DEUT1014 Great stress is laid in Jewish economic behavior on countering “dog in the manger” attitudes [i.e., preventing others from benefiting from one’s things of which one has no need--AJL]. This idea is closely allied to the notion of bal taschit, according to which a man is not permitted to vandalize or destroy even his own property, let alone that of another, since other people might be able to benefit from it. Even though the owner has an explicit indefensible right in his property, the concept in Judaism of man being a mere guardian of his economic assets makes such destruction immoral. The sages saw such waste as an act of rebellion, a rejection of God’s role as the creator and hence, “He who tears his clothing, breaks his utensils, or scatters his money and anger should be in your eyes as if he had served idols.” Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 105b The biblical paradigm of bal taschit is to be found in the laws against destroying trees bearing edible fruit in time of war (Deuteronomy 20:19). It is interesting to note that the discussion centers around trees that are owned by the enemy; all the dictates of war would seem to overrule such moral considerations. Nevertheless, we are logically required to refrain from needlessly destroying fruit-bearing trees, since one is destroying the products and creation of the Lord, who is responsible for giving man his sustenance. The rabbis extended this injunction to include all useful items; In our day, the inefficient use of fuel would be considered a transgression of bal taschit. bal taschit, it should be noted, is also relevant in the case of ownerless property, as may be seen from the story of Hezkeyahu, who, in anticipation of the siege of Jerusalem, closed up the spring of the Gichon, much to the displeasure of the rabbis. Talmud Bavli, Pesachin 56a