Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook (the Ra'aya) was one of the most prominent and creative Torah and spiritual leaders in recent generations.1 His philosophy and knowledge extended to many literary genres: bible, midrash (homiletic interpretation), kabbalah, theology, and more. R. Kook was known for his command of all Torah fields, love of mankind, the Jewish people, and the Land of Israel, and had unique eloquent skills. His philosophical and theoretical doctrine includes various issues that occupy modern man, such as evolution, science and religion, the relationship between the sacred and the mundane, society, and tikun olam (repairing the world).2 R. Kook was born in Latvia in 1865 and served as rabbi of the Zaumel and Bauska congregations. In 1904, at the beginning of the major trend of immigration to Palestine, he came and served as rabbi of the city of Jaffa and the moshavot (settlements, agricultural towns). In 1921, he was appointed president of the Chief Rabbinate Council and one of the two chief rabbis, a position he held until his demise in 1935.3 R. Kook made an effort to build and maintain channels of communication and political alliances between the various Jewish sectors, including the secular Jewish Zionist leadership, the Religious Zionists, and the more traditional non-Zionist Orthodox Jews.4 Since the Zionist movement was a secular movement, R. Kook was of the opinion that the renewed Return to Zion movement was the beginning of the redemption and a precursor of the time of the Messiah. This outlook enhanced the affiliation he felt with all Jewish people, particularly those dedicated to building the land. Full of appreciation and admiration for the devotion of the pioneers, both secular and religious, R. Kook regarded contact with them as being of the highest importance. His personality and leadership techniques had a significant impact in Eretz Israel during the Second Aliyah, as is also evident in the memoirs of contemporaries who had left the religious way of life.5 In his rabbinical position in Eretz Israel, R. Kook was required to reach decisions on a wide range of halakhic questions in a variety of areas. Important historical testimonies to his life, activity, and connections with the moshavot are embedded in his halakhic and philosophical compositions, such as his Responsa volumes, particularly the Mishpat Cohen responsa dedicated to “matters of Eretz Israel,” and can also be seen in the missives he sent to various leaders with whom he had developed friendships and spiritual ties. Among other things, R. Kook responded to halakhic questions concerning agriculture, labor, and industry, spheres that occupied a major place in the economy of Eretz Israel in those days. Following are some of the many examples of his involvement in farming issues: Shmita (sabbatical) year issues6—Generally, in order to avoid the financial weakening of Jewish farmers as a result of the shmita restrictions, R. Kook supported the need for a halakhic leniency (known as Heter Mechira) that would allow the farmers to till the land, having sold it to non-Jews before the shmita year.7 On this issue, R. Kook answered questions sent to him from Sejera, about planting new seedlings during the Shmita year, and about plowing in the fields of Ekron.8 Grafting fruit trees—for example, grafting apricots on plums and almonds or oranges and grapefruit in the orchards of Petach Tikva, and planting non-grafted citrons.9 Sesame oil—R. Kook answered questions from Ekron concerning the use of sesame oil on Passover.10 Planting of eucalyptus trees during shmita for the purpose of draining swamps and preventing trespassing, and formulating regulations for preventing ecological damage caused by the trees.11 R. Kook’s ideological attitude to nature and the environment has been discussed in several studies that deal with different conceptual aspects of man–nature–space, such as the cosmological uniformity of creation, the affiliation between Torah and nature, nature as the locus of God’s revelation in the world, and man’s place and role in nature. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson writes: “For Kook, the world of nature is an expression of divinity; nature is the most concrete, material expression of divine reality, but there is more to reality than the natural world. Kook believed that the Zionist insistence on the return to nature will lead only to the revival of religious life, even though the Zionist pioneers were themselves secularists.”12 The current article deals with some of R. Kook’s halakhic decisions on practical questions related to environmental issues in the moshavot, such as preventing environmental nuisances and the boundaries of public rights in privately owned space. In the process, we shall explore the factors, features, and considerations that affected his decisions in these spheres. PREVENTING ENVIRONMENTAL NUISANCES Raising goats and sheep in the moshava Rehovot In a missive sent to R. Kook from the committee of Rehovot in 1906, he was asked to decide whether to allow members of the moshava to raise behemoth dakot (goats and sheep), as these cause severe harm to the newly emerging agriculture: I received a complaint about behemoth dakot that are raised in the moshava, and they cause harm to the seedlings, and particularly the almonds. I hereby appeal to the respected committee to warn the owners of these animals to carefully guard their animals and prevent them from causing harm. And if after a suitable warning, given twice or three times, the owners shall not prevent occurrences of such damages, the respected committee must fine the owners of these animals as it sees fit. And it would be good if they were to correct all deviations involved in raising behema daka in Eretz Israel, in any way that is not in accordance with that allowed.13 The committee of each moshava was a management organ consisting of three to seven permanent members, headed by a chairman.14 The committee had a regulations book that presented the ideological platform of the moshava, as well as regulations on a variety of topics involving public life: physical planning, public services, economic planning, and governance arrangements.15 Committee members discussed various routine matters that came up in daily life and that concerned members of the moshava: issues related to education, religion, medicine, ritual slaughtering, economics, construction, bureaucracy, and matters related to family life. The committees were not merely a legislative body, rather an active institution that initiated the development of infrastructure and the establishment of agricultural, economic, and industrial enterprises, as well as cultural institutions.16 In the current case, the committee was requested to set regulations regarding the raising of goats and sheep, as these destroyed the new seedlings, and particularly the young almond saplings. The concern regarding harm to the new groves stemmed from the growing number of fruit trees cultivated in the moshavot from 1900 on. Up until this time, the major industry in the Judah and Sharon regions were grape vines, but the Phylloxera scale, which caused damage to the vines, resulted in a grave crisis in this industry. About one-third of the vineyards were uprooted and replaced by other trees, such as citrus. According to contemporary sources, there was a “flurry” of almond grove planting, and these were planted at first not only beside the grapevines, but also on their own.17 They were often planted in red loam soil, which proved to be unsuitable for them, as was the case in Rehovot. Until World War I, almonds were a major agricultural industry in the moshavot, but the almond groves were also affected by pest during the war years.18 As related by Shmuel Avitzur, almonds were chosen for two reasons: the almond fruit does not rot, and it does not require processing, as do grapes and olives.19 This historical background explains the concern about damage by goats, which might have hampered the recovery of the industry. R. Kook recommended that the problem be treated in two stages: In the first stage, owners of flocks of goats should be warned against possible harm to public property; in the second stage, if there was no change in the situation, goat owners should be fined for the damage they caused. His words indicate that he understood the significance of both industries—groves and animals—for the developing moshavot, and therefore in the first stage he attempted to reach a compromise between the parties, such that the cause of the harm be required to restrict the nuisance. However, if the owners did not manage to restrict their animals as required, fining the goat owners might deter them from causing further harm to the agricultural fields. R. Kook hinted at the “deviation” involved in raising behemoth dakot in Eretz Israel. This refers to an ancient regulation from rabbinical times that forbade the raising of behema daka in the country due to the damage caused to the agricultural infrastructure.20 The rabbis were very strict about this regulation and even harshly denounced shepherds who raised behema daka.21 Some claimed that the reason for the regulation was socio-economic, and that it aimed to encourage and stimulate agricultural activity during the Second Temple era, or, according to another opinion, after the destruction of the temple, as part of the regulations attempting to rehabilitate the Jewish agricultural infrastructure destroyed during the Great Revolt and the Bar Kochba Revolt.22 Interestingly, this prohibition was also embraced by the Babylonian sages in the era of the Amoraim (3rd–5th centuries CE), once they noticed its positive ecological results.23 R. Kook does not completely ban the grazing industry, which contributed economically to the dairy industry (cheese) and to a lesser degree the meat industry,24 but he says that it should be carried out “as allowed”, i.e., according to the limitations set by the rabbis, such as grazing in remote areas, deserts and thickets, or in fenced pens.25 From the missive sent to members of the moshava in Rehovot we learn that, according to R. Kook, the ancient regulation continued to be valid in the present. The obvious question is what led R. Kook to revive the ancient opinion? This seems to have two interrelated sources: one historical, the other halakhic. The historical factor concerns the new circumstances that began to emerge in the country from 1904, the beginning of the Second Aliya, which led to enhanced Jewish immigration and rapid economic development.26 In order to assist this trend, R. Kook was of the opinion that the rabbinical regulation should be reinstated, which, as mentioned, had similar ecological justifications regarding establishing Jewish agriculture as in the second century CE. R. Kook reveals the halakhic basis for his decision in his interpretive composition on the Talmud, Halakha Brura [clear Jewish law], published some 50 years after his death: