Sin and Synergy: comparative Jewish and environmental regulatory classifications

One strategy for a hermercurial critique is to find insightful analogies between Jewish law (halakhah) and environmental protection.[1] As we read about complex rabbinic classification(s) of sins in daf yomi (Shab 70b-72), might we see an analogy here to the regulatory classification of toxic substances?

I want to advance a hypothetical analogy to help critique regulatory classification schemes that could unduly minimize desirable pollution controls and liabilities. Notably, might regulations overlook the synergistic effects of pollution?

Synergy.  In a living being, toxic substances may cause synergistic effects. That is, the synergy among toxins may cause more harm than the sum of each substance’s usual effects. For example, the synergistic effects of smoking and asbestos.[2] Today’s environmental and health regulations miss synergistic effects in at least 2 ways:

1. First, the regs typically calculate liability on a chemical-by-chemical basis. Each chemical is on its own regulatory track, e.g. due to level of evidence, type of hazard, politics, etc. Plus, many chemicals are not regulated. So, each chemical may fall below various actionable thresholds. Furthermore, synergistic interactions of multiple chemicals are ignored when making EPA, OSHA  et alia regulations. Would one solution be to put more responsibility on businesses for specific toxic or health effects?
2. Second, most regs do not adequately take into account the synergistic effects of pollution with the existing burden of toxins in human bodies, esp. vulnerable populations, like embryos and babies. (Granted, the data on synergistic effects is limited.) Talmudic law, conversely, pays close attention to marginal cases.

Sin. Talmudic classification schemes bear directly on the enumeration of sins that carry liability (i.e., require an offering). So, it is possible to design and choose categories that would minimize one’s liability. For example: Violations of certain food laws are classified by the specific sin type (e.g, minim [3]), and further classified by threshold size. Liability for violations is reduced by Rabbis who hold that the size of each food be calculated on a sin-by-sin basis. Liability can be further reduced by calculating threshold size by cooking style (tamkhui).[4]

Well, just wanted to toss out this idea of an analogy. Just as sin-by-sin classification may at times reduce liability under Jewish law, likewise secular regs can reduce liability with a chemical-by-chemical schematic. If this analogy makes sense, then the hope would be that the Talmudic debate over its classification scheme (not discussed in this post) might help us critique secular regulatory schemes. What do you think about either or both sides of this possible analogy?

Kaspit  כספית

[1] Analogies are a different tack than applying Jewish law (e.g., on torts) to judge an environmental, safety and health problem. This kind of analogy could enable Jewish law to shed analytical or moral light on quandaries within secular policymaking.

[2] A smoker with occupational exposure to asbestos is harmed more than the sum of [the harm caused by smoking] and [the harm caused by occupational exposure to asbestos]. Info on synergistic effects: for Gulf War veterans; with mercury and other metals. Example of source on asbestos/tobacco. Database of toxic effects by chemical and effect.

[3] These types (minim) include: Cheilev laws forbid the eating of certain animal fats. Notar forbids the eating of Temple offerings beyond an expiration time. Liability means that the sinner must bring an offering.

[4] The classification is more complex. See this Kollel Iyun Hadaf chart. Other distinctions: awareness of sin, breaks in awareness, designation of offering, and post-offering sins (71b). These distinctions give Rabbis various choices in maximizing or minimizing liability. However, please note that the min/max-imizing is not (necessarily) the Rabbis’ reason for classification choices. Ditto environmental regs.

Comments

[Jeff at sustainablog]

Kaspit -- this is a really interesting comparison, and I think using religious practices as metaphors for more secular concerns (though I often wonder why environmental protection isn't more of a religious concern, since so many religions hold to some form of belief that God created the earth) can spur more interest in environmental protection and sustainable development. I'm a little confused on the parallel with Talmudic law (likely a function of my ignorance of the topic) -- are you saying that the Talmudic concept relies on a moral/spritual notion of synergy? I think that makes sense, and the same thing could be said for some Christian views of sin...

[kaspit]

"Are you saying that the Talmudic concept relies on a moral/spritual notion of synergy?"

Jeff, I'd say that Talmudic Rabbis closely analyze the synergy (interplay) of sin-criteria in different classification schemes, and they calculate the liability implications. Enviro regs tend to classification schemes that ignore synergy between toxins. I'd think that enviro regulators should consider other classification schemes that would (spur and) use synergy data.

[Zoe Strickman]

I've changed my mind... I ***REALLY*** like your site! Wow!
-Zoe