Pollution [1] has numerous negative environmental effects. Greenhouse gases, including fossil fuels, add to climate change by raising the Earth’s temperature. Exposure to these air pollutants may also negatively affect the health of the exposed, for example, causing the chronic lung condition known as asthma. Soil pollution largely from industrial sources can cause the soil to become unfertile. The effect of unfertile soil starts with crop failures but ultimately reduces food production and health. Water pollution from oil spills and the like may cause various illnesses in humans. [2] All of these concerns have made me think about what the perspective of Judaism is regarding pollution. I will present three different lenses through which to explore this issue.
The first lens I would like to peer through is the prohibition of destroying the planet. The first source is found at the very beginning of the Torah, Hashem commands Adam regarding Gan Eden, “Le’Ovdah ULeShomrah,” “to work it and to guard it” (BeReishit 2:15). There is also another Pasuk stating, “Ve’Osah Hu Chonenah Lo Tohu Bera’ah Lashevet Yetzarah,” “He (Hashem) established it; He did not create it for a waste, He formed it to be inhabited” (Yeshayahu 45:18). The final source of this topic is from Megillat Kohelet (7:13), in which the Pasuk states that humans cannot straighten something that Hashem twisted. The Midrash (Kohelet Rabbah 7:13) warns that we should not corrupt the land because there is no one to fix it after we destroy it. All of these sources forbid wasting and destroying the earth, which is exactly what pollution is. The Midrash expounds further, saying that after the act of destruction is done, then the object is unable to be fixed and other people will be equally unable to fix it. Though pollution is simply the byproduct of industrialization, it affects the environment negatively, in a manner impossible or almost impossible to fix.
The next lens to look through is the prohibition of Bal Tashchit. The source for Bal Tashchit is found in Sefer Devarim (20:19), where it is commanded that during times of war one is forbidden to chop down fruit trees while sieging a city. The Gemara (Shabbat 67b) similarly states that it is prohibited to uncover or cover an oil lamp due to the prohibition of Bal Tashchit. Rashi (ibid. s.v. Nafta) explains that by covering the lamp, the oil burns faster and that is Ba’al Tashchit. It would seem that the prohibition of Bal Tashchit seems to be wasting sources of sustenance, fruit trees or oil, etc. Rambam (Hilchot Melachim U’Milchamot 6:8-10), states, seemingly from the Gemara above, that Bal Tashchit applies not only to fruit trees but to everything. Rambam expands the Gemara from things of sustenance to anything that has the ability to be wasted. The Chazon Ish (ibid. 6:8) extends the prohibition of Bal Tashchit not only to the owner of the object being wasted but also any passerby; a light left on should be turned off by any who see it. The Sifrei (ibid.) extends the prohibition even further, stating that Bal Tashchit applies to even Grama actions, actions which do not directly waste the object but indirectly do (e.g. diverting a stream of water which causes trees next to the old stream to die). In the laws of Nezikin, damages, a damage caused by Grama usually exempts someone, but not in the case of living things -a tree- for that, one is Chayav. Bal Tashchit of living things is far worse than just destroying something inanimate. By polluting the environment, both humans and plants die. It is still Grama, but this Grama is different from the typical Grama found in the Gemara. All of these sources seem to simultaneously conclude that pollution is prohibited, even though the consequences are unwanted, inactive, and indirect.
The final lens to peer through is a little out of the box but maybe be the best comparison to pollution presented in this article. In many different Gemaras (Ketubot 41a, Bava Kamma 15b, 46a), Rav Natan says that it is prohibited to breed a “bad” dog because of a Pasuk from Sefer Devarim (22:8) that states that a fence needs to be built on a roof. Though Rav Natan’s statement is frequently quoted, the Gemara brings forth Halachot of how to own a dog, [3] including keeping the dog tied to a chain (Bava Kamma 79b); and the reason for this requirement is because of great danger, “MiPenei SheHezeikan Merubeh,” ”because their damage is substantial” (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Nizkei Mamon 5:9). Rambam quotes Bava Kamma 83a, saying that the Rabbis also added a curse on all who raise dogs or pigs. The reason for the restrictions is due to danger; pollution also causes danger to the environment and to humans so it should also have restrictions. While codifying the Halachot of owning a dog, Rambam adds the Halachot of all dangerous cases (e.g. drinking water left out at night and drinking water from a river at night). All the examples which Rambam quotes are cases of life and death, which means that owning a dog is a case of life and death, and thus pollution is equally so, and the Halachot should fall in line with the rest of the life and death cases.
Rama extends it further (Yoreh Deiah 116:5), stating that being careful about danger to life is more important than being careful not to sin. He does not create a list because it is impossible to quantify all of the damages, rather teaching a principle to live by. Returning to the Halachot of owning a dog, there is one last important Gemara to learn: the opinion of Rabi Yishmael (Bava Kamma, 80a). Rabi Yishmael actually limits the prohibition of owning a dog to only dogs that cause danger [4] while it is permitted to own non-dangerous dogs, and even hunting dogs because they are helpful to the owner (see Rashi, ibid. s.v. Kelavim). Without this Gemara, it could be said that owning a dog cannot be compared to pollution because there is something inherent in dogs that makes them forbidden to own. This Gemara highlights that dogs are forbidden only because of the danger to society. The reason for requiring the building of a fence on a roof and Rabbinic extensions to the Pasuk are focused on danger, as it is forbidden to put oneself or others into a situation of danger. The Rabbis took a Mitzvah De’Oraita and extended it into a Mitzvah DeRabbanan, a KeEin Tikkun De’Oraita. The effects of pollution are known to be dangerous and should fall under the category of danger and should be prohibited.
The facts are that pollution is brought on by many sources, but they each cause damage to the environment. We have examined three different approaches to pollution in Halachah. The prohibitions of destroying the land and Ba’al Tashchit are mainstream sources supporting Jewish opposition to pollution. While two mainstream sources have been presented, a non-mainstream approach has also been presented. The Halachot of owning a dog to teach the Halachot of pollution is not mainstream, but it sheds much light as to what is behind the Halachot of owning a dog and how it can be applied to other things.
[1] This article was first given in a Shuir form at Yeshivat Eretz Hatzvi. The source sheet is available by emailing eitanleff@gmail.com. I would like to thank Rav Mordy for helping me with creating the Shuir and Rabbi Jachter for giving me the opportunity to have it included in Kol Torah.
[2] https://sciencing.com/negative-effects-pollution-5268664.html
[3] It appears that Rav Natan is a minority opinion or that there is something inherently different between bad dogs and normal dogs, as Rav Natan’s statement is specifically about bad dogs and not all dogs.
[4] Very similar to Rav Natan’s opinion if state that Rav Natan’s statement only included bad dogs.