Reading and Discussion Questions Ehrenfeld and Bentley and Katz  

Some of the questions are designed to help you pick out the main ideas of the readings.  Some will focus our discussion.

A small glossary that might be helpful:

kaddish - literally make holy or sanctify, there are several types of kaddish prayers; for the mourning kaddish see http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/kaddish.htm; to listen to three types of kaddish see http://www.uscj.org/ctvalley/fairfield/prayer/Kaddish.htm

kashrut - the food laws; for more see http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

mitzvot - commandments

Shabbat or Shabbes - the sabbath; for more see http://www.jewfaq.org/shabbat.htm

yahrzeit - the anniversary of the death of a family member; for more see http://judaism.about.com/cs/deathandmourning/f/yahrzeit.htm

Note: Mon. Feb 13^th is Tu B’Shvat - The New Year of the Trees. For more information and to see an environmental action Jewish website go to COEJL (Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life) section on learning about Tu B’Shvat at http://www.coejl.org/tubshvat/learn/

1. Ehrenfeld and Bentley state, "Judaism was one of the first great environmental religions." (125). On what basis (throughout the essay) do they make this claim? What do they mean by an "environmental" religion? Given their definition are they correct? Would you disagree with their definition?

2. What do you make of their spectrum with human-centered, careful steward, and Judaism on one end and human absolute non-violence, non-interference and Jainism at the other? (125-126) Why construct such a spectrum?

3. How can the Jewish concept of stewardship be perverted/distorted and how can it be preserved according to the authors?

4. How do the authors distinguish Judaism and Christianity in terms of the human/nature relationship?

5. Last week we kept coming back to the question whether the meaning of the Hebrew Bible in its original historical context made any difference in terms of addressing environmental problems. And, we noted that the environmental crisis itself is not directly addressed by the Hebrew Bible as it did not exist at least in its modern form at the time the various texts which make up the Hebrew Bible were written. These issues are, of course, related to our previous discussion of White’s view of religion as cause and solution. [As Whitney puts it when writing about White's article, "Because the environmental crisis has its source in religious values, those values must also be the solution" (Whitney, 155; cf. 151). As White himself puts it, "Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not" (1207) ] Ehrenfeld and Bentley’s take about learning from traditional/rabbinic Judaism is as follows:

"So one cannot ask, ‘What does traditional Judaism say about our environmental crisis?’ It doesn’t say anything about it. That does not mean, however, that Judaism offers no guidance on the question of humanity’s relationship to the environment. We simply have to search the literature properly phrasing our questions to suit the context of the times, and interpreting the rabbinic answers in a restrained and literal way, in order not to interject our own ideas." (127) Given the rest of the article, is their approach successful? Would it be persuasive to observant Jews?

6. The authors briefly discuss "several critically important ecological ideas" in addition to stewardship and God’s dominion (127). These include:

a. "if man does evil, nature reacts" (127) - this seems similar to many of Kay’s points

b. "that there is a definite order to the world ordained by God as part of creation. Nothing was created for no purpose or in vain" (127) - This point they hold Aldo Leopold articulated in secular form and has been widely adopted. (127 and 128) What in Leopold do you think they are referencing? They say that "it is easier to defend from a theological than an ecological standpoint." (128) Is this true? And, if so, why?

c. "you don’t get something for nothing" (128)

d. "human dependence on nature" (128) - citing Hirsch "‘survival of the sustainers’"(128)

7. How do Ehrenfeld and Bentley reply to the "dominion criticism" on 128-129?

8. How is stewardship portrayed in the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic tradition? (129-130)

9. Ehrenfeld and Bentley point to a number of rules or precepts in traditional Judaism that they see as part of a "‘Steward’s Manual" (130-131). These include:

bal tashchit (do not destroy)

and forbidding tza’ar ba’alei chayyim ("pain of living things")

What are each of these and how would they help to constitute a Jewish environmental ethic?

(Note: there is an entire article on bal tashchit by Eilon Schwartz, "Bal Tashchit : A Jewish Environmental Precept" in Yaffe 230-49 if you want to follow this up).

10. According to the authors, how does the Sabbath and "and the idea of the Sabbath" deal with "the central problem of stewardship"(132)? This is discussed on pp. 132-34.

11. Ehrenfeld and Bentley write: It is also the Sabbath alone that can reconcile the Jewish attitude towards nature with the attitude of secular environmentalism, of holistic ecology, or of the non-anthropocentric religions such as Jainism." (132) How does the Sabbath and the idea of the Sabbath accomplish this in their view? Do you think it does the work that they think it does? Why or why not?

Eric Katz, "Nature's Healing Power," in Judaism and Environmental Ethics. Ed. Martin Yaffe. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2001. 309-320.  Note there are a few typos  here and there.  For the article without these, go to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n1_v46/ai_19353459

Before or as you read, you might want to look at some pictures of the Holocaust sites Katz mentions from the Teacher’s Guide to the Holocaust Website at the University of South Florida:

The Jewish Cemetery in Warsaw - recent pictures at http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/gallery/CEMETERY.htm

VR movie at http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/VR/CEMS.htm

Majdanek several galleries of recent photos at http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/gallery/gallery3.htm

VR movies at http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/VR/Majd.htm

(Theresienstadt)Terezin Memorials, etc. at http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/gallery/TEREZIN5.htm

VR movies of Terezin at http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/VR/TEREZIN.htm

Katz begins by referring to articles by Benstein and Schwartz. These are in the Yaffe volume if you want to check them out.