And the words of the Shulchan Arukh [the halakhic book of R. Yosef Karo] are: “Behema daka should not be raised in Eretz Israel, since they often graze in the fields of others and their damage is common; but they are raised in Syria and in the deserts of Eretz Israel. And nowadays, when Jews do not normally have fields in Eretz Israel, it seems that it would be permitted.”27 (And at present as Jewish settlement of Eretz Israel has begun, thank God, it appears obvious that this should be forbidden in all settled areas, as stated in the Mishna).28 R. Kook was of the opinion that the circumstances in his time did not resemble those in the time of R. Yosef Karo (1488–1575), considered the most important prominent halakhic authority in the 16th century. Karo, who migrated with his family following the Spanish Exile and the forced conversions in Portugal (1497), ultimately arrived in Eretz Israel in 1536 and settled in Safed. Based on the agricultural situation he encountered there, Karo permitted the raising of behema daka in the country with no restrictions, as he thought that the prohibition was irrelevant in circumstances where most of the fields were owned by non-Jews. Although in practice, the residents of Safed in R. Yosef Karo's time also took part in a process of settlement and economic prosperity, R. Yosef Karo interpreted this reality in such a way that the regulation did not apply.29 R. Kook, in contrast, interpreted the reality of his time differently from that of R. Yosef Karo. The growing purchase of lands and the establishment of moshavot by Jews showed a need to reaffirm the regulation, even though this was only the beginning of a settlement process. Poultry farming in the moshava Rishon Lezion Ecological problems resulting from raising animals, such as goats and poultry, appear to stem from the economic changes in the moshavot from 1900 to 1914. One of the conspicuous changes with regard to animal husbandry was the transition from a single type of agriculture, consisting particularly of orchards and vineyards, to a more diverse farm that included field crops (wheat, barley, animal feed), almond and tobacco groves, as well as auxiliary livestock breeding (beef, sheep, and poultry).30 An extensive change gradually occurred also in the large vineyards in Rishon Lezion and Zichron Yaakov. Several farms in Rishon Lezion experimented, for example, with the manufacture of geranium-based perfume essences and with livestock breeding. In 1914, the agricultural economy of Rishon Lezion was still based on one main crop, but it was no longer a monoculture farm.31 In a response sent by the Ra'aya Kook from Jaffa, on 21 Adar 5774 (1914), to the moshava committee of Rishon Lezion, he referred to the “distance at which poultry should be kept because of damage to neighbors,” i.e., the distancing of pigeon coops and other fowl, probably chickens and geese.32 Raising poultry in an urban area is an ecological problem that causes nuisances: mess and bad odors as a result of the bird droppings, feathers that scatter in the wind, birds that enter privately owned areas and cause damage to crops, and so on. Understanding the economic significance of the poultry farms, R. Kook suggested several ways of keeping chicken coops while reducing harm to neighbors. Similar to his missive on the damage caused by goats, here too R. Kook presented his suggestions matter-of-factly, without listing the underlying halakhic sources. With regard to pigeons, he suggested that the coops be kept at least a distance of fifty cubits (approximately 25 m) from neighboring yards, on each side.33 However, in the case of other fowl, such as chickens, for which the Mishna gives no required distance, R. Kook was of the opinion that experts should be consulted in order to determine the necessary distance.34 R. Kook made another suggestion—to erect a partition between the damaging birds and the damaged element. As far as we know, talmudic sources include no obligation or regulation requiring the erection of a fence against animals.35 According to R. Kook, the owner of the fowls has the sole obligation to erect the fence as he is obliged to keep his property and animals from causing damage to others. R. Kook, who was aware of his role as arbitrator between residents of the moshava, understood the gist of the problem and how it could be solved. For this reason he also discussed the type of fence that might reduce the damage and how it should be erected. By law, the fencer can erect the fence near a boundary separating the two yards, and there is no difference whether he erects a detached fence (for example from wooden boards) or uses thorny bushes, such as the prickly pear cactus, which was a very prominent hedgerow plant in the moshavot. In the case of a hedgerow, R. Kook says the fence should be erected a certain distance from the border between the neighbors, to avoid damage to the neighbor's land and because of the thorns that might cause harm to the neighbor or his property. He writes: “But we have already taken on the practice in several places, that when fencing with planted thorns a distance of one meter is kept from the border to avoid harm to another or to the public as a result of the thorns that spread when they grow, and this is a good regulation, which in my opinion should be introduced in all our moshavot.”36 Finally, R. Kook recommends that the regulation of distancing a hedgerow be embraced in all the moshavot, although not formally required by Jewish law. Spilling the wine of trumot and ma'asrot from the winery at Rishon Lezion in a public area—ecological and health implications and halakhic solutions Since members of the First Aliya could not subsist on field crops, Baron Rothschild’s officials encouraged the cultivation of vineyards and wine farming at the moshavot. This economic strategy required them to establish large wineries that incurred many expenses, in imitation of the French wine industry and the Baron's estates where the cultivation of grapes intended to produce select expensive wines had begun. The known benefactor, Edmond James de Rothschild, helped construct the wineries and purchase the machines, and even established a factory for bottles at Tantura.37 The wineries were undoubtedly the crowning glory of the local industries. The largest of these was constructed in Rishon Lezion beginning in 1889, and the construction of the smaller winery in Zichron Yaakov was completed in 1892. In the last decade of the 19th century, the winery in Rishon Lezion was considered the second largest in the world and the largest in the Middle East, and it was a unique industrial combination from a technical and professional perspective.38 The Carmel Mizrachi company was established in 1902, encompassing the wineries, the marketing company, and the wines themselves, and in 1906 ownership of the wineries was transferred to the Vine Growers Association (Agudat Hakormim).39 From the very beginning, the first winery in Rishon Lezion was a source of employment for many laborers from the First and Second Aliyah (immigration). The winery employed a proficient professional staff that included clerks, laborers, managers, and also a chemist who ran a special laboratory.40 Supervision of the wine's kashrut (Jewish religious dietary laws) was a must at the new moshavot, as marketing of the wine was aimed mainly at a Jewish clientele that in most cases strictly observed the laws of kashrut. Since the opinion of the rabbis was critical for distributing the wine, leaders of the yishuv (settlement) and the winery management made an effort to meet their requirements.41 Among the winery staff was also a supervising rabbi who, by virtue of his position, saw to various aspects of kashrut, such as the prohibition against drinking the wine of non-Jews, the ban on harvesting the fruit of the vines in the first three years, extracting tithes, and treatment of the vines and wine during the Shmita year.42 On 12 Elul 1933, R. Kook, then Chief Rabbi of Eretz Israel, sent a letter of reply to R. Gershon Lapidot, rabbi of the Beit Yisrael neighborhood in Jerusalem and a dayan (judge) at the Agudat Yisrael rabbinical court. The letter dealt with the proper way of treating trumot and ma'asrot (a portion of crops set aside for the priests or for poor people) that was taken from the wine produced at the Rishon Lezion winery.43 According to Jewish law, truma wine which is not given to the priests cannot be used. In order to prevent use of the wine, it was rendered unusable. First the wine was spoiled using poison, then it was distilled and the alcoholic substance generated was burned.44 R. Lapidot asked whether it would not be better to spill the wine on the ground, as mentioned in an ancient rabbinical decision.45 In his response, R. Kook explains that his predecessors had already permitted burning the wine, and he is in favor of this because spilling the wine caused ecological health problems: For on this instruction I indeed heard the testimony of R. Yosef Halevi from Rishon Lezion, whose father, the esteemed Rabbi Naftali Hertz Halevi of blessed memory had instructed so. However this custom [=of burning the wine] did not spread because carefully burning only the wine itself, without mixing it, was not feasible for the farmers, and burning materials would be costly. Only later did the doctor, the physician of the moshava, begin to demand that the practice of spilling the wine must cease, as it has led to all kinds of special mosquitos that cause disease, and then I did not renounce the application of this dispensation. R. Kook consulted with R. Yosef Halevi (born Bialystok 1870), who served as kashrut manager at the Rishon Lezion winery, and the latter told him that this was a regulation introduced by his father, R. Naftali Hertz Halevi, (1853–1902), who served as the first Ashkenazi rabbi of Jaffa and the moshavot until his death in Jerusalem.46 R. Naftali Hertz Halevi was responsible for the actual supervision at the wineries and he had the trust of R. Shmuel Salant, a well-known figure in the Jewish world.47 Hence, R. Kook stresses that the burning of the wine is based on the decision of a halakhic authority. Over the years, the supervisors at the winery did not encourage the regulation of burning the wine for reasons of convenience, as this was a complex process that also involved certain expenditures. R. Kook explains that the need for a ruling allowing burning the wine re-emerged due to ecological–medical reasons. The physician of the moshava firmly demanded that the wine spilling stop, as the site of this spilling had become a public health hazard that endangered the settlers’ health.48 It encouraged mosquitos that might cause disease, and therefore it was necessary to find another way of wasting the wine.49 In the discussion, R. Kook presents the halakhic methods employed in the past with regard to ways of destroying trumot and ma'asrot. He recommends following Maimonides (Rambam, 1138–1204), who says that