Levi Cooper teaches at the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies and is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah. He is currently a post-doctoral fellow in Bar-Ilan University’s Faculty of Law. Rabbi Dr Cooper is a contributing editor to Jewish Educational Leadership.
1. What does Tikkun Olam mean?
Tikkun olam is a familiar term with a variety of meanings and associations, which makes its translation an exercise in interpretation. Its cognates may or may not be connected to the original term, as we will see. In rabbinic literature, it appears as tikkun ha-olam (with the definite article), and occasionally tikkuno shel olam. In modern parlance, the term has evolved into tikkun olam.
The Hebrew root t-k-n appears in the biblical book Ecclesiastes where it is used in the sense of straightening, repairing or fashioning. In rabbinic literature, the root has a broad range of meanings; its connotations include: fixing a variety of items, preparation for a significant event, legislation, composition of liturgy, emendation of Biblical texts, calendric calculations, propagating the species, and spiritual pursuits.[1] The Hebrew noun olam also carries more than a single connotation: world, society, community, universe, spiritual sphere, forever and eternity. Given the range of meanings, the Hebrew term tikkun olam is not easy to translate accurately.[2] Different suggestions have been offered in a variety of contexts: preparing[3] or correcting[4] the world, ordering the world (or society) correctly,[5] the improvement of society,[6] for the sake of the preservation of the system as a whole,[7] for the proper order of the Jewish community,[8] for the sake of the public interest,[9] the physical preservation of the world[10] and others.[11] Given this flexibility, we can expect that in different ages, under different circumstances and in different contexts, tikkun olam will have different meanings. This paper will touch on the main way-stations of the term, from rabbinic literature to modern times. Given the plethora of contemporary literature on the subject and the parameters of this study, I can only aspire to provide a partial overview of the vicissitudes of the term.
2. Liturgy
The most commonly known reference to tikkun olam – and perhaps the earliest – appears in the Aleinu prayer. Aleinu is a special prayer: it is an ancient passage that dates back to the Second Temple Period[12] and its recitation is laden with mystical import.[13] On one hand, Aleinu is recited thrice daily at the tail end of each service, while on the other hand it also occupies a place of pride in the liturgy of the Days of Awe.[14]
In Aleinu, however, the phrase is somewhat ambiguous: who is supposed to transform the world? From the opening line of the second paragraph – “and therefore [looking] to You, we hope…” – it would appear that it is God’s domain. We turn to God, perhaps with a sense of frustration at our own ineptitude or forlorn state that prevents us from repairing all that is broken and we hope that God will fix society.[15] This understanding is buttressed by the context of the Aleinu prayer when it is recited on the High Holy Days.[16]
If the Aleinu reference is the inspiration for those who would later invoke the notion of tikkun olam, it is subject to two provisos. First, the tikkun olam standard is in danger of being a half quote. The full phrase in Aleinu is letakken olam bemalkhut shaddai – to repair the world in order to achieve the kingdom of God.[17] In context, this specifically includes the abolition of idolatry and universal recognition of the Almighty. Many times when tikkun olam is cited, the kingdom of God is not mentioned and perhaps not intended.[18]
Second, we should note that a few scholars have suggested that the correct text of Aleinu is not לתקן as is assumed by most, but rather לתכן (to establish).[19] If we accept the emendation, Aleinu has nothing to do with tikkun olam.
Notwithstanding these two caveats, the tikkun olam of Aleinu as an eschatological hope and expectation of an improved society and a repaired world reverberates in collective memory.
