In a charged environment with some predicting dire consequences of global warning, and others further advocating for the use of fossil fuels, does Judaism speak with meaningfully to our current situation?
From the World Health Organization (www.who.int):
Extreme high air temperatures contribute directly to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, particularly among elderly people. In the heat wave of summer 2003 in Europe for example, more than 70 000 excess deaths were recorded.
High temperatures also raise the levels of ozone and other pollutants in the air that exacerbate cardiovascular and respiratory disease.
Pollen and other aeroallergen levels are also higher in extreme heat. These can trigger asthma, which affects around 300 million people. Ongoing temperature increases are expected to increase this burden....
Increasingly variable rainfall patterns are likely to affect the supply of fresh water. A lack of safe water can compromise hygiene and increase the risk of diarrhoeal disease, which kills over 500 000 children aged under 5 years, every year. In extreme cases, water scarcity leads to drought and famine. By the late 21st century, climate change is likely to increase the frequency and intensity of drought at regional and global scale.
Floods are also increasing in frequency and intensity, and the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation is expected to continue to increase throughout the current century. Floods contaminate freshwater supplies, heighten the risk of water-borne diseases, and create breeding grounds for disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes. They also cause drownings and physical injuries, damage homes and disrupt the supply of medical and health services.
Rising temperatures and variable precipitation are likely to decrease the production of staple foods in many of the poorest regions. This will increase the prevalence of malnutrition and undernutrition, which currently cause 3.1 million deaths every year...
Changes in climate are likely to lengthen the transmission seasons of important vector-borne diseases and to alter their geographic range. For example, climate change is projected to widen significantly the area of China where the snail-borne disease schistosomiasis occurs.
Measuring the health effects
Measuring the health effects from climate change can only be very approximate. Nevertheless, a WHO assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, and assuming continued economic growth and health progress, concluded that climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050; 38 000 due to heat exposure in elderly people, 48 000 due to diarrhoea, 60 000 due to malaria, and 95 000 due to childhood undernutrition.
Who is at risk?
All populations will be affected by climate change, but some are more vulnerable than others. People living in small island developing states and other coastal regions, megacities, and mountainous and polar regions are particularly vulnerable.
Children – in particular, children living in poor countries – are among the most vulnerable to the resulting health risks and will be exposed longer to the health consequences. The health effects are also expected to be more severe for elderly people and people with infirmities or pre-existing medical conditions.
קהלת רבה פרשה ז
בשעה שברא הקב”ה את אדם הראשון נטלו והחזירו על כל אילני גן עדן ואמר לו ראה מעשי כמה נאים ומשובחין הן וכל מה שבראתי בשבילך בראתי, תן דעתך שלא תקלקל ותחריב את עולמי, שאם קלקלת אין מי שיתקן אחריך
Midrash Kohelet Raba 7:28:
When the Holy One of Blessing created the first human He took him and showed him all the trees of the Garden of Eden and said to him ‘See My works, how beautiful and praiseworthy they are. And everything that I created, I created it for you. Be careful not to spoil or destroy My world – for if you do, there will be nobody after you to repair it.’
This is a beautiful text but a bit vague. What would qualify as "spoiling or destroying" the world?
ויקרא רבה פרשה כה:ג
ר”י ב”ר סימון פתח (דברים יג) אחרי ה’ א-להיכם תלכו, וכי אפשר לבשר ודם להלוך אחר הקב”ה… אלא מתחלת ברייתו של עולם לא נתעסק הקב”ה אלא במטע תחלה הדא הוא דכתיב (בראשית ב) ויטע ה’ א-להים גן בעדן, אף אתם כשנכנסין לארץ לא תתעסקו אלא במטע תחלה הדא הוא דכתיב כי תבאו אל הארץ.