even in classical times it was permissible to destroy impure trumot and to burn them so that they would not be used by mistake.50 R. Kook stresses that there is a significant difference between rabbinical times and modern circumstances and that this must be taken into account when reaching a halakhic decision: In their time they had many other ways of avoiding the danger that accompanies spilling a large quantity of wine, and maybe they did not have such a large amount of wine that constituted a hazard in one place, as they speak only of a barrel of wine, which has little value, and not the spilling of hundreds and thousands of measures of wine, which seems to entail risk of disease in our weak and pampered generation, as we cannot give room to opinions indicating that the ways of the holy Torah are not considerate. For this reason I continued the dispensation, and I did not appeal it.The method of destroying the wine by spilling it on the ground was suitable for rabbinical times when wine production was limited and the quantity of wine set aside was accordingly small. The winery at Rishon Lezion produced substantial quantities of wine using advanced technological techniques, and therefore the wine could not be destroyed using the traditional method.51 Thus, the halakhic adjudicator needed to find a religiously acceptable solution to current needs, one that took into account the changes in circumstances, as much as possible.52 Notably, in this case, R. Kook found the halakhic solution within the limits of Jewish law and did not need to deviate from it. R. Kook offers another reason why it is not necessary to adhere to the method suggested in the ancient literature, rather it is preferable to burn the wine. The current generation is “weak” and “pampered” (delicate), while the ancients were more immune to disease.53 Strictly maintaining the letter of the law without showing leniency where the law permits it might hamper the image of the Torah, whose ways are always considerate of the believers. Finally, R. Kook emphasizes that the burning of the wine is not his own independent dispensation, rather, it was given previously by authorized adjudicators, mainly the Maharil Diskin (1819–98), considered one of the most prominent Ashkenazi adjudicators among the Old Yishuv of Jerusalem: And I would like to inform his honor, that my father in law the Gaon (highest rabbinical authority) Aderet, of blessed memory, told me that all the directives of the Gaon R. Naftali Hertz Halevi followed the opinion of the holy Gaon Maran R. Moshe Yehoshua Leib (Maharil) Diskin of blessed memory, in theory and in practice, and his son R. Yosef testified before me that this was what his father had instructed, and I am certain that the Gaon Maharil Diskin also instructed thus, rather it was not necessary at the time in practice, and the farmers were not in favor of it, until this matter arose through the objection of the physician, that the wine spilled in such abundance brings disease, God forbid, and then I instructed them to behave accordingly, and I found no reason to appeal this instruction and to involve the moshava in controversy, in a matter that according to the physician constitutes a hazard, God forbid.R. Kook brings circumstantial proof for the dispensation to burn the wine from his father in law, R. Eliahu David Rabinovitch Teomim (the Aderet, Lithuania and Jerusalem, 1842–1905), who, when appointed Rabbi of Jerusalem was given the authority of supervising the wineries.54 Rabinovitch Teomim said that R. Naftali Hertz Halevi gave his rulings in coordination or with the knowledge of Maharil Diskin, so that assumedly the matter of the burning of the wine was also done with his consent. R. Halevy was R. Diskin's disciple, and we have various testimonies that indicate consultations between them and consideration for R. Diskin’s opinion, for example in matters concerning Shmita.55 To avoid the impression that this is his own instruction, R. Kook repeatedly states that the burning of the wine was a proper procedure, but for reasons of convenience it was not implemented until the ecological-health problem arose. He says that to begin with he did not insist on implementing the burning in order to avoid arousing arguments among residents of the moshavot who were used to spilling the wine, but in truth he may have been worried about the response of the Jerusalem Badatz (court of justice of the orthodox community), as occurred in other cases on kashrut (Jewish religious dietary laws) issues.56 According to R. Kook’s outlook, the adjudicator must be careful and responsible and not change or object to a current custom that is halakhically permissible, even when there is a better halakhic way, in order to maintain peace in the community. Elsewhere he claimed that forming a prohibition that is unnecessary or that does not have a firm foundation might harm the development of the moshavot, and this should be strictly avoided.57 THE PUBLIC’S RIGHTS IN PRIVATE PROPERTY Repairs in public spaces that might damage the private property of members of the moshava Rehovot One of the major issues in environmental law is the restriction of individual rights and individual obligations in the public space (such as use of public space for personal needs: construction, placing garbage, etc.), as well as the areas and boundaries in which the individual is obligated to the public and its needs. A missive sent to R. Kook from the moshava Rehovot in 1905 deals with damage to individual property in order to develop roads in the moshava: The holy city of Jaffa may it be rebuilt, 17 Adar 1905, to the honorable committee of the moshava Rehovot may it be rebuilt: The dear R. Alter Bucharsky and R. Yisrael Yaakov Feinstein presented me with the decision of the general assembly from last Saturday night to request my consent according to our holy faith whether I give my permission to replace the road and move it about twenty meters in order to remedy the entire moshava, and whether individual objectors should be taken into account. And I would hereby like to inform them of my opinion.58It appears that changes in the roads of the moshava Rehovot at the time of the Second Aliyah, as well as other public projects described below, should be associated with two elements: New needs that began to emerge as a result of the development of the moshavot during the Second Aliyah, including Rehovot, which was one of the larger moshavot.59 Changes in the physical layout, i.e., expansion of the property of the moshavot—from 10,820 dunam in 1900–1904 to 19,314 dunam in 1914, an increase of 31 percent. This included expansion of the built-up area as a result of demographic increase and a variety of new undertakings. During the Second Aliyah the number of public projects grew, due both to the growing population and to economic improvements. During this period, public construction initiatives in Rehovot were delayed because of funding problems and only urgent projects were completed.60Thus, the problem raised was whether the committee of the moshava was legally authorized to change the route of one of the roads at the expense of private property belonging to several residents who objected to this course of action, in order to offer all residents of the moshava a more convenient road. In his short missive, R. Kook claimed that, on principle, individual rights may be infringed upon in order to remedy local issues required for the public’s well-being: In my opinion, the matter of planning the road as agreed is a general regulation for all residents of the moshava, and any delay might cause a distortion that will be irreparable. Therefore in any such case, even the respected committee itself could decide such a matter according to many of the adjudicators, as even when such action entails profit for one and loss for another the city's leaders can legislate. Indeed, in most cases there is reason to avoid arriving at a decision that affects individuals, and to be attentive to those who think that even an individual is cause for consideration, but in matters of planning roads, which is an inclusive and influential matter, my opinion is that everyone concedes that if a majority of the public agrees with the committee the claims of individuals have less of an effect, and it is in the interest of the individuals themselves [the objectors] to benefit all residents of the moshava. R. Kook takes as his point of departure the assumption that developing modes of transportation is an extremely important element for the development of the moshava and that this involves significant public benefit. He bases his fundamental decision that land may be appropriated for public purposes on several justifications, stemming from both logical and halakhic considerations: A. The environmental issue under consideration was raised at a time of expansion and development of the moshava. From a practical perspective, the necessary changes needed to be implemented at this stage, while the construction works were being undertaken, rather than postponing them to a later post-development stage, as it is to be assumed that then it will be harder to put them into effect. B. Although in many cases it is necessary to avoid harm to private property even when it is for the public’s benefit, on the issue of paving roads the collective benefit has precedence. Therefore, the committee is authorized to carry out the necessary changes despite the objection of individuals. R. Kook compares the authority of the moshava committee to remedy various elements in the community to that of tovei ha′ir (city elders and leaders) in the time of the Mishna and Talmud.61 As stated by various scholars, the moshava committee is reminiscent, to a certain degree, of the community council (va'ad hakehila) that served in various Eastern European congregations, where it was customary that the congregation leadership was limited to between three and six people, called parnasim or rashim (leaders), who reached decisions on various issues related to the congregation.62 Notably, in the minutes of the Petach Tikva committee from 1905, R. Kook granted the moshava committees the status of a rabbinical court. He writes: “Note that according to the instruction of the Gaon Maran R. Abraham Itzhak Hacohen Kook Shlita, a general gathering of the moshava, the moshava committee or council, is considered a rabbinical court, and their majority decisions on matters of management of the moshava or in matters concerning interpersonal relations cannot be cancelled by another rabbinical court, if these do not entail violation of major Torah laws.”63 R. Kook sees the moshava committee as an authoritative legal institution that delineates the laws and rules of the moshava, although it is not a religious legal entity. In other words, this speaks to recognition of the committee as a focus of power or as an independent judicial organ whose members were elected democratically and it is entitled to rule as well as to enforce