3. Legislative Justification
The term tikkun ha-olam appears in the talmudic literature in a normative context, but its exact legislative function is not stated.[20] Gilbert S. Rosenthal advanced the following theory: “[A]lmost all the references are to be found in the fourth and fifth chapters of Tractate Gittin, which deals primarily with divorce laws. This leads me to conclude that the principle was originally devised to protect the rights of women in divorce cases and to shield them from unscrupulous, recalcitrant, and extortionist husbands.”[21] More generally, Rosenthal suggested that the divorce law cases are similar in that “their teleology is the improvement of society.”[22] According to Rosenthal, from divorce law, the legal principle was “expanded into a variety of other areas.”[23] Indeed most of the cases deal with divorce law, but I question whether this necessarily indicates the sources of the legal mechanism.[24] More importantly, there are a sufficient number of cases that have nothing to do with women’s rights. These cases come from different areas of law, including economic legislation, criminal law and matters of personal status.
Jill Jacobs suggested that tikkun ha-olam “is invoked in response to situations in which a particular legal detail threatens to overturn an entire system. […] By invoking the concept of tikkun ha’olam, the rabbis fix the flaw that endangers the stability of the system as a whole.”[25] David S. Widzer also offered stirring words when he suggested that the legal justification “is used for more than just tinkering with the law. It is an overarching goal of rabbinic society to live with God in mind, making society the best it could be, not just for reasons of justice and fairness, but because those ideals were what God wanted.”[26]
Jacobs and Widzer may have overstated the case: It is not clear why these cases loom as threats to the entire legal system more than other instances of rabbinic legislation (as Jacobs suggested); nor is it apparent that there is an “overarching goal” particular to these cases (as Widzer suggested).
More generally it can be said that when legal authorities perceive a need for legislation to solve a problem, tikkun ha-olam provides an umbrella for justifying such legislation. Thus tikkun ha-olam is used in variety of cases that are not easily grouped together. The laws include matters of personal status[27] and ransoming captives; they are aimed at encouraging or discouraging certain behavior, or circumventing problematic norms.[28] Regarding the scope of the tikkun ha-olam legal justification, I accept Rosenthal’s analysis, that the principle’s “initial application was limited; its potential, however, was limitless.”[29]
The tikkun ha-olam legal justification reflects a serious turn from its liturgical counterpart. First, the universalist theme of Aleinu has its eyes set on repairing society in general, both Jewish and non-Jewish.[30] The legal justification, however, was offered for the inner workings of the Jewish community; legislation regarding Gentiles is justified by a different term: mipnei darkei shalom (in the interests of peace) – a more pragmatic than idealistic motive.[31]
Second, tikkun olam in Aleinu talks about God repairing the world, not humans, whereas the legal justification is the province of humanity. Gerald J. Blidstein suggested that “[t]his may be symptomatic of the way the rabbis were appropriating terminology – in a very subtle and minor, but nonetheless significant, way. Malkhut shaddai is, perhaps, God’s task; but the human task or the task of the sages is to correct any small injustice within society, so as ultimately to achieve that kingdom of heaven.”[32]
Despite its legal potency and potential, the term subsequently dropped off the legislative radar screen. To be sure, the term had not been stricken from the record; it is still cited when the relevant talmudic discussions are invoked, but it is rarely used as a justification for solving new legal issues.[33]
4. Mystical import
While it may be unclear in Aleinu who is to repair the world, the legislative tikkun olam was clearly the purview of humans. The kabbalistic tradition also understood the charge to be referring to human activity. To be more precise: kabbalistic tikkun (pl. tikkunim) describes a person’s theurgic potential to repair the fragmented world with the goal of restoring it to its original design. This usage focused on the word tikkun, rather than the term tikkun olam.[34]
