Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

All the 13-year-old girls in the class are going to the movies together on Sunday, and they plan to say that they are 11 years old in order to receive the cheaper children’s rate.  Jill knows that this is wrong and does not want to lie, but if she does not go along with this idea, she knows that her friends will shun her and she will not be “in’ with the group.

Should a person give in to peer pressure and do something that he or she knows is wrong?  What if it is in order to maintain a friendship?

Answer

[a] We know that we should always do what is right.  The Torah tells us what is proper (mitzvot) and that we are supposed to imitate God’s good ways (Deuteronomy 13:5) “…you should serve the Eternal and cling to God.”  Specifically, we are prohibited from lying (Leviticus 19:11).  It is the only sin in the Torah from which we are specifically commanded to run away: “…keep far from a lie” (Exodus 23:7).

[b] But Judaism also understands and is sensitive to the powerful pull of peer pressure from one’s friends.  For example, in the Korach rebellion, 250 people from the tribe of Reuben team-up with Korach, who is from the tribe of Levi (Numbers 16:1-2) to rebel against Moses.  Rashi (commentary on Numbers 16:1) explains how the Reubenites linked up with Korach: they were camped right next door.  Ultimately, it was Korach’s peer pressure that brought the 250 neighbors into the rebellion.

[c] In a similar fashion, when Lot’s shepherds fought with Abraham’s, the patriarch ordered both Lot and his herders to leave (Genesis 13:7-9).  One explanation of why Abraham took such drastic action is that he was worried about the peer pressure that Lot’s shepherds would push on his own men.  Abraham understood that human beings are strongly influenced by the people with whom they spend  time.  Abraham chose to distance himself and his followers from the negative influence of Lot’s helpers.

[d] In perhaps the most explicit Jewish acknowledgment of the power of peer pressure, Maimonides (Hilchot Deot 6:1) agrees with Abraham that peer pressure is nearly impossible to overcome.  He states that “It is in the very nature of people to be influenced by their peers, both in the way they think and the way they act.”  Therefore, rather than fight peer pressure, Maimonides tells us to make sure to spend time with good people who will pressure us to behave better, not worse, than our natural inclinations.  In fact, Maimonides continues and says that if one cannot find good people to hang around, one should leave his/her city or even his/her country.  If you cannot afford it, choose to live alone in the mountains rather than continue surrounding yourself with people who will negatively affect you.  Thus, according to Maimonides, there is no effective way to combat the pull of peer pressure.

[e] Returning to our question, there are two parts to the answer.  First, Jill should not lie.  Secondly, we are aware of the dangers of peer pressure from people who do not push us to be better than our natural inclination, so it seems that Jill should try not to hang out with this group of friends.  It is not worth maintaining friendships with people who lead you down dishonest and unholy paths.

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 109-111

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

There are two types of Passover “afikomen games.’  In many homes, the leader of the seder hides the afikomen and the children search for it.  In some seders, however, the leader keeps the precious matzah next to him or her, and the children try to “steal” it without being noticed.

As Shira and David, the Weinstein children, grew older, they began to question the practice each Pesach of ”stealing” the afikomen.  While they enjoyed the presents, they also took very seriously the concepts that their parents and Hebrew School teachers had taught them about honesty.  How could it be that Judaism advocates stealing the afikomen, even if it is only a game?  They proposed to abolish this time-honored Pesach custom when they went to their cousin’s seder, where there would be small children.  The adults did not want to throw out the old custom.  

How can we permit “stealing” the afikomen, thereby teaching children that it is permissible to steal?

Answer

[a] Some opinions (M’orai Ohr) say that it is praiseworthy to desist from this custom precisely for the objection raised.

Most disagree and find that “stealing” the afikomen is all right.

[b] The Talmud (Pesachim 109a) gives us the overriding reason why this custom is encouraged: in order to keep the children awake.  Since being at the seder and telling the Passover story is the only mitzvah in the Torah in which children (minors, not at the age of bar or bat mitzvah) must participate (Exodus 13:8), it is crucial that the children remain awake as long as possible.  The most effective method of accomplishing this is by playing the “game” of taking the afikomen, later to be traded in for valuable prizes.

