass
says something, conveys some meaning. Every stone whispers some hidden
message in the silence. Every creation utters its songs.' Those words,
spoken from a pure and holy heart, engraved themselves deeply on my
heart. From that time on I began to feel a strong sense of compassion
for everything." =96 (Simcha Raz, A Tzad*** in our Time)


V. Conceptual Conservation

>From a technical point of view, many Torah opinions state that animals
only have identity in terms of the species, not the individual, and
therefore Divine providence only concerns itself with whether the
species is surviving, not if any given individual is surviving.
However, the mitzvos relating to conservation involve everyone in the
ideology behind this by asking them to show respect for the concept of
the perpetuation of a species. There are two commandments that convey
this message:

"If you happen across a bird's nest... Do not take the mother bird
together with the children." - Deuteronomy 22:6

"You shall not slaughter [an animal] and its young on the same day."
Leviticus 22:28

Ramban explains:
"If you happen across a bird's nest=85" =96 this commandment is also
clearly similar to "It and its young (you shall not slaughter on the
same day). For the reason with both of them is that we should not have
a cruel heart that does not have compassion. Alternately, Scripture
does not permit us to engage in destruction, to uproot a species, even
though it did allow the slaughter of animals of that species. And if
one kills a mother and young on one day, or takes them both together
when they could have flown away, it is as though he is exterminating
that species. (Ramban, Deuteronomy 22:6; also Rabbeinu Bechaya ad
loc.)

In showing concern for the survival of the species, we are paying
tribute to God's own care for them:

"One must send the mother from the nest before taking the young, as it
says, "You shall send away the mother, and take the young for
yourself" (Deuteronomy 22:7). Among the roots of this commandment is
that we should internalize that God's providence is upon all of His
creatures; amongst the human race, with individuals=85 and with other
types of animals, with the type as a whole. That is to say, the desire
of God is for the survival of the type=85" (Sefer HaChinnuch, mitzvah
545)

Thus, conservation is not only relevant to, say, the president of
Venezuela deciding whether a particular rainforest should be razed or
saved, but even to a person who comes across the nest of a pigeon and
is tempted to take both mother and young for his dinner. Or, to put it
another way: while the conventional viewpoint in the world is that
conservation is only relevant with creatures such as condors, Judaism
sees it as relevant even with chickens.


VI. The Religion of Conservation

If one believes in the importance of conservation, then religion
should be meaningful; if one believes in the importance of religion,
then conservation should be meaningful. If one feels that animals have
a right to exist, then it is God Who granted that right. If one feels
that animals have a purpose, then it is God Who bestowed that purpose.
If one feels that animals were "meant to be," then it is God Who means
them to be.

In a collection of essays published by the Humane Society of the
United States, this point is also brought out:

"Study of the history of ethical systems will quickly show how closely
such systems are bound up with fundamental religious belief=85 When
sensitive people contemplate the finality of loss involved in the
destruction of a species, do they sense the wrongness of this
destruction? If the answer is yes, their recognition of the evil of
the loss goes beyond practical considerations. They sense an intrinsic
impoverishment of the planet=85
"The point of view from which the destruction of a species is regarded
as a significant loss is primarily aesthetic. A rich variety,
harmoniously related, is an aesthetic value=85 But from what perspective
is this variety of value? From the perspective of the experience of
individual animals its value is negligible. From the perspective of
human experience there is some loss, since some humans do enjoy either
actually seeing a multiplicity of animals or knowing that they could
be seen. But this still does not account for the concern generated in
sensitive persons by the contemplation of the wholesale destruction of
a species. The impoverishment they sense is of the biosphere as a
whole. They believe the world in its entirety is objectively
impoverished whether any individual experience is harmed or not. Such
a conviction makes sense only if there is a perspective for which the
world exists as a whole and for which the variety of species is
experientially real. The loss of conscious and explicit belief in God
weakens our ability to assert holistic judgments of value, but the
sense that there is a perspective more inclusive than one's own is not
entirely eradicated. [This sense is based on] an implicit belief in
God that would be strengthened and made more explicit if that belief
could be made explicit." (John B. Cobb Jr., "Beyond Anthropocentrism
in Ethics and Religion," in On The Fifth Day: Animal Rights & Human
Ethics pp. 148-149)

Let us end with the words of the Midrash:

"Look at the work of God, for who can rectify that which he has
damaged" (Eccelesiastes 7:13) =96 At the time when God created Adam, He
took him around the trees of the Garden of Eden, and He said to him,
"Look at My works, how beautiful and praiseworthy they are! Everything
that I created, I created for you; take care that you do not damage
and destroy My world, for if you damage it, there is no one to repair
it afterwards!" (Midrash Koheles Rabbah 7:19)


==================================================================
Zoo Torah is a non-profit educational enterprise that offers a series
of books, programs for both adults and children, zoo tours, and South
African safaris, all on the theme of Judaism and the animal kingdom.
For more details and a taste of the experience, see www.zootorah.com.
This essay is produced by Zoo Torah in collaboration with Ohr Somayach
Institutions (www.ohr.edu). For details of the books from which these
essays are extracted, see www.targum.com/store/Slifkin.html.

==================================================================
(c) Copyright by Rabbi Natan Slifkin 2005, zoorabbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx All
rights reserved.
To subscribe to this list send an e-mail to nature-subscribe@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an e-mail to nature-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
.