Tikkun, indeed, is a central doctrine in Lurianic kabbalah, and many writers dealing with tikkun olam have discussed this mystical angle.[35] We might wonder, however, whether kabbalistic tikkun is truly an offshoot of the liturgical expression or the legal justification?[36] According to Lawrence Fine, the identification of tikkun olam with the kabbalistic tikkun can be dated to the late 1970s. He rightly called this “an amazing journey of ideas,” but he noted that “[t]he highly charged mystical symbolism of Lurianic literature, with its endless anthropomorphic description of God’s inner life, its multiple levels of reality, its impressive convictions about the power of the contemplative imagination, has given way to the bare bones of ‘rupture’ and ‘mending’.” This was not necessarily a critique, for Fine concluded: “A contemporary idea is thus legitimated and rendered all the more significant by clothing it in the garb of tradition, a process as old as ‘tradition’ itself.”[37]
Be that as it may, tikkun olam is often used today with varying hues of mysticism. This can be clearly heard amongst those interested in modern, in-vogue Kabbala study.[38]
5. Social justice, activism, political involvement
In 1918, the Committee on Synagogue and Industrial Relations of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) adopted the Reform movement’s first resolution on social justice: “The next few decades will have as their chief concern the rectification of social and economic evils. The world will busy itself not only with the establishment of political, but also with the achievement of industrial democracy through social justice. The ideal of social justice has always been an integral part of Judaism.”[39] The resolution continued with the committee submitting a “declaration of principles as a program for the attainment of which the followers of our faith should strive.” The principles focused on minimum wage, eight-hour work day, compulsory day of rest, safety and sanitary conditions in the work place, abolition of child labour, accident compensation, health insurance, assistance to the unemployed in finding a job, right to unionise, and more.[40] Social justice became the central theme of the Reform movement, and while the resolution made no mention of tikkun olam,[41] this term would later become synonymous with social activism. Fine suggested that the first use of the expression tikkun olam in America was in the 1950s by Shlomo Bardin (1898-1976), the founder of the Brandeis Camp Institute in California.[42] In the most recent Pittsburgh Platform formulated in 1999, the term was used: “Partners with God in תִּקּוּן עוֹלָם (tikkun olam), repairing the world, we are called to help bring nearer the messianic age.”[43] Indeed, for many, tikkun olam as social justice became no less than a pillar of Judaism.
Across the ocean in inter-war Europe, the term tikkun olam also took on the connotation of political involvement, albeit in a vastly different way. In Warsaw 1932, Alter Hayim Levinson published a work entitled Tikkun Olam that was aimed at encouraging Jews to join the Agudas Yisroel political party that had been founded in 1912. The party was to be an organization that would unite observant Jews under the one banner.
In 1936 another volume with the same title was published in Mukačevo, Czechoslovakia. This Mukačevo Tikkun Olam was a collection of letters and documents against the Jewish political organizations of the day, including the various secular and religious Zionist parties and Agudas Yisroel. The work was produced by Moshe Goldstein, at the behest of his teacher Rabbi Hayim Elazar Shapira (1871-1937) – rabbi of Mukačevo, leader of the Minkatch Hasidim, and the outspoken opponent of all Jewish political organization.
To be sure, liberal tikkun olam activism, pro-Agudas Yisroel Tikkun Olam and anti-Agudas Yisroel Tikkun Olam each advocated different political and social agendas. Moreover, the former had a universalist application, while the universalism of the latter two was to be achieved via a particularistic focus. Nonetheless, tikkun olam as an expression of activism crosses the boundaries between movements.