Vayikra Rabbah 25:3
Rabbi Yehudah ben Shimon began his discourse with the text, “After Ad-nai your God shall you walk” (Deuteronomy 12:5). But can a man of flesh and blood walk after the Holy One of Blessing?… But in truth the Holy One, blessed be He, from the very beginning of the creation of the world, was before all else occupied with planting, as is proved by the text, “And the Ad-nai God planted a garden in Eden” (Genesis 2:8), and so do you also, when you enter into the land, occupy yourselves first with nothing else but planting; hence it is written, “And when you shall come into the land, you shall plant (Lev. 19:23).”
יומא חד הוה אזל באורחא חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה נטע חרובא אמר ליה האי עד כמה שנין טעין אמר ליה עד שבעין שנין אמר ליה פשיטא לך דחיית שבעין שנין אמר ליה האי [גברא] עלמא בחרובא אשכחתיה כי היכי דשתלי לי אבהתי שתלי נמי לבראי יתיב קא כריך ריפתא אתא ליה שינתא נים אהדרא ליה משוניתא איכסי מעינא ונים שבעין שנין כי קם חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מלקט מינייהו אמר ליה את הוא דשתלתיה א"ל בר בריה אנא אמר ליה שמע מינה דניימי שבעין שנין חזא לחמריה דאתיילידא ליה רמכי רמכי אזל לביתיה אמר להו בריה דחוני המעגל מי קיים אמרו ליה בריה ליתא בר בריה איתא אמר להו אנא חוני המעגל לא הימנוהו אזל לבית המדרש שמעינהו לרבנן דקאמרי נהירן שמעתתין כבשני חוני המעגל דכי הוי עייל לבית מדרשא כל קושיא דהוו להו לרבנן הוה מפרק להו אמר להו אנא ניהו לא הימנוהו ולא עבדי ליה יקרא כדמבעי ליה חלש דעתיה בעי רחמי ומית אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברותא או מיתותא..
R. Johanan said: This righteous man [Honi] was throughout the whole of his life troubled about the meaning of the verse, "A Song of Ascents, When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream." (Ps 126:1) Is it possible for a man to dream continuously for seventy years?
One day, he (Honi) was walking on the road and saw a certain man that was planting a carob tree. He said to him, 'How many years until this [tree] will be laden [with fruit]?' He said to him, 'Until seventy years.' He said to him, 'Is it obvious to you that you will live [another] seventy years?' He said to him, 'That man found the world with carob trees. In the same way as my fathers planted for me, I will also plant for my children.' He sat and wrapped bread (ate his meal). Sleep came to him and he fell asleep. A boulder encircled him and he was shielded from the eye [of others] and he fell asleep for seventy years. When he got up, he saw a certain man that was plucking [the fruits of the carob tree]. He said to him, 'Are you the one that planted it?' He said to him, 'I am the son of his son.' He said to him, 'It is understood from this that I fell asleep for seventy years.' He saw that his donkey had given birth to several generations. He went to his home and he said to them, Is the son of Choni the Circle-maker alive? They said to him, 'His son is not, but the son of his son is.' He said to them, 'I am Choni the Circle-maker.' They did not believe him. He went to the study hall and he heard the rabbis who were saying. 'Our discussions are as clear as in the years of Choni the Circle-maker. Since when he would come to the study hall, he would answer all the questions that the rabbis had.' He said to them, 'I am he.' They did not believe him and they did not give him the respect that was appropriate. His feelings were upset and he prayed for mercy and died." Said Rava, "That is what [is meant by that which] people say, 'Either companionship or death.'" Give me havruta or give me death
What is the principal by which Honi lived his life?
Do we (as individuals and as a society) live by that principal? If not, what would it look like to live by it?
These sources so far have been aggadic rather than halachic. What sort of halachic force does this give them?
Different Levels of Prohibition
Commentary on Rambam, Kriat Shema 2:13-14
By Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom
Online at torah.org
Rambam:
13. If he had a *Safek* (doubt) if he read K’riat Sh’ma or not, he must reread it and say the B’rakhot beforehand and afterwards. However, if he knew that he read [K’riat Sh’ma] but had a Safek if he recited the B’rakhot beforehand and afterwards, he does not repeat the B’rakhot.