[c] No child falls asleep from boredom as long as the afikomen ransom has not been arranged.  Maimonides (Hilchot Chametz u-Matzah 7:3) codifies this practice by stating that “the matzah is grabbed from one another.”

But although we understand the underlying reason for this practice, the Weinstein children seem to have a point, and the question remains: how can Judaism condone such a practice?  We know that in Judaism the ends never justify the means.  What, then, is the deeper meaning of this custom, and what is its legitimacy?

[d] Rabbi Pinchas HaLevi Horowitz (Germany 1730-1805) suggested a novel and interesting approach:  We know that God promised Abraham that the Jews would leave Egypt with great wealth (Genesis 15:14).  This is repeated in the Torah when God commands the people to ask the Egyptians for gold and silver (Exodus 3:21-22)  But when did this “asking” take place?  If it had happened before the great plague of the First Born on the night of the seder, then the Egyptians would not have been too keen on giving their valuable possessions.  It could not have happened the next morning, as everyone was rushed to leave Egypt.  There was not even time for the bread to bake properly, and that is why we have matzah.  So, the taking of the Egyptian riches must have occurred during the night of the seder, when only the children were allowed out of the house. God had specifically commanded that “No person may go out of his door until the morning” (Exodus 12:22.  During that night, the adults could not go out, but the children could.  It was, therefore, the children who took the gold and silver of Egypt, fulfilling God’s promise.  Thus, the practice today may be considered a reenactment of what occurred in Egypt on that fateful night.

And lest anyone believe that this is actually stealing, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 91a) discusses this question.  Alexander the Great asked about this “borrowed” Egyptian gold and silver that was never returned.  The people answered that when they were paid the ages of 210 years of slave labor (many more times the amount of the gold and silver), they would gladly give back the riches.  Thus, it was not stealing at all, but rather a meager payment for their work.  Nechama Leibowitz (Studies in Shemot, Parshat Bo) explains that the Torah (lishol mai-im) does not connote the act of borrowing, but, rather, receiving a gift (from the Egyptian people) that is not intended to be returned.  Therefore, it was not stealing at all. 

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 25-27

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

Ever since she was a little girl, Rhonda strongly believed in the concept of peace-not only between nations, but between individual people as well.  She could never stand it when her parents argued.  Then one day, she noticed that her younger sister Joy was taking her favorite clothes.  Joy had never been the same size as Rhonda; but now that she was, things fit.  Joy was wearing Rhonda’s clothes to school, to dances and elsewhere, and she had never asked her sister.  Rhonda knew that if she mentioned anything to Joy, it would start a fight.  Being the peace-lover that she was, Rhonda avoided starting a fight, even though she knew that Joy was in the wrong.  But in order to get her clothes back, there would have to be a big confrontation.  

Is it proper to give up on an important idea, position or possession in order to keep peace and avoid confrontation?  The question is applicable to physical things and in conversations that we have.  What do Jewish sources say about how far we go to avoid confrontation, or do they say so at all?

Answer

[a] The concept of establishing and maintaining peace is one of the most fundamental ideas in Judaism.  One of the three pillars upon which the world is built is peace (Pirke Avot 1:18).  Peace is as important as all of God’s creations (Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah 11:7), and it is said that “God makes peace and creates everything” (morning service, Yotzer Or).  Peace is the only mitzvah after which one is commanded to run, as it says, “Seek peace and pursue it” (Psalm 34:15).