Returning to the shores of America: The approach of Reform towards tikkun olam drew on the universalist outlook of Aleinu. Aleinu, however, is comprised of two significantly different paragraphs.[44] The first paragraph emphasises chosenness and particularism, while the second paragraph underscores universalism. Liberal liturgists did not always identify with the first Aleinu paragraph; but the universalism of the second paragraph became a banner proudly waved.[45]
Alas, the Reform emphasis was not shared across the denominational spectrum.[46] This was partly due to the paucity of primary sources advocating tikkun olam.[47] Moreover, the elevation of tikkun olam as a prime value by liberal Jews had a negative impact on Orthodox circles; as J. David Bleich commented: “[S]ocial action became a dominant concern of the Reform movement with the result that such activity quite incorrectly became suspect within the traditionalist sectors of our community.”[48] In 1997, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks put it in harsher terms: “[E]very phrase associated with the idea of Tikkun Olam, phrases like – ‘light unto the nation,’ or ‘the Jewish mission,’ or ‘ethical universalism,’ all those things became code words for assimilation, reform, and the whole concept of Tikkun Olam became suspect. What a tragedy that is today.”[49]
It was some time before the Orthodox communities took up tikkun olam as a cause, and even then it was not with the same gusto.[50] In 1994, the Sixth Orthodox Forum convened by Yeshiva University President Norman Lamm, discussed tikkun olam in the context of Jewish responsibility for society in general and a conference volume was subsequently published.[51] At this conference, Blidstein demonstrated “an authentic call for broad Jewish involvement with the welfare of society as a whole”, but he also noted that the nature of the sources meant that they did not “decide either concrete questions of prudence and priority; nor […] provide any guidance to religionists who do not wish simply to be swept along by the faddish social current of the day.”[52] Thus Blidstein suggested that tikkun olam is best fulfilled indirectly rather than by actively pursuing the goal. Blidstein called this a “paradoxical possibility that Israel best fulfils whatever responsibility it has for the welfare of mankind by acting in devotion and probity before the Lord, rather than by busying itself in attempting to directly affect the spiritual or material state of the world.”[53] Bildstein’s conclusion went further: “I think we can safely say that ‘responsibility for the welfare of general society’ is not the highest priority in our scheme of things, at least on the day-to-day level. The people Israel seems called upon primarily to keep its house in order and to care for its own, to serve God and to witness to Him. At the same time this exemplary life ought to have an overall incremental impact on mankind as a whole.”[54]
At the same conference, Bleich discussed tikkun olam from the perspective of the Jewish obligation to determine, disseminate, promote and enforce the Seven Noahide Laws among Gentiles. Bleich also reflected on sources that consider the eventuality of Gentile fidelity to standards that are normative for Jews.[55] While Bleich advocated voicing Jewish approaches to contemporary issues in light of the Noahide laws, like Blidstein, he did not give this expression of tikkun olam primacy.
Three years later when Sacks spoke about tikkun olam, he opened his analysis with similar sentiments.[56] Sacks then embarked upon a journey that he called “an exercise in historical imagination.” Sacks explained that the first divine promise focused on the Land of Israel, while the second divine promise spoke about the Children of Israel. Both promises have been realized in our era, leaving the third promise as our next challenge: to perfect the world under the sovereignty of God. Sacks acknowledged the enormity of the challenge: “It is the last task of Jewish history, and it is the hardest task.” Why is this task apparently absent from our traditional sources? Sacks explained that this was by dint of the historical reality of Jewish existence in a hostile Gentile world: “It would have been absurd to raise our sights any higher […] because who were we to change the world?”[57]
Jacob J. Schacter also noted that there was scant discussion of the tikkun olam as an ideal, and placed this literary phenomenon in its historical context.[58] Schacter then offered traditional sources in an attempt to ground the contemporary understanding of tikkun olam as social justice.[59] More recently, Yehudah Mirsky commented that “the historical moment in which we find ourselves is without precedent in human history” and therefore “in many respects the corpus of Jewish tradition is of limited usefulness in addressing many contemporary questions of social justice – and certainly on a global scale.”[60]
Despite continuing efforts by the Modern Orthodox community,[61] it would appear that tikkun olam as a call for social and political activism is still most closely associated with liberal strands of Judaism.
6. Tikkun Olam today
As we have seen, the term tikkun olam has had numerous lives, such that its endurance and malleability over time are impressive. It has been used as a pliable legislative justification for changing law or as an eschatological ideal that may describe a process or the end. It has had realpolitik implications or mystical connotations. In the twentieth century the term tikkun olam has referred to Jewish political involvement, or to encourage abstinence from any political participation whatsoever.
Tikkun olam is not reserved for the rhetoric of social action; the ideal has also been given artistic expression. In a fascinating article, Matthew Baigell reflected how social concern was reflected in Jewish American art from the late nineteenth century, and how in recent times this trend has turned to tikkun olam as the subject of art. Baigell explained this development by pointing out that “in today’s market-driven, profit-making artistic climate, the creation of works with tikkun olam in mind provides the artists with moral and socially-minded reasons to create and to give purpose to their art.”[62]
Nowadays, tikkun olam is most commonly heard as a catch cry for activism, political involvement and social justice. As a banner, tikkun olam helps people rally around a value that sounds like it is drawing on traditional Jewish sources, while at the same time championing contemporary liberal values.
