Torah Study > Chapter 1: The Call to Action > Text 2
Describe ways humanity “works” the earth. Are these good or bad or neutral?
Describe ways humanity “protects” the earth. Are these good or bad or neutral?
Do these two concepts (of “working” and “protecting”) contradict or complement each other? How?
Pursue the meaning of “working” the earth. This could include exploring it,
using it, developing it, changing it. It could include building upon it, damming
the waters, harnessing its renewable energy, inventing materials,
medicines, fabrics, farming, etc., to increase the quality of human (and
animal) life. Does this midrash endorse such uses or not? It seems to do
so when it says, “All I have created is within your domain.” Humans have
been given the world, according to the biblical story, and are instructed by
the word “l’ovdah” (work it) to make it a better place.
The question is: what is permissible in the arena of “working the earth” and what is not? When is it necessary and good to “protect and preserve” the world. L’shomrah has both meanings: as if the best way to protect something is to preserve it. Is that always the case?
Even the concept of tikkun olam implies constant change and constant improvement. Today, especially in light of popular kabbalistic lore, we read tikkun as fixing a world that has been broken, restoring it to a pristine condition. This is not so in the biblical text. There we are bidden “to work and to tend” as part of the natural order. This tikkun assumes a world in constant need of tending as part of the natural order, but never one that was perfect to begin with. Tikkun then is not something we do because something went wrong. Tikkun is something we do as part of our constituttive identity: the reason we were created in the first place. If this tikkun, this work, requires changing the world, the question is: what are the boundaries? When does work become destructive instead of constructive? How do we balance “tending/working” and “preserving/protecting”?
What/how does this story make you feel?
Do you find it compelling that a contemporary environmental ethic is reflected in this classical text? What differences do you notice between contemporary environmentalism and the perspective reflected in this text?
What do you think about the idea that each individual has a personal obligation to protect the environment? How might that be different from making an individual contribution towards a collective effort?
TOP OF PAGE