[b] What happens when the concept of peace comes into conflict with other important Jewish values seeming to call for conflict or confrontation?  Even then, Judaism seems to call for peace.  Although truth is another of the three pillars upon which the world is built, it is generally more important to keep peace than to keep truth.  Even God “lied” in order to keep the peace between Abraham and Sarah (Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah 11:7).  The same midrash states that even if the Jews were to worship idols, they would not be severely punished if they were at peace with each other.  This can be proven by the Torah story in which the builders of the Tower of Babel rebel against God (Genesis 11) but are not punished with death, since they are united (Genesis 11:1).  On the other hand, Noah’s generation is wiped out because of violence and conflict among people.  

Therefore, it seems that a person is obligated to give up almost everything in order to achieve peace.  This is true in a family, in a town, or in the entire Jewish nation.  Of course, if “giving in” for the sake of peace will only lead to further conflict (because the other party sees that you are always giving in) then it should not be done, since it will not lead to peace.  That is the reason that the Torah allows war. If the Jews were known for always giving in, their enemies would continually conquer and destroy them.  In addition, there are always, the “exceptions” for which one never gives up anything in Judaism.  These include the sins of murder, sexual impropriety, and idol worship.  However, peace supersedes almost everything else.  Therefore, if it will achieve real peace with joy, Rhonda should “give up” her clothes.

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 107-108

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

Joey and Dave have been good friends for years.  As they grow up, they find that they disagree fundamentally on many important issues such as the importance of preserving old-growth forests at the expense of jobs, beliefs in life-after-death, and simple things like saving versus spending money.  

How do two people remain good friends if they fundamentally disagree on many important issues?  To answer this question, we must investigate the underlying concepts of friendship in Judaism.

Answer

[a] The Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 5:160 tells us that any friendship based upon only one factor cannot possibly endure.  If that one factor disappears, nothing is left.  A friendship based on multiple factors, though, will endure forever.  As an example, in the Mishnah we get a description of the ultimate friendship – that of Jonathan and David.  These two individuals undoubtedly had many vehement disagreements.  After all, it was Jonathan’s father, King Saul, who viewed David as his archenemy and even tried to kill him.  Through it all, David and Jonathan’s friendship endured.  They must have had fundamental disagreements regarding their feelings about Saul, yet they stuck it out being friends.

[b] On the other hand, if two people have different fundamental value systems and out looks, it is very difficult to remain friends.  This is true when the differences affect lifestyle, important choices and different day-to-day living patterns.  Beit Shammai and Beith Hillel disagreed on many aspects of Jewish law in the pages of the Talmud, but this did not prevent their sons and daughters from marrying each other (Yevamot 14b) because their fundamental life choices, value systems and world-views were essentially the same.  Like marriage, part of friendship is disagreeing in a respectful manner and coming to some sort of compromise whenever possible.  However, if two spouses disagree about everything in their lives, the marriage will not survive.

[c] The Talmud states (Pesachim 113b) that every friendship involves hate.

[d]  The Hebrew word for friend, haver, is also the word used for a learning partner.  (Today, the Aramaic form of this word is used to describe the Jewish learning process – hevruta).  This implies that all friendships are, in part, a learning experience.  Two people learn from each other by exchanging ideas and disagreeing, making sure it is done in a respectful manner.  This type of friendship is crucial in any person’s development and is encouraged in Judaism.  Rabina says that he learned more from his friends than he did from his teachers (Makkot 10a).  Rabbi Eliezer says that the most important aspect of life to ”cling to” is friendship (Avot 3:9).  When Honi (the Jewish Rip van Winkle) awoke after 70 years of sleep to find that all his friends had died, he wished to die rather than go on living (Taanit 23a).

[e] Returning to our question, if Joey and Dave have some basic values in common, then their friendship can endure and even thrive, since disagreements are healthy in a good relationship.  However, if they disagree on every issue without any mutuality, then they cannot remain true friends.  Always maintaining the dignity of the other person in a disagreement helps insure that we will spend life with the good havrutot  – friends and learning partners.

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 102-104

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

A mugger steals money from and inflicts bodily harm on someone you care about.  They have to spend a week in the hospital.  When the mugger is caught and brought to court, you sit in the courtroom each day watching this mugger on trial.  You feel rage, anger, and hatred toward this person.  Traditional Christian thought teaches that a person should “turn the other cheek” and love this person.