So pervasive is the tikkun olam ideal that the Hebrew term is often used in English without the need to translate it.[63] Schacter provided an eclectic, and at times entertaining, survey of modern expressions of tikkun olam as the Jewish ideal of social justice.[64] As Hillel Halkin noted “‘Repairing the world’ is now as much of a Jewish contribution to the American language as are chutzpah, schmooze, and schmaltz”[65] or as Baigell pointed out the term “has become a catch-all term used by Jews and non-Jews in America” to the extent that “[i]n the course of a single day, it has now become almost impossible to avoid hearing or reading references or inferences to tikkun olam.”[66]
It would appear that the term continues to evolve to encompass an even broader spectrum of values.[67] To cite one, innocuous example: in a February 2012 issue of Nashim – a magazine published by the Makor Rishon Hebrew newspaper and aligned with Orthodox Religious Zionism – there was an article about healthy eating and the front cover of the magazine ran the headline “Education Towards Correct Nutrition is Tikkun Olam”.[68] In the article the interviewee was quoted as saying: “In a better world, if we are talking about tikkun olam, we must encourage correct eating, such that fewer children will be overweight and we will raise here a stronger and healthier nation.”[69]
That tikkun olam has evolved into a catch-all that is bandied around for such a variety of causes, has not necessarily been seen as a positive development.[70] Arnold Jacob Wolf (1924-2008), a well-known Reform rabbi and advocate of progressive politics, wrote that “this strange and half-understood notion becomes a huge umbrella under which our petty moral concerns and political panaceas can come in out of the rain.” This is not to say that Wolf advocated aborting tikkun olam; on the contrary he openly declared that “[o]ur world does need repair. So do we.” For Wolf this meant asking ourselves hard questions: “Is our ethical system finally theocentric or pragmatic? Do we want what we want or what God wants?”[71]
Mirsky described a different challenge facing those who wave the broad tikkun olam banner by asking “How Jewish is Tikkun Olam?” Mirsky asked questions like whether there was “a distinctively Jewish way of doing humanitarian work in developing countries”? Ironic as it may sound, Mirsky offered a Jewish perspective on tikkun olam, trying valiantly to redeem the term from its use “as a substitute for universalist moral concern” by “articulating a distinctively Judaic moral vision.”[72]
Jacobs, a Conservative rabbi and social justice activist, also bemoaned that “the term has become so overused and so little understood as to be meaningless.”[73] She pointed out that “[s]ome have suggested imposing a ban or hiatus on the term tikkun olam, given the general confusion about the meaning of this phrase.” In response to this situation, Jacobs proposed “weaving together the four primary definitions of tikkun olam present in Jewish history: the anticipation of the divine kingdom in the Aleinu prayer; the midrashic call to preserve the physical world;[74] the rabbinic desire to sustain the social order; and the Lurianic belief in our power to restore divine perfection.” Jacobs deftly outlined the tikkun olam objectives, beginning with traditional understandings and recasting the original meanings in light of contemporary sensitivities, summarising her proposal in the following points: “1) the Aleynu’s concept of tikkun as the destruction of any impurities that impede the full manifestation of the divine presence; 2) the literalist midrashic understanding of tikkun olam as the establishment of a sustainable world; 3) the rabbinic willingness to invoke tikkun ha’olam as a justification for changing untenable laws; and 4) the Lurianic belief that individual actions can affect the fate of the world as a whole.”[75]
But must the term be redefined so broadly in an encyclopedic fashion? Returning to the words of the outgoing chief rabbi: “Jewish history is a journey through three destinations: the destination of Jewish land, the destination of Jewish children, and the destination of changing the world. The question is how do we do it?”[76] Sacks’ answer is simple yet profound, such that “anyone who has tried to teach will know the answer […] to be a particular, specific living example of how to live.”[77]
My thanks to Avigail Hurvitz-Prinz, Menachem Butler and Meesh Hammer-Kossoy for their suggestions.
