Walter Jac ob

This biblical passage has generally been interpreted nar­rowly by the subsequent rabbinic tradition and the rare discus­sions in the responsa literature(Yad, Hil. Melakhim 6,8; Teshuvot Rambam, Vol. 1#112; Tur, Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah). It was restricted to trees that produced edible fruit and limited to the Land of Israel.

We should be able to transfer this kind of narrow interest to modern concern. The federal government wishes to protect the watershed and the future recreational value of the land. It is true that some national parks are isolated and rarely visited now, but in the future such unspoiled landscapes will be much rarer and will eventually be visited and enjoyed by a large number of indi­viduals. As we are dealing with very old growth, in other words, trees and natural habitats which have developed through a period of thousands of years, we are also dealing with some­thing akin to the fruit trees. In other words, this is not a forest that can be readily replaced by new growth. Seen in the light of our modern environmental concerns, the biblical law could include these kinds of natural habitats as well.

Now let us turn to the second part of the question, the rights of the private owner versus the broader interests of the larger community. We will only view this narrowly and will not deal with the broader question. Can an individual destroy an orchard or cut down a tree because it is personally useful, although the broader community objects? These kinds of questions, of course, have arisen only with individual trees rather than with an entire forest of several thousand acres as you have described. If a tree is a nuisance and stands on the owner’s property, it may be cut down. Furthermore, it may be cut down if the owner wishes to develop the land; even if it is a fruit tree, it may also be trimmed back(Hatam Sofer , Responsa, Yoreh Deah 102; Shevet Halevi 1:112).

There is a difference of opinion when we are dealing with trees that are in the broader public domain and also on the issue of whether an obligation to plant a replacement tree exists.

We should note that the rabbinic literature is not friendly to the natural world nor concerned with it, despite various bless­ings to be recited on seeing natural phenomena. There are state­ments in the Mishnah that argue for planting trees and gardens in towns(Meg. 5b; Taan. 4b) while others prohibits the planting of trees within fifty yards of a city.(B.B. 2:7). Did the latter prob­lems reflect a concern for beauty or for the physical safety of the