Someone who is obligated to read K’riat Sh’ma must complete the reading without a doubt.
SAFEK D’RABANAN vs. SAFEK D’ORAYTA
All laws within the scope of Halakhah are classified as either Rabbinic in origin (“d’Rabanan”) or Torahic in origin (“d’Orayta”). Generally we maintain that a law which is explicitly mandated in the Torah – such as avoiding certain labors on Shabbat, honring parents – is d’Orayta and “anything else” is d’Rabanan. However, this rule is far from consistent; there are many details of Torahic laws which, although not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are either inferred from hermenutical rules of exegesis (“Midot shehaTorah Nidreshet Bahen”) or are held to be Sinaitic traditions (“Halakhah l’Moshe miSinai”).
However, when a Rabbinic Court establishes a law, be it an ordinance, decree or custom (see MT Mamrim, Chapter 1 for a full treatment), this law has the status of a “d’Rabanan.” For example, not mixing (cooking/eating) chicken with dairy is a Rabbinic prohibition; shaking Lulav on the 2nd day of Sukkot and onwards is a Rabbinic ordinance.
The general Halakhic rule is “Safek d’Orayta l’Humra (a doubt regarding a Torahic law is treated stringently; i.e. we err on the side of caution) – Safek d’Rabanan l’Kula” (a doubt regarding a Rabbinic law is treated leniently). (BT Betza 3b)
Since Rambam clearly holds that K’riat Sh’ma is a Mitzva d’Orayta (as he counts it among his list of 613 Mitzvot), and that the B’rakhot beforehand and afterwards are d’Rabanan – he is being consistent by ruling that if someone was in doubt regarding K’riat Sh’ma – any part of it – he must go back and read it; however, if he knew that he read K’riat Sh’ma but was unsure about the B’rakhot, since they are d’Rabanan, he would not go back and say them again.
Are the concerns raised by global warning d'orayta, d'rabbana, or aggadic?
Given this analysis, what is their halachic force?
מי שנפל עליו מפולת וכו'
מאי קאמר
לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא ספק הוא שם ספק אינו שם דאי איתיה חי הוא דמפקחין אלא אפילו ספק חי ספק מת מפקחין ולא מיבעיא ספק חי ספק מת דישראל אלא אפילו ספק כותי ספק ישראל מפקחין
one upon whom a rockslide fell, and there is uncertainty whether he is there under the debris or whether he is not there; and there is uncertainty whether he is still alive or whether he is dead; and there is uncertainty whether the person under the debris is a gentile or whether he is Jew, one clears the pile from atop him.
The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Why does it bring three different uncertainties to illustrate the principle that one violates Shabbat to save a life even in a case of uncertainty?
The Gemara explains: It is speaking using the style of: Needless to say, and the mishna should be understood as follows: Needless to say, in a case where it is uncertain whether he is there or not there, one removes the debris, since if he is there and he is alive, one must clear the debris. But even if it is uncertain whether he is alive or dead, one must clear the debris. And needless to say, when there is uncertainty whether he is alive or dead, but it is certain that he is a Jew, one must clear the debris. Rather, one must clear the debris even if there is uncertainty whether he is a gentile or a Jew.
This passage introduces the concept of safek nefashot (a situation which may be life saving). What abstract principal is it teaching? Does that apply to our case?
Which experts do we listen to?
It was taught in the mishna: If a person is ill and requires food due to potential danger, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. Rabbi Yannai said: If an ill person says he needs to eat, and a doctor says he does not need to eat, one listens to the ill person.What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the verse states: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (Proverbs 14:10), meaning an ill person knows the intensity of his pain and weakness, and doctors cannot say otherwise.
The Gemara asks: It is obvious that a person knows himself better than anyone else does. Why does this need to be stated explicitly? The Gemara answers: It is lest you say that the doctor is more certain because he has had more experience with this condition. Therefore, the verse teaches us that even so, it is the ill person who knows his own suffering better than anyone else. However, in the opposite case, if a doctor says that the ill person needs food, but the ill person himself says he does not need to eat, one listens to the doctor. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because confusion [tunba] has taken hold of the ill person on account of his illness, and his judgment is impaired. Consequently, he himself does not know how much he needs food.