Is it permitted to hate someone who has wronged you?

Answer

[a] Many of the Jewish sources seem to indicate that we should not hate anyone.  In the Torah (Leviticus 19:17) it says that one may not hate one’s brother in his heart.  But this raises a question: can you do it openly?  A verse in the book of Ovadia (1:12), one of the minor prophets, says that a person may not rejoice at the fall of one’s enemy.  This implies that hate for one’s enemy (or joy at his or her downfall) is forbidden.

[b] Hatred is such a detestable emotion that it is said that the Second Temple was destroyed because of needless hatred among Jews (Yoma 9b).  In fact, this one sin is equated to the three big sins in Judaism: sexual impropriety, murder, and idol worship (since the First Temple was destroyed becuaseof these sins).  According to Hillel, when asked by a non-Jew to describe the essence of Judaism, he explained what is hateful to you should not be done to anyone else (Shabbat 31a). The Sefer haChinuch calls the emotion of hatred the ugliest emotion of the human race.  Based on all these sources, we may conclude that hatred in Judaism is never permitted.

[c] But the famous verse from Ecclesiastics (3:8) tells us there is “a time to hate.”  What do we do with that?!  When is that time?  The Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 3:10) explains that one may indeed hate an enemy at a time of war.  But didn’t we learn (codified later in the Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 4:19) that one may not be joyous at the fall of one’s enemy?  The answer given is that at the time of an enemy’s death, a person may not be happy, since even the enemy was created in the image of God.  However, afterwards one may indeed be happy that the enemy has fallen.  Thus, it is permitted to hate someone who is an enemy of the Jews and who reportedly killed or harmed Jews simply because they are Jewish.  But it is improper to hate others, even sinners (See the Chazon Ish’s commentary on Maimonides, Hilchot Shechita 2:16).

If the mugger is punished for what he did to you and your family, you certainly may be happy that he is receiving his just retribution.  But unless he chronically harms people, it would not be permitted to continually hate this person.  

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 95-96

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

A doctor is very close to finding the cure for all types of cancer.  However, experiments on non-human animals have proven ineffective.  The only way to try out and perfect his new serum is to experiment on healthy human beings.  Until the serum works at 100% rate, about 55 people will be needed to suffer the pain of the imperfect serum and then die.

Is it ever proper to knowingly and willingly kill a few individuals in order to find a cure for a disease and save the lives of millions of people?

Answer

[a] The Mishna, the earliest Rabbinic law book, says: “Whoever saves one life, it is as if he has saved the entire world” (Sanhedrin 4:5).  This sets up a response to someone who might be thinking about using homeless people or prisoners for cancer experiments.  Jewish values say that all lives are equal.

[b] Judaism believes that it is not up to people to decide the value of any life over another.  We cannot say that the life of a homeless person or that of a prisoner has less value than anyone else’s life.  The Talmud (Sanhedrin 74a) expresses this concept with the question: “Who says that your blood is redder than his blood?” This comes in response to the case of someone telling a person to kill or be killed himself.  You may not kill to save your own ‘red blood,’ because it is worth no more than your fellows.  Each person is deemed as an equal to any other, and it is for this reason that only one human being was originally created (Sanhedrin 37a) – so that no one could say that “my ancestors are better than yours.” Only God is the true judge.

[c] Regarding the questions of killing a few in order to save the lives of many, we know that any act of murder is one of the most serious offenses in the Torah (Exodus 20:13):  “You shall not murder.”  It is forbidden to knowingly kill one person to save the life of thousands or even millions.

[d] In addition, Judaism does NOT believe that the ends justify the means.  Thus, if one can do a great mitzvah, but only by committing a sin in the process, a Jew is not permitted to do such a mitzvah.  It is for this reason, for example, that a stolen lulav is not usable for the mitzvah of shaking the four spices on Sukkot (Sukkah 30a).  Maimonides (Hilchot Issurei Mizbayach 8:9) says that God detests any gift which comes about through the commission of sin.  Based on these ideas, it would be clearly forbidden to kill even one person, even a sinner, in order to develop a cure and save many more lives.  