its decisions.64 Nevertheless, R. Kook adds a caveat that if the committee’s decisions contradict the laws of the Torah another rabbinical court may override them. Expropriating land in order to establish a well in the moshava Rehovot Water was the basis for the agricultural and economic development of the new towns, and therefore digging wells was one of the major roles of the moshava committees. The water was used to water groves, for livestock, the wine industry, and for basic needs of the moshava residents. In several moshavot, the drilling of deep wells was initiated and the water was drawn with motorized pumps that ran on crude oil.65 A question as to the expropriation of private land of several members of the moshava for the purpose of establishing a public well was referred to R. Kook by the Rehovot committee in 1910. It appears that this environmental issue should also be associated with the demographic and physical expansion processes of the moshava: BH, the holy city of Jaffa may it be rebuilt, 4 Iyar 5670. To the honorable committee of Rehovot. In response to their respected question, whether the committee is authorized to allocate to those who did not give the moshava their part in the thirty dunams adjacent to the well, without their knowledge, wherever the committee sees right, so that the remaining territory can be sold for construction lots.Evidently, 30 dunams had been allocated for the well, including both the area to be dug and the public courtyard necessary to draw the water and for the gathering of the flocks. Some residents of the moshava were required to give up some of their private land for the well, and in return they received alternative land that they accepted. Several residents were not present when the decision was reached, and therefore did not give of their land for constructing the well. This led to the question of whether it was permissible to take the necessary land from them in return for other land without their knowledge. R. Kook answered: “If the committee, with the consent of its members, thinks that this matter is for the public’s improvement and the benefit of the town in expanding the moshava, they can reach a decision concerning the distribution and allocate a part for those remaining in a place most fit for planting and gardens, and sell the lots fit for construction to those who wish to buy them.” R. Kook claims that the ideal is “the public’s improvement and the benefit of the town,” i.e., balanced consideration of both the physical and the social aspect. In order to realize this, the moshava committee has full authority to reach decisions on all aspects related to parceling, i.e., allocating plots for residential and public purposes. The water issue is a fundamental element in the development of the moshava, and activities of construction and of expansion should not be delayed in cases when the owners of the land are not in the country and approaching them will take time. In such a case, the committee is entitled to allocate to the absent residents agricultural land in other locations, even without their permission. However, those who are in the country must be asked for their approval on this matter, and if they are not satisfied with the land offered, they may appeal in a court of law.66 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The design of the moshavot took into account principles of physical and environmental planning in order to create a proper social and community life. An example of this is the regulations of Rishon Lezion from 1882, which presented the ideal vision of the moshava, “to become an example for our brethren the Sons of Israel coming to secure a hold in the Holy Land.” The regulations instructed, for example, to “plant trees to improve the air,” and even to avoid works that are detrimental to the air and water of the moshava, such as leatherworks.67 The planning of the moshavot and their management were affected not only by Jewish tradition but also by external sources, such as by models of European-style towns in Eretz Israel and elsewhere, and by Arab rural settlements.68 In our age and time, the rabbis have a limited influence on the design of towns and on public ecological issues. However, they had a role in determining regulations in various spheres, including the environmental sphere, in the moshavot of the First and Second Aliya.69 The ideology of the Second Aliyah laborers rejected the theological concepts underlying the Jewish faith, and their life-style and ideological–social identity did not include the observance of religious precepts.70 Nonetheless, they accepted the authority of the rabbis, as their authority to set regulations was established in the regulations of the moshavot. For example, the committee of Rishon Lezion included both observant and non-observant Jews, but the regulations of the moshava determined that it would operate in the spirit of the Torah to establish religious institutions and also to observe the precepts limited to Eretz Israel, and these regulations were confirmed by a rabbi.71 Moreover, on issues that required a decision, residents appealed to the rabbis as instructed by the regulations, for example on the issue of the public right to utilize lands belonging to those who were absent for the purpose of paving roads.72 In the case of Mazkeret Batya, members of the committee, similar to the local residents, were more observant than in Rishon Lezion, and the regulations were composed by R. Naftali Hertz Halevi, reminiscent of the community custom in Europe, where an authoritative religious personality would confirm the regulations in order to affirm that they were compatible with Jewish law.73 R. Kook was considered a tolerant and original person. He was one of the only prominent figures from among the religious public with whom members of the Second Aliya held a dialogue and had complex appreciative ties. The appeals made to him on various ecological topics indicate that they saw in him a proper authoritative address for clarifying problems in this area.74 One of the conspicuous features of his responses to committee members of the moshavot is the fact that R. Kook appealed to his conversants “at eye level.” He brought and analyzed few halakhic sources and presented matters fundamentally and concisely, so that his instructions would be clear and appropriate for this social stratum as well. R. Kook’s active part in the provision of spiritual and halakhic assistance for various issues in the Jewish settlement, including environmental issues, derives from his grasp of Zionism as a sign of the coming of the Messiah. He perceived the development of the country by the pioneers, despite their being non-observant, as a deep human partnership in the universal cosmic process of bringing the redemption. Hence, he perceived his occupation with questions of settlement and environment in Eretz Israel as participation in this process.75 Neria Guttel and Hagai Ben-Artzi have shown that R. Kook′s halakhic attitude to the pioneers was unique, as he combined in his rulings on their behalf meta-halakhic considerations, such as use of literary genres (aggadah, halakha, and philosophy), that are not generally used as a basis for religious rulings, in appreciation of the pioneers’ inner character and important role in the development of the land.76 A prominent example of this tendency was R. Kook’s ruling that it was permissible to sell land to non-Jews during Shmita. Some scholars have seen this permission as testimony of his sympathy for Zionist settlement and his willingness to issue rulings that took its tribulations into account, or as a paradigm of his philosophical and Zionist rulings.77 Others see this as a classical, although single, example of his ideological attitude combining the utopic (aggadic) vision with halakhic rulings.78 Nevertheless, some criticize R. Kook on this issue and are of the opinion that the permit was “exilic,” based as it was on the fictional sale of land to non-Jews.79 Neria Guttel indicates the extensive use of meta-halakhic motifs which R. Kook combined in his heter mechira ruling: cultivating the wasteland, ingathering of the exiles, the pioneers as representatives of the entire nation, the self-sanctity of Eretz Israel, salvation, and the status of Muslims in the land of Israel.80 Rabbi Kook operated in a highly complicated and conflicted social arena. It seems that his idealistic way of ruling and using meta-halakhic considerations were the reasons why some settlers chose not to turn to him for guidance. R. Kook’s philosophy on issues of nature and the environment focused mainly on the concepts and ideas that he promoted with regard to the settlement of Eretz Israel. He advocated the idea of realizing a “combination of the sacred and the mundane,” i.e., combining material activity and spiritual values in local life and grasping the Torah as the fundamental basis for all components of Jewish life in Eretz Israel, rather than as something separate from practical life (torat chayim). R. Kook also spoke of the need to implement “prophetic halakha” in Eretz Israel. He believed Eretz Israel to be the land of prophecy, a land encompassing prophetic or semi-prophetic inspiration. Lacking prophecy, when giving a halakhic ruling in Eretz Israel, aggadah (rabbinic texts that incorporate practical advice, historical anecdotes, folklore and moral exhortations) is an alternative means and it should combine lofty ideas in the framework of halakha.81 One of the questions arising from the current study is: Was R. Kook’s philosophy on issues of nature and the environment integrated and realized in his rulings, or did he separate the conceptual world from practical halakha? Some have claimed that, as a rule, R. Kook’s rulings are sparser than his recorded philosophy.82 This impression is also evident in the environmental issues we have discussed. R. Kook discusses the issues mainly in light of halakhic rules which do not express philosophical and aggadic ideas and their ideological purpose. This may be a result of the missives’ concise and abbreviated nature (versus the rulings in his Responsa), or the fact that these are practical matters that require matter-of-fact and clear-cut treatment. R. Kook’s words on the need to reapply the rabbinical halakha forbidding one to raise goats in Eretz Israel enhances his outlook regarding the end of an “exilic Torah” and the initial application of a “Torah of Eretz Israel.” The application of the ancient body of halakha following the revival of the Jewish settlement was intended to form a well-administrated system of agricultural life in the moshavot, and it validates the ideal ecological order set by the sages.83 R. Kook’s responses on ecological topics concern two major areas in the life of the Yishuv that underwent significant development and momentum during the Second Aliya. The first was agricultural-economic, i.e., breeding behemoth dakot and poultry, and the wine industry. The second involved