Love of Neighbor Reimagined: Ritual Partnerships in Rabbinic and Confucian Ecology

Introduction

"Love of neighbor," a cornerstone ethical principle across religious traditions, typically applies to human relationships, as seen in Leviticus 19:18 ("Love your neighbor as yourself") and ren in Confucianism (Lunyu 12:22). Yet, contemporary ecological crises compel us to reconsider who—or what—constitutes a "neighbor" and how practices extend this love beyond humanity. This paper employs textual analysis through an ecological lens to examine ritual partnerships with nature in Rabbinic Judaism and Classical Confucianism. I argue that these traditions, through rituals like shemitah (Leviticus 25:2-7) and Suburban sacrifices (Liji, "Jiao Te Sheng"), engage the natural world not as a reciprocal "neighbor" but as a vital partner in sacred, asymmetrical alliances, shaped by theological and agrarian contexts. Reframing the session’s questions—What entities fall within neighborly love? What duties does this impose on nature? How do historical contexts redefine these obligations?—this paper reimagines "love of neighbor" as a multispecies ethic, offering a dialogical model for interreligious ethics that bridges ancient wisdom with planetary concerns.

Methodology 

This paper analyzes ritual partnerships with nature in primary texts, supported by secondary literature in ritual studies, ethics, and ecology. For Rabbinic Judaism, analysis focuses on Leviticus 25 (shemitah), Deuteronomy 12:21 (shechita), and Talmudic texts (Chullin 9a; Bava Metzia 32b), which embed ethical care in a covenantal framework, positioning nature as a partner (Sifra Kedoshim 4:12). For Classical Confucianism, the Liji’s "Jiao Te Sheng," Mengzi 7A:45, and Zhongyong Chapters 1 and 22 ritualize human-nature relations cosmologically, distinct from human-centric ren (Lunyu 6:30). These agrarian-rooted texts ground my exploration of sacred partnerships beyond human spheres.

Secondary scholarship strengthens this analysis. Roy Rappaport (1999, Ritual and Religion) theorizes rituals as mediators of human-nature relations, offering a framework that links Jewish and Confucian practices and shapes this paper’s comparative lens. In Judaism, Jacob Neusner (1989, The Ecology of Judaism) views shemitah as sacred ecology, a systemic balance, though not fully ecological in intent, while Ellen F. Davis (2009, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture) grounds it in agrarian stewardship (Hosea 2:18), supporting my covenantal lens. Jonathan Schofer (2010, Confronting Vulnerability) highlights animal vulnerability (Bava Metzia 32b), deepening the ethic of care. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson (2002, Judaism and Ecology)  analyze Leviticus 25, emphasizing ecological theology and the land’s relational role in covenantal care. For Classical Confucianism, Herbert Fingarette (1972, Confucius: The Secular as Sacred) highlights li in the Liji as a conduit of cosmic harmony, laying a foundation for understanding nature as a life-sustaining partner in the Way. Tu Weiming (1998, Confucianism and Ecology) reinterprets ren in the Zhongyong as an anthropocosmic ethic, aligning human benevolence with nature’s generative force ("The great virtue of Heaven and Earth is to give life," Chapter 22), which inspires my cosmological kinship synthesis. Philip J. Ivanhoe (2002, Ethics in the Confucian Tradition) unravels ren in Mengzi 7A:45, providing ethical nuance to nature’s vulnerability as a moral teacher, a thread woven into this argument’s life-affirming response. These works deepen my textual analysis and enable comparison of Rabbinic and Confucian ecological contexts, a gap this paper fills with a "partnership" framework.

Argument and Significance

This paper argues that Rabbinic Jewish and Classical Confucian texts portray the natural world as a vital partner in sacred, asymmetrical relationships, demanding an ethic of care that anticipates ecological interdependence, shaped by theological and agrarian contexts.

In Rabbinic Judaism, the natural world emerges as a partner within the covenantal framework, intertwined with human and divine purposes (Sifra Kedoshim 4:12). The ritual of shechita (Deuteronomy 12:21; Chullin 9a) exemplifies this, mandating a swift, painless kill rooted in tza’ar ba’alei chayim (Bava Metzia 32b), balancing sustenance with ethical restraint—a partnership where animals sustain humans but demand compassionate precision in return. Similarly, shemitah (Leviticus 25:2-7) casts the land as a covenantal ally, rests every seventh year, yields to the poor and wild creatures, and reflects divine ownership and human stewardship, not dominion (Hosea 2:18). The principle of bal tashchit (Deuteronomy 20:19-20; Shabbat 129a) extends this partnership to trees, prohibiting wanton destruction even in war—an ecological pact preserving life’s continuity. I argue that these rituals, born from Second Temple agrarianism, position nature as a co-recipient of divine care (Psalm 24:1), a partner whose vitality sustains the covenant and demands a disciplined, reverent ethic.

In Classical Confucianism, the anthropocosmic vision of ren frames nature as a relational partner within the Heaven-Earth-Human triad, yet integral to cosmic harmony. The Doctrine of the Mean declares, “The great virtue of Heaven and Earth is to give life” (Chapter 22), suggesting that ren mirrors this generative force, aligning human benevolence with nature’s rhythms. Suburban sacrifices in the Liji ("Jiao Te Sheng") ritualize this partnership, honoring mountains and rivers as co-participants in the Dao, not as neighbors but as life-sustaining allies revered by Warring States rulers seeking order. Mengzi 7A:45 illustrates this vividly, as Mencius advocates for nurturing the innate goodness in humans, likening it to the natural growth of sprouts, thereby emphasizing nature as a source of moral inspiration. These descriptions, forged amid pre-Qin fragmentation, cast nature as a moral teacher and co-creator, a partner whose flourishing underpins human virtue and demands a harmonious, life-affirming response.

Comparatively, these texts describe ritual partnerships that position nature beyond mere resource, binding humans to non-human entities—Judaism through covenantal duty (Genesis 2:15), Confucianism via cosmological kinship (Zhongyong Chapter 1). This suggests an ethic of co-responsibility, rejecting objectification. This analysis highlights active partnership, reimagining "love of neighbor" as a ritualized pact with the non-human. Its significance lies in offering a proposal for ethical renewal, challenging anthropocentric norms, and fostering a multispecies dialogue that bridges ancient wisdom with planetary concerns, resonant with the Unit’s theme of expanding "love" across traditions and species.