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 93-94

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

Jamie knows that it is wrong to speak about other people, especially in a negative sense.  But her friend Julie constantly talks about people and “badmouths” other girls in their class. Julie doesn’t really pay attention when Jamie talks about others, but she never really does anything to stop Julie from saying these things either.

Answer

Is it improper to hear someone speak badly about another person?  Must you do something to stop them from speaking negatively about others?

[a] In Judaism, Lashon Ha-Ra (speaking badly about another person) is a sin, even if what is said is true.  It is not only clearly forbidden in the Torah: “You shall not gossip among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), but is considered worse than idol worship (Midrash, Yalkut Shimoni, Tehillim 3:621).  We know this from comparing two stories in the Torah.  On the one hand, when the Jews sinned by creating and worshipping the Golden Calf, they were not severely punished.  However, when the spies came back and badmouthed the land of Israel, having lost faith in God, the entire nation was punished by not being able to enter the Promised Land.  The next generation would inherit the Land of Milk and Honey instead. 

[b] Lashon Ha-Ra is also equated with the three “worst” sins in Judaism: murder, idol worship and sexual immorality, combined (Maimonides, Hilchot Deot &;3).  The power of speech makes people God-like.  When we use it for good purposes, we are like the Creator of the universe, as Pirkei Avot 5:1 reminds us: “By ten sayings was the world created…”  God created the world through the spoken word, and by utilizing the spoken word we can create a meaningful life.  As it says in Psalms 34:13-14: “Who is the person that desires life and loves many days, that he/she sees God?  Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from guile…”

[c] Are all of the above sources about the speaker?  What about the listener?  The Torah gives us a clue: When Miriam speaks badly about her brother Moses, it says that “Miriam and Aaron spoke…” (Numbers 12:1), but the verb itself is singular.  Although the words were physically spoken by Miriam, the verse implies that Aaron also said the words.  Why?  In order to teach us that one who hears evil words (as Aaron did) is also guilty and as punishable as the one who actually spoke the words (as Miriam did).  While it is true that the speaker receives a far worse punishment (as in the case of Miriam and Aaron), one who listens to Lashon Ha-Ra is punished nevertheless.

[d] If no one would listen, then no one could speak any Lashon Ha-Ra.  Thus, Jamie should not remain quiet when Julie speaks Lashon Ha-Ra.  Rather, she should either ask Julie to stop speaking about others, or she should walk away. 

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 90-92

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

Great-Grandma Sara is 91 years old.  She is suffering from a debilitating illness, and the doctors have said that she will never recover.  The cost of her hospital stay is $10,000 per month and it is draining her life savings, which would have been her family’s inheritance.  She is of sound mind and is in constant, but not overwhelming, pain.  Because of the great medical expense and because of her inheritance, she asks her family to petition the hospital to “pull the plug” and remove her from the machines that are keeping her alive.  

Answer

Are conversations about money for end-stage medical treatments valid under Jewish law?  May a dying person weigh between providing an inheritance for his or her children and paying the medical bills?  May he or she then decide that paying for medical care is not worth the expense and request that the doctors pull the plug?

[a] In general, Judaism believes that it is not up to a person to decide to end his or her life, since that life does not belong to the person at all, but rather to God (Maimonides, Hilchot Rotzeach 1:4).  This is also one of the reasons that we are commanded to keep ourselves as healthy as possible and out of danger (Deuteronomy 15:9 & 15), and are forbidden to harm ourselves (Bava Kama 90b).  Since our bodies are merely “on loan” to us from God, we must treat them as any borrowed object should be treated: with the greatest care not to be damaged or destroyed.