the physical infrastructure of the moshavot, i.e., paving roads and digging wells. Analysis of the historical background and the set of halakhic considerations involved in the issues under debate shows that R. Kook’s halakhic decisions were affected by three factors: the halakhic world, actual circumstances, and the ideology of the emerging settlement and agriculture. R. Kook was aware of the fact that he was living and operating at an important historical junction, namely a period that encompassed both renewal of the settlement in Eretz Israel and the initial growth of Jewish agriculture. Hence, he saw himself obligated to combine traditional halakha with a new creative halakha that took into account the changes of the times. For this reason, R. Kook used ancient halakhic rulings from the Talmud and the subsequent halakhic literature, while also suggesting new relevant regulations that were not anchored in Jewish law. This approach by R. Kook, of integrating traditional decisions with halakhic innovation, is quite similar to that of the formulators of ecological regulations in Jerusalem’s first neighborhoods. As shown by geographer Yossi Katz, environmental regulations were also determined in Jerusalem’s new neighborhoods, beginning from the mid-19th century, usually following the principles and parameters of generations of Jewish halakha.84 There too, for different reasons, it was not always possible to carry out the regulations, or conflicts arose between contemporary environmental conceptions and the halakhic outlook, such as dealing with the rabbinical prohibition against planting trees in Jerusalem as a holy city.85 Avinoam Rosenak has offered a general evaluation of R. Kook’s halakhic rulings. On the one hand, R. Kook was sensitive to public needs, but on the other, he did not prove himself a bold adjudicator who was willing to deviate from the customary halakhic framework. Rosenak writes: R. Kook was sensitive to the needs of the public and the collective more than to those of the individual. The tribulations of the collective – such as the future of the Yishuv, the safety of the community and its economy – were an inseparable part of his considerations in halakhic matters [… . .] in all his rulings the solution to real time tribulations did not come at the expense of halakha per se [… . .] as a rule, R. Kook's approach to the tribulations of the collective involved leniency only within the halakhic boundaries to which he was subject.86The cases we have discussed do not involve severe conflicts requiring dispensations contrary to halakha, similar to the permit to sell land to non-Jews during Shmita (see above). For this reason, they do not indicate R. Kook’s daring as an adjudicator, or the full range of his halakhic considerations and decisions. R. Kook’s decision that the wine of trumot and ma’asrot from the winery in Rishon Lezion be eliminated by burning rather than in the traditional method mentioned in rabbinical literature does not attest to his power to issue permissive rulings, as in this case the halakhic solution to the ecological-health problem was within the boundaries of halakha. In any case, there is no doubt that R. Kook’s rulings on environmental issues indicate his concern for public needs and for the proper development of the Yishuv. In order to help establish the agricultural industry during the Second Aliya, R. Kook supported the reapplication of the rabbinical regulation against breeding behema daka in Eretz Israel. He saw the goat herding industry as a barrier to the development of the almond industry which, as stated, occupied a major place in the fruit tree cultivation during the Second Aliya. R. Kook seems to have ruled this way due to the historical and purposeful parallel between renewed settlement in Eretz Israel after lengthy years in exile and the ancient decree that promoted the establishment of agriculture and revival of the desolate land after the edicts and wars in the time of the Mishna. Then again, in his practical and considerate way, he did not completely ban breeding goats as they too are necessary in a diverse and multi-sided economy, but rather suggested that they be raised in restricted conditions as permitted by halakha. Jewish sources began discussing environmental topics at a very early stage. Generations of Jewish literature, and particularly rabbinical literature, have included valuable material on several basic ecological issues. Some examples are: organization of the urban environment as a suitable living space for humans; urban planning and dividing towns into areas by function; expropriating land for public needs; and distancing harmful elements (trees and animals) or nuisances (smells, smoke, and noise) from residential to peripheral areas of the town.87 Some of R. Kook’s rulings mentioned above are directly associated with these issues, for example, harm caused by animals (goats, chickens), city planning, and expropriation of territory (digging a public well). One of the problems R. Kook encountered with regard to the discrepancy between ancient halakha and contemporary reality was the lack of halakhic precedents on certain environmental issues. In these cases, he recommended consulting with experts in the field who could decide on the proper course of action based on their knowledge and experience. Thus, for example, with regard to the poultry industry, which was important in establishing the economic foundation of the moshavot, R. Kook endorsed the rabbinical regulations that determined the distance of pigeon coops from human residences. However, in the case of other fowl, regarding which the recommended distance was not mentioned in Jewish sources, he advised that experts be consulted. The use of professional and authoritative figures to set norms is a concept espoused by R. Kook as a guiding principle for the treatment of halakhic questions. He avoided debating cases where the details were not completely clear to him, or where they involved issues that required professional expertise and knowledge, such as medical issues (concerning giving a divorce), technological matters (a machine for preparing matzot, i.e., unleavened bread), industry (imported wines), and agricultural issues such as kilayim (“Mixture,” the prohibition of crossbreeding seeds or plants).88 Also regarding the authority of the moshava committee to create a new public road at the expense of private land, R. Kook had no ancient or later halakhic precedent.89 In this case, his decision was based only on his own discretion (literally: “as I saw right”), stressing his consideration for the good and the needs of the collective. In such cases, R. Kook applied his authority as an arbitrator and advisor on ecological issues more than as a religious adjudicator, and used a technique of analysis based on simple logic more than use of halakhic precedents. This analytical method was one of the principles of R. Kook’s “prophetic halakha” (see above), a meta-halakhic method that he wished to realize and establish in Eretz Israel. R. Kook objected to the main elements of casuistry (pilpul) in halahic research. He preferred concise halakhic writing, which he himself utilized in his responses to the moshava committees. He also preferred to employ simple logic, and gave preference to the revival of intuitive tools in halakha.90 Another insight stemming from R. Kook’s rulings was that, when designing the environment, the needs and good of the majority have decisive power. In two cases dealing with the expropriation of private lands in the moshavot, R. Kook was of the opinion that the well-being of the collective was more important, and public interests should be maintained particularly in the initial stages of shaping the environment in the moshavot. R. Kook does not completely eliminate individual rights to property in cases of clashes with public needs. In his opinion, in some cases individuals should be heard, and when the public need is not crucial individuals have the right of delay. But preference for the collective over the individual as a guiding principle in clarifying issues of conflict between the individual and the collective is evident in other cases he dealt with, such as in the matter of employing kashrut supervisors in the towns: “I take great care on monetary issues involving Jews, and if we can find a way of easing the burden, I shall certainly not increase the burden of many for the benefit of an individual.”91 The question is: How does Rav Kook’s body of rulings compare to that of other rabbis on similar topics? In practice, the unique background and personal features of each adjudicator make it difficult to conduct such a comparison. Moreover, it is hard to find rabbis who dealt with the exact same issues for purposes of comparison. Nonetheless, I shall suggest a comparison between R. Kook and both R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and R. Ben Zion Meir Hai Uziel, who lived in the same period and even corresponded with him on halakhic and leadership topics. The issue for comparison is the question of milking on the Sabbath, which had implications for the livestock industry and for the initial development of the yishuv. The main question under debate is whether this issue, in addition to that of the heter mechira, reflects R. Kook’s ideology concerning the renewed settlement and meta-halakhic considerations aimed at helping the farmers and making it possible to continue developing the towns. The issue of milking on the Sabbath was a major source of concern for residents of the new settlements, as raising cows and goats for their milk was an industry that occupied a central place in the economy.92 In the Diaspora, Jews opted for the solution of milking by non-Jews, however in Eretz Israel they were hard pressed to apply this solution, among other things for security reasons. R. Kook completely prohibited milking on the Sabbath by Jews and insisted that non-Jews should be recruited for this task. He does not offer a halakhic solution that would make things easier for the farmers and does not mention any possibility of leniency or meta-halakhic considerations. He writes: Milking on the Sabbath by Jews is completely prohibited and a terrible desecration of the Sabbath, and Heaven forbid that one show leniency on this issue. The only way to milk on the Sabbath is by a non-Jew, as our forefathers always did. In general, every Jewish town must also have several non-Jews, due to the expediency of those things that can only be performed on Sabbaths and festivals by non-Jews, and the laws of our holy Torah are certainly stronger than any fabricated customs devised by people, and they are our life and longevity and the foundation of our revival on the sacred land.93R. Kook claims that it is essential that there be a non-Jew in every Jewish town. Moreover, he criticizes the “fabricated customs devised by people,” i.e., the outlook of several members of the Yishuv who advocated “Jewish labor” at any cost, even