1. Katz asks whether his work as an environmental philosopher and as someone interested in the philosophy of the Holocaust can illumine each other. He also finds analogies between ecocide and genocide. He connects anthropocentrism and domination. Do you find the connections he makes convincing? Why or why not?

2. Katz writes: "The essay is my attempt to come to terms with the physical experience of these places, and to place these experiences into the context of philosophical ideas about the meaning of the environmental crisis, the practice of human domination, and the significance of Jewish life in the modern world. It is my hope that these reflections will contribute to the development of Jewish philosophy of nature appropriate to the modern world." (310)  How do the physical experiences of the Jewish Cemetery in Warsaw, Majdanek, and Theresienstadt influence Katz’s thought? What does he mean that his essay is "both more and less than a philosophical argument" (310)?

3. What is it that bothers Katz about the natural beauty he sees at the Holocaust sites? In his view is it appropriate to interpret nature as providing healing? Why or why not? How can healing be a form of domination?

4. What are the goals of ecological restoration according to Katz? Why does he find restoration problematic? What does he mean when he says the restored nature is an "artifact"? And, "The restored Nature is not really Nature at all. (316)"? See especially pages 314, 316-317. He compares Nature’s "healing’ of the Holocaust sites to human attempts to heal nature. Why does he do this? To what end?

5. Can you think of any sites in your own experience that might be somewhat analogous to the Holocaust sites Katz visited? What was your reaction to these sites? 

6.  Have you ever visited a site of ecological restoration? How did this site strike you? For a positive view of restoration ecology with some pictures see: Society for Restoration Ecology at http://www.ser.org/ and its primer at http://www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp Note:  Clare Palmer also discusses the debate over ecological restoration on pages 28-29 of "An Overview of Environmental Ethics"  which we read earlier.  She summarizes Katz's position on ecological restoration in a series of papers including one entitled, "The Big Lie." (29)  She discusses the responses of Andrew Light and Y.S. Lo to positions like that of Katz.  According to Palmer, Lo "questions whether a restored nature is a human artifact, any more than a person who has been healed by human medicine should be regarded as an artifact.  She argues that to suggest a nature touched or oppressed by humans is of less value than 'free, autonomous' nature is akin to saying that oppressed humans are worth less than free ones (and thus legitimating further domination).(29)  Palmer suggests that one way to view restoration is as anthropogenic rather than anthropocentric and as "aimed at benefiting the nonhuman world." (29)  Is Katz's view or Lo's more persuasive, why?  What does each suggest about the relationship between humans and nature?

7. Why is "autonomy" so important to Katz? What philosophical traditions place autonomy as central? Why does Katz bring up Primo Levi’s accounts of the series of baths the Allies gave survivors (pp. 317-318)? In your view is it possible for natural systems as well as human beings to be "autonomous"? Why or why not?

8. Katz’s plea at the end of the essay is as follows: "We must resist the practice of domination in all of its forms. We must act so as to preserve the free and autonomous development of human individuals, communities, and natural systems. We must understand the moral limits of our power to control Nature and our fellow human beings."(318) He goes on to say that it is important for the Jewish people to pass on to their children the idea of "the preservation of nature" as well as remembrance of the Holocaust.(318). He goes on to say, "Only humans can understand the meaning and history of evil. Only humans who understand the need to control our power can halt the practice of domination, can halt the destruction of people and the natural environment. It is only through human action that peace can be restored to our planet and our civilization." (318)   Does his analogy between domination of people and domination of nature work?   Does this appeal to human abilities contradict his earlier criticism of anthropocentrism?  Is Katz ultimately agreeing or disagreeing with the positions of Benstein and Schwartz as he outlines them on p. 313?

NOTE:  a sentence from the original article has been omitted on p. 318:  It should read:

The Jewish people survived the Holocaust, and they continue to survive today because they remember the Holocaust. The Jewish people persist because they remain true to their history, culture, spiritual beliefs, way of life, and because they pass these on to their children, one generation at a time. Now we live in an age in which we must include the preservation of nature in the bundle of ideas we pass on. If there is a God, He works through human knowledge and human will. Only humans can understand the meaning and history of evil. Only humans who understand the need to control our power can halt the practice of domination, can halt the destruction of people and the natural environment. It is only through human actions that peace can be restored to our planet and our civilization.(21) from Judaism Nature's healing power, the Holocaust, and the environmental crisis

9. In what ways do you see Katz’s ideas and argument in continuity or discontinuity with the positions advocated by Ehrenfeld and Bentley or Kay? 

10.  Does Neusner's focus on the community and on how the "then and there" relates to the "here and now" both in terms of holidays, life-cycle events, and everyday practices shed any light on Katz's essay?