[b] Specific to the concept of life, Judaism not only believes that each life is equal to the entire world – i.e. an infinite worth (Sanhedrin 37a) – but also that every minute of life is infinite and is equal to the entire world.  Therefore, the man who aided King Saul to die just a few minutes early (at Saul’s request), is condemned in the Bible as a murderer (I Samuel 1:9-16).  In general, one is not permitted to violate Shabbat except when there is the possibility of saving a life.  However, if a dying person (collapsed under the rubble, for example) could be kept alive for just a few more hours, through the violation of Shabbat (i.e. removing the rubble), then a Jew is not only permitted, but is obligated to violate Shabbat for this purpose (Shulchan Aruch, Orech Hayyim 329:3-5).  This shows that even a few hours of life have the value of an entire life.  Thus, shortening any life, even by a few hours, is tantamount to destroying an entire life.

[c] It is said that when Rabbi Chananya ben Tradyon was being burned at the hands of the Romans, his students begged him to open his mouth, so that he would die more quickly.  He refused, however, since that would have shortened his life by a few moments (Avoda Zara, 18a).

[d] Thus, Great-Grandma Sara, or any other person, is forbidden to end her life “early,” even to relieve suffering (Maimonides, Hilchot Rotzeach, 2:7).  Certainly, any financial consideration, no matter how substantial, cannot possibly be equated with even a moment of life.  Only God, not people, may determine the moment of death (Pesachim 54b).

However, when one is already close to death, it is not necessary to intervene and maintain his-her life.

[e] There is one story in the Talmud (Ketubot 104a) which relates what happened on the day that Rabbi Judah was dying.  The Rabbis decreed a public fast and offered prayers for heavenly mercy so that Rabbi Judah would not die.  Rabbi Judah’s maid saw how he suffered … she ascended to the roof and prayed for him to die.  The Rabbis continued their prayers for heavenly mercy, and the maid took a jar and threw it down from the roof to the ground.  When the Rabbis heard the sound of the jar shattering, they stopped praying for a moment and the soul of Rabbi Judah departed.  

[f] Rabbenu Nissim (commentary to Nedarim 40a), said that sometimes one must request mercy on behalf of the ill so that he might die, as in the case of a patient who is terminal and who is in great pain.  

[g] It happened that a woman who had aged considerably appeared before Rabbi Yose ben Halafta.  She said, ‘Rabbi, I am much too old.  Life has become a burden for me.  I can no longer taste food or drink.  I wish to die.’  Rabbi Yose asked her, ‘To what do you ascribe your longevity?’  She answered that it was her habit to pray in the synagogue every morning, and despite occasional, more pressing needs she never had missed a service.  Rabbi Yose advised her to refrain from attending services for three consecutive days.  She heeded his advice and on the third day she took ill and died (Yalkut Shimoni, Proverbs 943).

In general, we are allowed to do nothing that will cause death, but can allow someone who is in pain to die naturally.

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 84-86

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

After ecologists showed that cutting down the old growth forests in the northwest United States is harmful to the area’s ecology, a movement has developed to force the wood companies to stop cutting these trees.  However, this would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs and affect thousands of people.  

Answer

Should trees be preserved for ecological reasons if it means the loss of hundreds of jobs?  Consider the following:

[a] Judaism places a high value upon ecological concerns.  Even before the term ecology was invented, Judaism reflected an environmental consciousness.  In the Torah, when Adam is first commanded regarding his relationship with the earth, he is told to “work it and to preserve it” (Genesis 2:15).  Additionally, the Torah prohibits planting or building within 1000 cubits of the city limits (Numbers 35:2), and Rashi explains (based on Bava Metzia 24b) that the reason for this ordinance is to maintain the physical beauty of the city.  The Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:8) discusses and forbids air pollution, and the Shulchan Aruch (Chosen Mishpat 412:5) forbids certain types of water pollution.