on the Sabbath. A person who visited Eretz Israel reported to R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (Lithuania, 1863–1940), the prominent pre-Holocaust halakhic leader of Eastern European Jewry, that the Jewish farmers in the moshavot of Eretz Israel milked their cows themselves on the Sabbath. R. Grodzinski, who was shocked by this report, spoke out blatantly and said that, “the foundation of the matter comes from the breaching nationalists for whom Jewish labor is more important than the Sabbath,” i.e., those who do such a thing certainly hold nationalist views and sanctify the value of Jewish labor to such a degree that they are willing to desecrate the Sabbath. R. Grodzinski claimed that the proper way of milking is by non-Jews, but in times of emergency he permitted milking by children in order to provide food, on the condition that this was not done in public. R. Chaim Ozer believed that the set of considerations that leads to a halakhic ruling has no room for ideological considerations made at the expense of halakha, certainly not the ideology of the “nationalists” whom he strongly criticized. In contrast to the approach of R. Kook and R. Grodzinski, R. Ben Zion Meir Hai Uziel (1880–1953), the rabbi of Rishon Lezion and Eretz Israel’s second Chief Rabbi, offers a halakhic solution that enables milking on the Sabbath by Jews. Furthermore, he stresses the value of the settlements and of avoiding harm to the dairy industry. He writes: And since in our country milk is one of the foundations of the local economy, the exclusive or partial source of subsistence of hundreds and perhaps even thousands of families, and since refraining from milking on the Sabbath will cause much sorrow to the animals, as it causes the milk flow to dry up, and often also the death of the milking cows, leading to the destruction of entire families whose only source of living is the dairy industry, and the destruction of towns that base their existence among other things on the dairy industry [… .] and since not every person has constant access to non-Jewish milkers, for all these reasons I am in favor of permitting.94The impression one has today is that R. Kook’s lenient decision on the matter of the heter mechira was a major legal precedent embraced by rabbis in future generations. However, on other issues associated with the environment and development it is hard to discern his clear impact. One example that demonstrates this is the question of raising goats in Eretz Israel in modern times. This issue was discussed by both R. Zvi Pesach Frank (1873–1960), who served as the Ashkenazi rabbi of Jerusalem from 1936 until his death, and by R. Ovadia Yosef (1920–2013), but neither of them mentions R. Kook’s views on the subject. In fact, R. Frank argues that the regulation is invalid and the prohibition no longer exists, while R. Ovadia Yosef is of the opinion that the prohibition is still valid.95 Notes 1. See Jacob B. Agus, “Abraham Isaac Kuk,” in Simon Noveck (ed.), Great Jewish Thinkers of the Twentieth Century, B'nai B'rith History of the Jewish People Series, Vol. III (Washington, 1985), pp. 73–96. 2. On R. Kook's philosophy and thought, see Zvi Yaron, The Philosophy of Rabbi Kook, trans. Avner Tomaschoff (Jerusalem, 1991); Shalom Rosenberg, “Introduction to the Thought of Rav Kook,” in Benjamin Ish-Shalom and Shalom Rosenberg (eds.), trans. Shalom Carmy and Bernard Casper, The World of Rav Kook's Thought (New York, 1991); Ezra Gellman (ed.), Essays on the Thought and Philosophy of Rabbi Kook (Rutherford, N.J, 1991); Lawrence J. Kaplan and David Shatz (eds.), Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and Jewish Spirituality (New York and London, 1994); Shai Cherry, “Three Twentieth-Century Jewish Responses to Evolutionary Theory,” Aleph, Vol. 3 (2003) pp. 247–90, especially, pp. 250–63. 3. On the biography of R. Kook, see Zvi Zinger (Yaron), “Kook, Abraham Isaac,” in Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 1181–87; Jacob B. Agus, High Priest of Rebirth: The Life, Times, and Thought of Abraham Isaac Kook (New York, 1972); Moshe Zvi Neriya, Life of the Re'ayah: The Jaffa Period – during the Second Aliyah (Tel Aviv, 1983), p. 11 ff. [Hebrew]; Yehuda Mirsky, An Intellectual and Spiritual Biography of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhaq Ha-Cohen Kook from 1865 to 1904, PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 2007; ibid., Rav Kook: Mystic in a Time of Revolution (New Haven, CT, 2014). On the relationships between R. Kook and the collective agricultural labor settlements, see Moti Zeira, Rural Collective Settlements and Jewish Culture in Eretz Israel during the 1920s (Jerusalem, 2002), pp. 184–200 [Hebrew]; Yossi Avineri, “Rabbi Abraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, The Rabbi of Jaffa, 1906-1914,” Cathedra, Vol. 37 (1985), pp. 49–82. 4. See Michael Zvi Nehorai, “Rav Kook's Attitude toward Religious Zionism,” Morasha, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 1985), pp. 6–10; idem, “Rav Reines and Rav Kook: Two Approaches to Zionism,” in B. Ish-Shalom and S. Rosenberg, The World of Rav Kook's Thought, pp. 255–67. 5. Z. Zinger, “Kook”. 6. Shmita or “Sabbath year” is the seventh year of the seven-year agricultural cycle mandated by the Torah for the Land of Israel. During shmita, the land is left to lie fallow and all agricultural activity, including plowing, planting, pruning, and harvesting, is forbidden. 7. On R. Kook’s position on heter mechira, see for example: Menachem Friedman, “On the Social Significance of the Polemic on shmita” (1889–1910), Shalem, Vol. 1 (1974), pp. 455–479 [Hebrew]; Eliezer Malkiel, “Ideology and Halakhah in Rav Kook's heter mechira,” Shnaton Hamishpat Ha'ivri, Vol. 20 (1995–1997), pp. 169–211 [Hebrew]; Arye Edrei, “From Orthodoxy to Religious Zionism: Rabbi Kook and the Sabbatical Year Polemic,” Dine Israel: Studies in Halakhah and Jewish Law, Vol. 26–27 (2009–2010), pp. 45–145; Yehuda Altschuler, “The shmita of 1889 in the settlements of Ekron and Gedera,” Moreshet Yisrael, Vol. 11 (2015), pp. 134–54 [Hebrew]. 8. Rabbi Abraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, Responsa Mishpat Cohen (Eretz Israel Issues), (Jerusalem, 1966), Simanim 72, 74. 9. Responsa Mishpat Cohen, ibid., Simanim 17, 25. On grafting apricots on almonds see at length Neria Guttel, Innovation in Tradition: The Halakhic-Pilosophical Teachings of Rabbi Kook (Jerusalem, 2005), pp. 105–07. R. Kook dedicated his book Etz Hadar (=Citrus Tree, Jerusalem, 1907) to a clarification of halakhic issues related to citron orchards in Eretz Israel, such as the issue of planting them on lemon stock. His initial purpose in writing the book was to encourage the purchase of citrons from Eretz Israel, particularly in light of the considerable competition from citron markets in countries such as Greece, Italy, and others. On this topic see Yosef Salmon, “The Controversy of the Corfu Citrons and its Historical Underpinnings,” AJS Review, Vol. 25, No. 1 (2000–2001), pp. 1–24 [Hebrew]; idem, “The Controversy over Etrogim from Corfu and Palestine, 1875-1891,” Zion, Vol. 65 (2000), pp. 75–106. [Hebrew] 10. Responsa Mishpat Cohen, ibid. Siman 31. On this issue, see at length N. Guttel, Innovation in Tradition, pp. 25–35. 11. See at length Abraham Ofir Shemesh, “Planting Eucalyptus Trees in the New Settlements in Nineteenth to Twentieth-Century Palestine as Reflected in Rabbinic Documents,” Modern Judaism (2016) Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 83–99. 12. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, “Judaism,” in Roger S. Gottlieb (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology (Oxford, 2006), p. 51. See also at length: Benjamin Ish Shalom, Rav Avraham Itzhak HaCohen Kook: Between Rationalism and Mysticism (Albany, 1993), pp. 56–57; Zvi Yaron, The Philosophy of Rabbi Kook (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 116–21; Nahum Rakover, “Human Attitude to the Environment in R. Kook's Doctrine,” in Simcha Raz (ed.), The Zionist Religious Collection (Jerusalem, 1997), Vol. I, pp. 30–37; Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Jewish Approaches to the Environment – Review,” Bechol Derachecha Da'ehu (B.D.D.), Vol. 14 (2004), pp. 23–45 (and particularly pp. 42–43) [Hebrew]. 13. Rabbi Abraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, Letters of the Re'ayah, Volume I (Jerusalem, 1985), letter 33, p. 31 [Hebrew]. 14. Committee meetings were recorded in the minutes book and sometimes bore the committee stamp. At the height of its activity, the committee would convene once a week or more; in normal times only once a month or less. The committees were elected by the settlers once every year or two, and at the end of their tenure new elections were held. See Shlomit Langboim, “The Colony Committees and Their Contribution to the Development of the First Aliyah Colonies, 1882–1918,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999, p. 17. [Hebrew] 15. S. Langboim, “The Colony Committees,” pp. 23–24. Regulation books were sometimes composed a short time after the committee was formed and sometimes several years later, and were the legal basis for its activity. The regulations defined the committee's responsibilities and authority, as well as the routine of the moshava with whose management it was charged. See S. Langboim, “The Colony Committees,” p. 21. On the takanot (=regulations) of the first moshavot: Petach Tikva, Rishon Lezion, Yesod Hama'ala and Rosh Pina, see Ya'acov Shavit, “Regulations of the First Colonies - From Communal Regulations to an Experiment in Practical Utopia,” Cathedra, Vol. 72 (1994), pp. 50–62 [Hebrew]. On the involvement of the colonies’ committees in the totality of life and their wide competences, see Moshe Smilansky, Chapters in the History of the Yishuv, Part 2 (Tel Aviv, 1951), pp. 23–24. 16. See Nachum Gross, “Introduction: On Jewish Entrepreneurship,” in Ran Aaronsohn and Shaul Stampfer (ed.), Jewish Entrepreneurship in Modern Times, East Europe and Eretz Israel (Jerusalem, 2001), pp. 17–24 [Hebrew]. 17. On the almond trade in the first moshavot, see Rabbi Abraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, Letters of the Re'ayah, Volume II (Jerusalem, 1985), letter 396, p. 55 [Hebrew]. 18. Mordechai Naor and Dan Giladi, Eretz Israel in the 20th Century: From Yishuv to Statehood, 1900–1950 (Tel Aviv, 1990), pp. 37–38 [Hebrew]; Dan Giladi, “The Jewish Agricultural Settlements in Eretz Israel: 1882-1917,” in Yahushua Ben-Arieh and Israel Bartal (ed.), The History of Eretz Israel, Vol. 8: The Last Phase of Ottoman Rule (1799-1917) (Jerusalem, 1981), p. 285 [Hebrew]. 19. Shmuel Avitzur, “Agriculture, Handicraft, and Light Industry during the Period of the First Aliyah,” in Mordechai Eliav (ed.), The First Aliyah (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 225–44 [Hebrew]. 