§ We learned in the mishna: If a person is ill, one feeds him according to the advice of medical experts. This implies that if there are experts present, then according to the advice of experts, yes, one feeds the ill person; but at his own instructions, no, one does not feed him, contrary to Rabbi Yannai’s opinion. It further implies that according to the advice of several experts, yes, one feeds an ill person; however, according to the advice of only one expert, no, one does not feed him. There appears to be a requirement for at least two doctors, which also contradicts Rabbi Yannai’s opinion that the opinion of one expert is sufficient to override the opinion of the ill person. The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a unique circumstance: The ill person says I do not need food, and the consultation of experts is required. The Gemara suggests: But let them feed him according to the advice of one expert, as Rabbi Yannai said that in such a circumstance one feeds the ill person based on the advice of one doctor. The Gemara answers: No, the requirement of two experts is necessary in a case where there is another, third expert with him who says that the ill person does not need to eat. In such a case, one feeds the ill person according to the advice of two experts who agree that he requires it. The Gemara asks: If so, this is obvious, since it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, and in all cases of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation, the halakha is lenient. The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where there are two other doctors who, along with the ill person, say that he does not need food. And although Rav Safra said that two witnesses are like one hundred witnesses, and one hundred witnesses are like two witnesses, that rule applies specifically to the matter of testimony; however, in the matter of assessing a situation, we follow the majority of opinions. Therefore, one might think in this case that the ill person should not be fed because the opinion of two doctors plus the ill person should override the opposing opinion of two other doctors. Generally speaking, two or more witnesses constitute complete testimony, and there is no difference between the testimony of two and the testimony of a large number of people. However, this principle of following the majority applies specifically to assessing monetary issues, but here it is a case of uncertainty concerning a life-threatening situation. Therefore, although it is the opinion of two doctors against the opinion of two doctors and the ill person, the ill person must eat. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna that if there are no experts present one feeds him according to his own opinion, by inference, the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where the ill person said he needs to eat. In that case, the mishna states that one follows the experts’ opinion, not his own, and feeds him. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that he may eat only based on the advice of experts said? It is when the ill person said: I do not need to eat. But if he said: I do need to eat, and instead of two experts there is only one who says that he does not need to eat, one feeds him according to his own opinion. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Any instance where an ill person says: I need to eat, even if there are one hundred expert doctors who say that he does not need to eat, we listen to his own opinion and feed him, as it is stated: “The heart knows the bitterness of its soul” (Proverbs 14:10).
This passage distinguishes testimony regarding money vs life threatening situation. In a life threatening situation, what are the operative principals?
When would we follow the majority of doctors? Why would we choose to follow a majority opinion versus a minority opinion of doctors?
It has been asserted that "97 percent of climate scientists believe that the earth’s climate is warming and human activity is the most likely cause." The number may not be accurate because it does not account for papers which did not take a position on the issue. How does this apply to our situation?
(ט) אָמַר לָהֶם, צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אֵיזוֹהִי דֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה שֶׁיִּדְבַּק בָּהּ הָאָדָם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, עַיִן טוֹבָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, חָבֵר טוֹב. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, שָׁכֵן טוֹב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הַנּוֹלָד. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, לֵב טוֹב.
(9) He said to them: Go out and see what is a straight path that a person should cling to. Rabbi Eliezer says: A good eye. Rabbi Yehoshua says: A good friend. Rabbi Yosi says: A good neighbor. Rabbi Shimon says: Seeing the consequences of one's actions. Rabbi Elazar says: A good heart.
Jay Kellman writes: Our Sages defined a chacham as one who is roeh et hanolad, who foresees the results of his actions. We live in a world which is focused on the here and now, with only the great amongst us able or even willing to try and see the impact on tomorrow of what we do today.
Why is this so hard?