10.
11. 12.
16.
17.
Notes
The eighteenth century rabbinic authority Moshe Sofer stated that it was permissible to cut down a tree if it served a clear economic purpose Responsa Yoreh Deah 102); others found various ways around the biblical statement (Responsa Havot Yair 195) in order to permit such destruction.
B.B. 24b f; Tur and Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 155:21.
Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 1985, p. 162.
There were some exceptions: Herod was a great hunter (Josephus , Jewish Wars, Book I, Chap. 21, Section 13) and there were some Jewish hunters in the Middle Ages. Israel Abrams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages(London : Edward Goldstone, 1932, p. 400.).
Pantheistic tendencies exist in Philo and among various medieval Jewish philosophers such as Ibn Gabirol , but they never became dominant. The same is true of many kabbalistic works.
Mandated by the Mishnah in Ber. 6.1ff.
B.B. 2:7; later the Tur, Hoshen Mishpat 155 stated that this law only applied to Israel , while Karo in the Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 155 felt that it did not apply even to Israel in his day.
For a complete description and discussion see L. Lewysohn , Die Zoologie des Talmuds(Frankfurt a M.:Joseph Baer, 1858).
Baba Kama, Baba Metzia, Baba Batra, Sanhedrin, Uktzin.
Maimonides (Moreh Nevukhim, 3:48), Nahmanides , Abravanel, and others stated that human beings must consider the feelings of animals. However, the halakhic tradition stated that the bird had to actually sit on the nest in order to desist from taking both the bird and the young.
Ket. 77a; Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer 154.1 and its commentaries.
See Louis Ginzberg , The Legends of the Jews Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society , 1925) p. 75, note 19, for a discussion of some of the sources.
Ber. 61b, in which the fable of the lion has been used; B.B. 134a, etc. More than thirty animal fables exist in the talmudic and midrashic literature.
The Ashkenazic Jews of France were lenient because the economic conditions and their new attitude toward Christianity ,which did not see it as idolatry. Isserles to Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 123; D. Hoffmann, Der Shulchan Aruch,(Berlin: Expedition) 1894, p. 115.
We are on solid ground when we try to deal with air pollution, as the halakhah has treated this concern consistently through the centuries. Water pollution has also been discussed from early times onward. Other forms of pollution have also been treated in the halakhic writings.
The only exceptions are idolatry, incest, and killing another person(San. 60b ff: A.Z. 43b, 54a; Ket 33b; Shab. 149a; Sefer Mitzvot, Lo Ta-aseh 2ff, 10, and 14; Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 157.1). Life and all that preserves life is given supreme meaning.
This portion of the verse is so clear that there is hardly any commentary on it. Gesenius , Dictionary also indicates that the verb shamar is absolutely clear in its meaning which is also asserted in nonbiblical writings such as the“Letters of Amarna.”