20. See Mishnah, Baba Kama 7:7: “It is not Right to Breed Small Cattle in Eretz Israel. They may, However, be Bred in Syria or in the Deserts of Eretz Israel.” And compare, Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Nezikin, Baba Kama (New York and Jerusalem, 2001), Vol. 8: 10–12, p. 39. 21. On condemning shepherds who breed these animals see Tosefta, Baba Metzia 2:13, Saul Lieberman edition, p. 72; Tosefta, Bikurim 2:10, Saul Lieberman edition, p. 293; Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 57a. 22. On the opinions concerning the background of the ban see at length: Abraham Buchler, Der Galilaische Am-ha-Ares, Des zweiten Jahrunderts (Wien, 1906), p. 193; Asher Golak, “On Shepherds and Breeding Small Cattle in the Destruction of the Second Temple Period,” Tarbiz, Vol. 12 (1941), pp. 181–89 [Hebrew]; Yitzhak Ber, “The Historical Foundations of the Halakha,” Zion, Vol. 17 (1952), 1–55 [Hebrew]; Gedalya Alon, The History of the Jews in Eretz Israel in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Period (Tel Aviv, 1975), pp. 173–178 [Hebrew]. 23. Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kama 80a. 24. On the goats livestock in the moshavot between 1900 and 1914, see Simon Schama, Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 149, 163 [Hebrew]. 25. Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kama 79b. 26. On economic growth in the Second Aliyah and its factors, see Mordechai Eliav, Eretz Israel and its Yishuv in the 19th Century, 1777-1917 (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 374–76 [Hebrew]; Dan Giladi, “The Period of the Second Aliyah (1904-1914): General View,” in Shmuel Stempler (ed.), The Yishuv in Modern Times: Landmarks before Statehood (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 1983), pp. 97–98 [Hebrew]. 27. Rabbi Josepf Karo, Shulkhan Arukh (Jerusalem, 1974, facsimile Krakow, 1594), Hoshen Mishpat, siman 409. 28. The brackets are the words of Rabbi Kook. See Rabbi Abraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, Babylonian Talmud with Halakha Berura, Tractate Baba Kama 79b (Jerusalem, 1993), p. 158, section 5. According to Avinoam Rosenak, Halakha Brura's enterprise implements the principles of the prophetic Halakhah of R. Kook and realizes his meta-halakhic ideal. See Avinoam Rosenak, The Prophetic Halakhah: Rabbi A.I H. Kook's Philosophy of the Halakhah (Jerusalem, 2007), pp. 402–04 [Hebrew]. 29. Jacob Knaani, “The Economic Life in Safed and its Surroundings in the 16th Century and First Half of the 17th Century,” Zion, Vol. 6 (1934), pp. 172–217 [Hebrew]; Shmuel Avitzur, “Safed: Center for the Manufacture of Woven Woolens in the 16th Century,” Sefunot, Vol. 6 (1962), pp. 41–70; The History of Eretz Israel, Vol. 7, pp. 208–17 [Hebrew]. 30. Yossi Ben Artzi, “Development of the First Aliyah Colonies and the Establishment of New Colonies during the Second Aliyah Period,” in Israel Bartal (ed.), The Second Aliya: Studies (Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 135–69 [Hebrew]; D. Giladi, “Jewish Agricultural Settlements,” pp. 285–86. 31. Y. Ben Artzi, “Development,” pp. 152–53. 32. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook, Responsa Orach Mishpat (Jerusalem, 1979), Hoshen Mishpat, siman 9 [Hebrew]. Simon Schama reports that the settlers raised brown Leghorn chickens and Turkish fowls and tried to hybridize them, see S. Schama, Two Rothschilds, pp. 149, 162. 33. The distance to be kept from pigeons is based on the Mishna, Bava Batra 2:5. During the Second Temple era, breeding pigeons was transformed from a family industry into a public industry. Previously, it had been seen as a primitive additional way of providing support for the traditional household. On breeding pigeons in rabbinical times see: Yigal Teper, “The Rise and Fall of the Pigeon Breeding Industry in Eretz Israel,” in Aharon Oppenheimer et al. (ed.), Man and Land in Eretz Israel in Antiquity (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 170–96 [Hebrew]. 34. Chickens were the most important fowls in the period of the Sages and they were raised in henhouses, especially in rural regions. On breeding fowls in the Sages’ period see Zeev Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London, 1994), pp. 179–80. 35. On constructing a fence to prevent damage caused by looking into a person’s premises, see Mishnah, Baba Batra 1:1 and Babylonian Talmud, ibid. 2a. 36. Responsa Orach Mishpat, Hoshen Mishpat, siman 9. 37. On growing vineyards in the Rishon Lezion area and the contribution of the benefactor to construction of the vineyards, see Michel Zalman Pochachevsky, “On the History of the Vineyards in Rison Lezion (1992-1889),” in Abraham Yaari (ed.), Memories of the Land of Israel (Ramat Gan, 1974), Part I, pp. 487–92; Ever Hadani, History of Agudat Hakormim (Tel Aviv, 1966), pp. 58–73; S. Schama, Two Rothschilds, pp. 125–14. On the glass factory at Tantura and the transportation of bottles to the wineries, see Yehuda Grasovsky-Gur, On the Cusp of a New Century (Tel Aviv, 1979), p. 48 [Hebrew]. 38. On the winery in Rishon Lezion and the manufacture of the wine, see S. Avitzur, “Agriculture, Handicraft and Light Industry,” p. 239. 39. S. Schama, Two Rothschilds, pp. 150–51. 40. On the professional crew of the winery in Rishon Lezion see S. Avitzur, “Agriculture, Handicraft,” p. 239. 41. Notably, there were often conflicts surrounding kashrut issues, and the question of the precise kashrut certificate procured involved various factors: the settlers, the Baron's officials, the religious leadership of the Jewish settlement, and national circles in Eretz Israel and elsewhere. Some were concerned about being obliged to receive the kashrut approval of rabbis seen as opponents of the new settlement, as this meant awarding them major economic power. See further E. Hadani, History of Agudat Hakormim, pp. 84–86; Yehoshua Kaniel, Continuity and Change: Old Yishuv and New Yishuv during the First and Second Aliyah (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 215–12. 42. On maintaining the laws of trumot and ma'asrot as early as the first years of the wineries see, for example, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, Collection of Yehoshua Barzilai-Eisenstadt, A25/33/203. Notably, the obligation to observe all the religious precepts that apply in Eretz Israel was also stated in the regulations of Rishon Lezion. See Aaron Mordechai Freiman, “Book of Regulations of the moshava Rishon Lezion 1882,” Jubilee Book on the History of the moshava Rishon Lezion, A: Since its Establishment to 1907 (Jerusalem, 1907), pp. 3–9, takanot 4:5, and compare Yehoshua Kaniel, In Transition: The Jews of Eretz Israel in the Nineteenth Century, Between Old and New and Between Settlement of the Holy Land and Zionism (Jerusalem, 2000), p. 390. 43. On R. Gershon Lapidot, see Gershon Halevi, Rabbi of Beit Israel Neighborhood, Jerusalem 1878-1957 (Jerusalem, 2001). On the relationship between R. Gershon Lapidot and R. Kook, see Moshe Zvi Neriya, Compilations of the Re'aya: Life Ch\apters and Collection of Sayings (Kfar Haroeh, 1990), p. 507 [Hebrew]. 44. Responsa Mishpat Cohen, siman 37. 45. Babylonian Talmud, Temura, 33b. 46. Rabbi Joseph Halevi served as the presiding judge in Jaffa when R. Kook was the Chief Rabbi of the city. On Rabbi Joseph Halevi see David Tidhar, Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel (Tel Aviv, 1947), Vol. II, p. 644–45 [Hebrew]; Yitzhak Goldshlag, “Joseph Halevi,” in Encyclopedia of Religious Zionism, ed. Yitzhak Raphael, Vol. 3 (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 100–03 [Hebrew]. On Rabbi Naftali Hertz Halevi, see D. Tidhar, Encyclopedia of the Founders, Vol. 2, p. 102; Eliezer Baumgarten, “Halakha, Kabbala and Science in the Library of Rabbi Naftali Hertz Halevi,” Cathedra, Vol. 135 (2000), pp. 89–135. 47. Y. Kaniel, Continuity and Change, p. 214. 48. It is difficult to know the identity of the physician in question because there were several working there during this period. On review of the physicians of Rishon Lezion since the establishment of the moshava to the 1940s of the 20th century, see Elifelet Vitzberd, “Set of the First Physicians in Rishon Lezion,” Korot, Vol. 6 (1975), pp. 756–38; David Yudilevitch, Rishon Lezion 1882-1941 (Rishon Lezion, 1941), p. 503; Nissim Levy, Chapters in the History of Medicine in Eretz Israel 1799–1948 (Tel Aviv, 1998), pp. 454–64. 49. In the early twentieth century, the physicians of the moshavot were given additional roles: responsibility for sanitation, isolation of patients in times of epidemic, and vaccination of residents. See online: http://www.gen-mus.co.il/group/?id=28 50. R. Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides), Mishneh Tora, Hilkhot Terumot, 12: 12. 51. Towards the end of the 19th century, the capacity of the Rishon Lezion winery tanks and vats was over 73 thousand hectoliters. According to another source, 3,000 tons of grapes were processed at this winery in 1903 (S. Avitzur, “Agriculture,” p. 239). After the Phylloxera afflicted the vines the industry was reduced, but it revived fairly quickly. According to the annual report of the Vineyard Workers Association for 1929–1930, 29,095 hectoliters of wine were produced in the entire country (there is no specific mention of Rishon Lezion). See S. Schama, Two Rothschilds, p. 238. 52. On the role of reality in the halakhic decree of R. Kook, see A. Rosenak, The Prophetic Halakhah, pp. 222–52. 53. The claim that recent generations must receive special consideration on halakhic matters due to their weakness (“weakness has come down to the world”) is also cited by other contemporary adjudicators. See for example, R. Israel Meir Hacohen, Mishnah Berura (Tel Aviv, 1958), siman 617, section 9; R. Ovadiya Joseph, Responsa Yabia Omer (Jerusalem, 1957–95), Vol. 1, Orach Chaim, siman 27; ibid, vol. 9, Orach Chaim, siman 50. 54. Y. Kaniel, Continuity and Change, p. 215. After he was appointed Rabbi of Jaffa and the moshavot, R. Kook replaced R. Rabinovitch-Teomim in the supervision of precepts observed only in Eretz Israel, having received the approval of the rabbis of Jerusalem. In this area, R. Kook received the support of R. Ben-Zion Yadler, the well-known Jerusalem magid, who travelled the moshavot in Judea and the Galilee and strictly maintained the setting aside of trumot and ma'asrot. See Letters of the Re'ayah, Volume II, letters 597, 600, 636. See also Ben Zion Yadler, Betuv Yerushalayim (Bnei Brak, 1967), pp. 158–60. 55. See for example, Letters of the Re'ayah, Volume I, p. 372; R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Sefer Ma'adane Haretz: Sheviit (Jerusalem, 1944), siman a, section 11, p. 11; Y. Kaniel, Continuity and Change, p. 239. On the relationship between Halevi and Diskin, see also Israel Freidin, “R. M.Y.L. Diskin, Founder of Extremist Orthodoxy in Jerusalem – Image and Reality,” Cathedra, Vol. 42 (1987), p. 126 [Hebrew]. 56. On the matter of kashrut supervision, disagreements arose in 1910 between the Badatz in Jerusalem and R. Kook concerning the soap manufactured at the factory of Kudransky and partners in Ben Shemen, which they forbade and he permitted. See Letters of the Re'ayah, Volume I, letter 333, p. 370. 