Discussion Questions for Tirosh-Samuelson

I.                  Hava Tirosh-Samuelson (T-S) begins her essay by pointing to the indictment of Judaism as a cause of the current environmental crisis by people like Lynn White. She states that allegations of the anthropocentricism of Judaism are apparently the focus of this indictment. Is this an effective move for an introduction? What do you make of the quasi-dismissal of this ‘indictment’ at the beginning of the first new paragraph on p.100? Does T-R successfully respond to this ‘indictment’ over the course of her essay?

II.                Identify the thesis. It is located in this same paragraph on p.100. Also, when T-S states that even though the religious beliefs of Jewish tradition are “consistent with environmental protection,” “it would be a mistake to assume that Judaism is ‘environmentally correct,’ or to treat the Jewish sources apologetically,” what is she setting out to do? Is she successful, or does she herself treat the sources “apologetically” (i.e. with the continuous extension of ideals)?

III.               T-S cited a Midrash (Ecclesiastes Rabba 7:13) on p.102, halfway through the new paragraph. This citation, in its last line, “there will be no one to repair it after you,” implies a Jewish environmental ethic of intergenerational justice, as does the final line of T-R’s essay, “…ensure the well-being of God’s created world and its preservation for generations to come.” Why isn’t this ethic, specifically, made explicit in the essay? Should it have been?

IV.               “The covenant expresses the unconditional free love of God and Israel for each other and the mutual obligations that flow from it, including obligations toward the earth (104).” In this quotation, “the Covenantal Model” sounds like a proper ‘Land Ethic’ with both deontological and consequentialist components. What would be the deontological components? And the consequentialist?

V.                At bottom of page 117 T-S states that “a covenantal model would spell out the obligations of humanity toward the earth and its inhabitants as one manifestation of humanity’s obligation to God.” This sounds like a Contractarian framework, but the obligation seems to be strengthened by the addition of God into the equation. Is this accurate? Would this added theological component strengthen the deontological nature of such a framework?

VI.               The final section of the essay (pp.116-19) is dense and approaches, among other things, several secular environmentalist conflicts with Jewish tradition. What are these conflicts?

VII.             “Biological diversity and human distinctiveness are not mutually exclusive, but the justification for their reconciliation should be based on the covenantal notion of obligation rather than the “biotic rights” of animals, soil, and water (118).” In this quote T-S alludes to Peter Singer…appropriately after remarking that the human perspective is “the only perspective available to humans.” What do you think about this? Ought we to attempt to cast our minds into other animals, or does a model of stewardship and partnership with God provide a sound ethic? Is it really “shallow?”

VIII.What do you think of T-S’s comments concerning the “worship of nature for its own sake (116,119)?” In what way are these comments linked to her comments concerning “nature as the manifestation of God’s wisdom (104,112)?”         

For biographical information on Tirosh-Samuelson see

Arizona State University, School of Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies <http://www.public.asu.edu/~havats/>.