[b] While permitting the Israelites to cut down trees (Deuteronomy 20:19-20), God commands that one may not cut down a fruit tree merely for its wood.  If one did cut down a fruit tree, it would fall in the list of transgressions that have to do with being a baal tashchit, someone who destroys and creates needless destruction in the world.  (Maimonides, Hilchot Melachim 6:8).  If however, it is necessary and serves a purpose, then “the earth’s destruction” is permitted in Judaism.  So, for example, Maimonides rules that one may cut down a fruit tree that is doing damage to other trees (and of course use it for wood or paper).

[c] One issue related to our above case involves the damage that cutting down such trees can do to the planet.  If it could be shown that cutting down trees poses a direct danger to human existence on earth, then this concern would supercede all others, and it would be forbidden to cut down the trees (Deuteronomy 4:9-15).

[d] Regarding the specific question about the trees versus the negative effects on workers, the main issue is whether maintaining jobs is considered a legitimate human need.  Although not referring to our circumstances directly, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 155:220 rules that even when trees should not be cut down, the workers are entitled to monetary compensation if they are deprived from work as a result, because they were legitimately working before the ecological problem was detected or discovered.  This seems to imply that when ecology prevents the logging of certain woodlands, the workers are entitled to compensation for the loss of their jobs.

[e] Jewish sensitivity to long-range environmental problems is spelled out in a midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 7:20).  The midrash says that at the beginning of Creation, God put Adam in the garden and showed him all the vegetables and animals that were created.  He asked Adam to note how beautiful and good they are, and how they were all put on earth for people.  But then God warned Adam, telling him to be careful not to damage these creations, because this could ultimately cause the world to be destroyed.  Once it is destroyed, says God, the damage is irreparable. 

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 68-70

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver

Here’s an ethical issue and Jewish source response:

Case

Recently, fox hunting has come under attack in England, and there is a proposal to ban it.  In the United States, many hunters take pride in this sport and defend their right to hunt foxes.  

Answer

Is hunting a legitimate and moral pursuit in Judaism?

[a] It is important to remember that Judaism stresses sensitivity to animals.  On the one hand, the first commandment given to Adam, is to rule over the fish, birds and animals, signifying that human beings can use animals for their own needs (Genesis 1:28).  This implies that we are permitted to hunt animals.  Later on, after the Flood, this relationship is spelled out even more clearly, as God tells man (Genesis 9:2) that animals will fear human beings, and that all creatures have been given over into people’s hands for their needs.  On the other hand, people may not needlessly hurt animals.  As Jews, we are commanded to help unload an animal whose burden is too heavy, even if it belongs to an enemy (Exodus 23:5).  In addition, the Torah spells out a great sensitivity to the “feelings” of animals (Deuteronomy 22:10, 25:4, Leviticus 22:28).  

[b] Consistent with Judaism’s view regarding the use of the earth and its vegetation by man, God has only permitted man to use animals if the need is legitimate, if no unnecessary pain is inflicted and if nothing unnecessary is wasted.  Therefore, for example, a Jew is permitted to eat meat (since the need is legitimate) and kill animals for food (since it is necessary for eating meat), but only through shechita (ritual slaughter), since that inflicts the least amount of pain in killing an animal (Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 451).

[c] In the Talmud, Rabbi Shimon (Avodah Zara 18b) castigates anyone who takes part in something called kangiyon.  Rashi’s comments explain that this activity is hunting animals, using dogs, purely for pleasure.  This sounds very close to fox hunting.  Therefore, we see that Judaism indeed frowns upon hunting for pleasure, and does not consider it a legitimate human need.  Even when the Mishnah uses the term normally translated as hunting – metzudah – it clearly refers to trapping with nets only, without hurting the animal.  Indeed, this reference only permits trapping animals for food, and not for pleasure.  Many centuries later, Rav Yehudah Landau codified this general Jewish attitude in his Responsa Noda B’Yehudah (Yorah Deah 10) and clearly forbade Jews to hunt for pleasure.  

Joel Grishaver, “You Be the Judge 2”, pgs. 71-72

Used with permission from Joel Grishaver