57. See, for example, his words on the Badatz prohibition of the soap: “And how is it possible that the settlement of the Holy Land should be ruined by declaring prohibitions that have no place at all.” See Letters of the Re'ayah, Volume I, letter 333. 58. Responsa Orach Mishpat, Hoshen Mishpat, siman 10. 59. Y. Ben Artzi, “Development of the First Aliyah Colonies,” pp. 144–50. 60. Ibid., pp. 162–67. 61. Ze'ev Safrai, “The Local Jewish Community in the Period of the Mishna and Talmud,” in Isaiah Gafhni (ed.), Kehal Yisrael: Jewish Self-Rule through the Ages (A Series in Memory of Israel Halpern), Vol. 1: The Ancient Period, (Jerusalem, 2001), pp. 147–68. 62. See Reut Green, “The Involvement of the Agricultural Settlement Committees and Its Settlement Members Into the Personal Matters of the Individual During the First and Second Aliyot (1882–1914),” in Amadot: Nation, State, Tora, Vol. 6: From Crisis to Emergence, ed. Moshe Rehimi, (Elkana-Rehuvot, 2013), pp. 141–60. On the Authority of the heads of the community (Parnasim) see: Menachem Elon, “On the Nature of Takkanot Hakahal in Jewish Law,” in G. U. Tedeschi (ed.), Legal Studies in Memory of Avraham Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 1–54 (specially p. 17) [Hebrew]; Jacob Katz, Tradition and Crisis: Jewish Society at the End of the Middle Ages (Syracuse, NY, 2000), pp. 103–12. 63. Minutes of the committee meeting from 25 Av 5675, Petach Tikva Archives, 1.1.2/168, item 32. Information to this effect was included in R. Kook's missive to the moshava committee of Rehovot on 15 Adar 5666: “I am always in favor of confirming the internal regime of the moshavot, and to habituate our sons to this.” See Letters of the Re'ayah, Volume I, letter 35, p. 32. 64. The committee had several enforcement mechanisms at its disposal: monetary fines, preventing social benefits, preventing public services, preventing employment, appealing to higher instances (such as the va'ad hamoshavot, ICA, or PICA), executing the action without the farmer’s consent, threat of deportation, and banishment (S. Langboim, The Colony Committees, pp. 28–29). These means of enforcement are reminiscent of those customary in Eastern European congregations. However, in Europe, ways that were not customary in Eretz Israel were also used: excommunication and handing a Jew over to the authorities, see J. Katz, Tradition and Crisis, p. 124. About the enforcement authority of committees in Eastern European Jewish congregations, see Menachem Elon, “Authority and Power in the Jewish Community: A Chapter in Jewish Public Law,” Shnaton Hamishpat Ha'ivri, Vol. 3–4 (1976–77), pp. 34–37; idem, “Rule of the Community and Individual-Public Relations in Jewish Law,” in Aharon Halevy Pichnik (ed.), Shana Beshana (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 209–37. [Hebrew] 65. On the role of the colony committees to supply water and to drill wells, see Shlomit Langboim, “The Colony Committees and Their Contribution to the Development of the First Aliyah Colonies, 1882–1918,” Cathedra, Vol. 147 (2013), pp. 41–80 (especially pp. 48, 59, 63). On pumping of water by fuel pumps, see S. Schama, Two Rothschilds, p. 152. 66. Responsa Orach Mishpat, Hoshen Mishpat, siman 12. 67. See Takanot of Rishon Lezion 1882, 1:1; 5:17; 6:33. 68. See Yossi Ben-Artzi, Jewish Moshava Settlements in Eretz Israel, 1882–1914 (Jerusalem, 1988) [Hebrew], pp. 46–47. 69. See Pina Veyated, On the Leadership of Rishon Lezion (Jerusalem 1901). 70. On the demographic composition of the Jewish immigrants to Palestine in the Second Aliyah see: Gur Alroey, “The Demographic Composition of the ‘Second Aliyah,’” Israel, Vol. 2 (2002), pp. 33–56. On the ideology of the laborers of the Second Aliyah and their relationships with the old Yishuv and the religious establishment, see David Knaani, The Labor Second Aliyah and Its Attitude Toward Religion and Tradition (Tel Aviv, 1975), pp. 109–10 [Hebrew]; Y. Kaniel, Continuity and Change, pp. 272–80. 71. See Takanot of Rishon Lezion 1882, 2:2; 5:17; 6:36. On the confirmation of the takanot (regulations) by religious scholars, see A. M. Freiman, “Book of Regulations,” pp. 62–63. 72. See Takanot of Rishon Lezion, 1882, 6:37; Protocols from Tamuz, 7, 1900, and 6, Heshvan, 1901, Archive of Rishon Lezion museum (Aein1-1) 73. See S. Langboim, “The Colony Committees,” p. 55. On the role of religious scholars to write or to confirm the takanot, see M. Elon, “On the Nature of Takkanot,” pp. 32–53. 74. See Yossi Avineri, “Relations between Rav Kook and the Second Aliyah Pioneers,” Morasha, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1985), pp. 27–34. 75. M. Zeira, Rural Collective, pp. 30–31. 76. On the influence of R. Kook's Ideology, the conceptual and philo-sophical world on his halakhic decrees, and integrating meta-halakhic considerations in his halakhic discussions on Zionism and the pioneers, see Neria Guttel, “Halakhic and Meta-Halakhic Considerations in Rabbi Kook's Halakhic Decision-Making,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001, p. 284; idem, Innovation in Tradition, p. 10 (especially the bibliography in note 34), and pp. 107–17 [Hebrew]; Hagai Ben-Artzi, “The Ra'aya Kook as an Adjudicator – Innovative Foundations in R. Kook's Rulings and their Association with his Philosophical World,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2003 [Hebrew]; idem, The New Will Be Sanctified: Rabbi Kook as Innovator and Halakhic Decisor (Tel Aviv, 2010), pp. 153–224 [Hebrew]. 77. See Yossi Avineri, “Rabbi Kook Zt”l and his Relationships with the Old Yishuv during the Second Aliyah,” Shragai, Vol. 2 (1985), pp. 11–30 [Hebrew]; E. Malkiel, “Ideology and Halakhah,” pp. 169–211 [Hebrew]. 78. B. Ish Shalom, Rav Kook, p. 170. 79. See Eliezer Schweid, Judaism and Secular Culture (Tel Aviv, 1981), p. 136 [Hebrew] and A. Rosenak, The Prophetic Halakhah, pp. 22–23 and 228–31. 80. N. Guttel, Innovation in Tradition, p. 115. 81. On halakha-aggadah relationships in R. Kook’s thought, see N. Guttel, Innovation in Tradition, pp. 96–97; A. Rosenak, The Prophetic Halakhah, pp. 134–49. 82. See for example Slomo Joseph Zevin, “Shabbath Ha'aretz,” in Yitzhak Raphael (ed.), Hareaya: Collection of Articles on the Doctrine of R. Kook (Jerusalem, 1966), pp. 20–29 [Hebrew]. On the disruption between R. Kook's thought and halakhic practice, see at length A. Rosenak, The Prophetic Halakhah, pp. 19–24. 83. On the meanings of the term Torat Israel in the Kook philosophy see, for example: Neria Guttel, “Torah of Eretz Israel – The Jerusalem Talmud in the doctrine of R. Kook,” in Itamar Warhaftig (ed.), Yeshu'ot Uzo – On Matters of Redemption and the Messiah, in Memory of Rabbi Uzi Kalcheim (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 390–412; Yuval Cherlow, The Torah of Eretz Israel in Light of the Doctrine of the Ra'aya (Hispin, 1998) [Hebrew]. 84. Yossi Katz, “The Jewish Religion and Spatial and Communal Organization,” in Jamie Scott and Paul Simpson-Housley (ed.), Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (New York, 1991), pp. 3–10; Yossi Katz, “Quality of the Environment in the Takanot of the First Neighborhoods of Jerusalem,” Al-Atar, Vol. 8–9 (2001), pp. 37–44 [Hebrew]. 85. On the prohibition of planting in Jerusalem, see Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kama 82b. 86. Avinoam Rosenak, “The Prophetic Halakhah and Reality in the Halakhic Rulings of Rabbi A.I. Kook,” Tarbiz, Vol. 69, No. 4 (2000), pp. 591–618 [Hebrew]. 87. The Jewish attitude to environmental issues has been discussed in various studies over the last several decades. On practical ecologic issues see, for example: Eric G. Freudenstien, “Ecology and the Jewish Tradition,” Judaism, Vol. 19 (1970), pp. 406–14; Zvi Har Shefer, Ecology in Jewish Heritage (Haifa, 1994), pp. 100–07 [Hebrew]; Meir Zichel (ed.), Environmental (Ecological) Issues in Jewish Sources, Responsa Project (Ramat Gan, 1990) [Hebrew]; Nahum Rakover, “Environmental (Ecological) Issues,” Sidrat Mechkarim Veskirot Bamishpat Ha'ivri, Vol. 26 (Jerusalem, 1972) [Hebrew]; Nahum Rakover, Environmental Issues, Theoretical and Legal Aspects of Jewish Sources (Jerusalem, 1993) [Hebrew]. On the Jewish philosophical environmental discourse, see at length Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed Word (Cambridge, MA, 2002). 88. A. Rosenak, The Prophetic Halakhah, pp. 222–23. 89. The Mishna in Tractate Sanhedrin 2:4 determines that, “he [the king] can break through [private property] to build a road, and none may object.” And also that, “The king's road has no measure,” i.e., the king may cross fields and private estates when preparing a road for his soldiers—and maybe also for other needs. R. Kook in Responsa Mishpat Cohen, siman 144, section 14, p. 336, says that even if there is no monarchic regime in Israel, the ruling authority belongs to the people. The government, or government organs elected or appointed by the people, have the authority of a king with regard to all halakhas related to governance of the collective. R. Kook did not refer to organs with a low level of government, such as committees of the moshavot. Nonetheless, it is possible that in a reality where this is the organ responsible for public governance, it has the authority to expropriate land for purposes of development. On the attitude of Jewish law to this issue, see: Yehonatan Simcha Balas, “Compensation for Financial and Environmental Nuisances,” Emunat Itaykha, Vol. 25 (1999), pp. 21–22; Dov Lior, “Government Authority to Expropriate Land for the Purpose of Paving Roads,” ibid., pp. 32–33; Yaakov Ariel, “Compensation for Expropriated Land,” Responsa Be'ohala Shel Torah, (Kfar Darom, 2003), Part IV, pp. 173–78. 90. A. Rosenak, The Prophetic Halakhah, pp. 196–204. 91. Letters of the Re'ayah, Volume I, p. 68. 92. For a historical review on this issue see: Chaim Peles, “Problems involved in milking on the Sabbath in the religious settlements in Eretz Israel,” Barkai, Vol. 2 (1985), pp. 108–132; N. Guttel, Innovation in Tradition, pp.186–88. 93. Responsa Orach Mishpat, Orach Chaim, siman 64. 94. Responsa Mispetey Uziel (Tel Aviv 1935), Volume 1, Orach Chaim, siman 10. 95. R. Zvi Pesach Frank, Har Zvi: Responses, Halakhic Decisions and Inquiries (Jerusalem, 2009), Hoshen Mishpat, siman 136; R. Ovadia Yosef, Yabia Omer, Vol. 3, Hoshen Mishpat, siman 7. For a discussion of the different opinions among modern adjudicators on the validity or invalidity of the regulation, see: Nahum Rakover, The Environmental: Ideological and Legal Aspects, Sifriat Hamishpat Ha'ivri (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 113–19 [Hebrew]. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: email@example.com
Modern Judaism: A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience – Oxford University Press
Published: Feb 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud