Eco-Judaism: Does It Exist? 19
from the atmosphere and its gases to the smallest creatures. To preserve human life, the balance must be maintained, or at least thoroughly investigated, before an attempt at change is made. This is in keeping with the fundamental halakhic principle of preserving human life, which overrules virtually all other concerns.!® In other words, we can only succeed in“tilling” if we“preserve” and this extends far beyond a few useful crops and animals.
The verbs shamar and avad have been used together to supplement each other in Gen. 2:15. Shamar means guard, watch and keep from harm; it is used together with avad, work, serve, till; the parallel use establishes an obligation. This verse(Gen. 2:15) does not preserve the natural world for its own sake, nor does it solve the problem of the conflict between preservation and development, but at least it places them on an equal level. The specific issue would then determine the solution for a particular question.
The setting of this verse is important and should be noted. The verse tilts in the direction of the environment as it is the garden of Eden where the environment is perfectly balanced and all creatures as well as plants live in peace and without danger. This guides our practical decisions in the direction of a balanced environment in which nature, both useful and simply beautiful, can coexist.
Human beings as the pinnacle of creation have a responsibility for the care for lesser forms of life'® and are in a position of unique responsibility— a blessing with the concomitant responsibilities. The Genesis verse made this quite clear, as does the entire story of creation and the framework in which it placed human beings. If we take the redefinition of human kinship to all other forms of life seriously, then this is the best basis for a new view of the environment.
With this as a primary foundation, we can move on to consider a broadened interpretation of bal tash-hit(Deut. 20:19); it must be reinterpreted and expanded. Those who commented on the biblical verse interpreted it in its specific wartime setting. Most of the rabbinic literature that dealt with its halakhic setting provides a narrow interpretation by limiting it to fruit trees, by restricting it to times of war, and by stating that virtually any economic benefit, or threat of harm from it, may be sufficient reason for the destruction of the tree or trees. Maimonides , for example, limited the verse to useful trees and stated that the wanton destruction of a fruit tree was punishable, but he also