[1] Gilbert S. Rosenthal, “Tikkun ha-Olam: The Metamorphosis of a Concept,” The Journal of Religion, 85:2 (April 2005): 215-216.
[2] I will not deal with uses of the verb t-k-n that appear without olam or with other words (for example, letaken me’uvat) for it appears to me to unnecessarily expand the parameters of the discussion without advancing our understanding of the term tikkun olam.
[3] The Code of Maimonides: Book Fourteen – The Book of Judges, tran. Abraham M. Hershman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), 240.
[4] Arnold Jacob Wolf, “Repairing Tikkun Olam,” Judaism, 50:4 (Fall 2001): 479.
[5] Gerald J. Blidstein, “The Import of Early Rabbinic Writings for an Understanding of Judaism in the Hellenistic-Roman Period,” ed. Shemaryahu Talmon, Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 64, n. 2.
[6] Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, p. 217.
[7] Jill Jacobs, “A History of ‘Tikkun Olam’,” Zeek, June 2007,www.zeek.net/706tohu/.
[8] Eugene J. Lipman, “Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam in the Talmud: A Preliminary Exploration,” ed. Joseph A. Edelheit, The Life of Covenant: The Challenge of Contemporary Judaism – Essays in Honor of Herman E. Schaalman (Chicago: Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1986), 108. Lipman also noted that “[i]t is a long way from that definition to ‘build a better world’.”
[9] Hillel Halkin, “How Not to Repair the World,” Commentary, 126:1 (July-August 2008): 22-23.
[10] Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, trans. H. Freedman (London & Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951), 4:6, p. 31; 13:13, p. 108.
[11] See Jacob J. Schacter, “Tikkun Olam: Defining the Jewish Obligation,” ed. Rafael Medoff, Rav Chesed: Essay in Honor of Rabbi Dr. Haskel Lookstein (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2009), II:182-183.
[12] Regarding the provenance and adventures of Aleinu, see Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901-1906), entry ‘Alenu, I:336-338, available at www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1112-alenu; Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, trans. Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1993), 71-72 and n. 25 at 405; Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Period of the Tanna’im and the Amoraim2 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1966), 173-175 and n. 43, Hebrew; Meir Bar-Ilan, “The Source of the ‘Aleinu Le-Shabe’aḥ’ Prayer,” Daat, 43 (1999): 5-24, Hebrew; Mitchell First, “Aleinu: Obligation to Fix the World or the Text?” Ḥakira, 11 (Spring 2011): 187-197; Ruth Langer, “The Censorship of Aleinu in Ashkenaz and its Aftermath,” ed. Debra Reed Bank, The Experience of Jewish Liturgy (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011), 147-166.
[13] See the collection of Hebrew sources gathered in Rahamei HaAv (Elad: Y.H, Ketina, 2008), 1-10.
[14] This duality is part of a famous joke, see: Mordecai Weissmann-Chajes, Osem Bosem (Vienna: n.p., 1913), 43, section 54, Hebrew; Alter Drujanow, Sefer HaBediha VeHaHidud (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1963), I:143-144, Hebrew.
[15] Jonathan Sacks, “Tikkun Olam: Orthodoxy’s Responsibility to Perfect G-d’s World,” delivered at the Orthodox Union West Coast Convention, December 1997, available at advocacy.ou.org/1997/tikkun-olam-orthodoxys-responsibility-to-perfect-g-ds-world/.
[16] According to Elbogen, Aleinu was originally part of the New Year service, and it was taken from there to the daily service: “It was of high religious significance that the lofty ideal of the future union of all mankind in the world to come in the service of the one God became part of the daily service” (Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, p. 71).
[17]Maimonides refers to tikkun olam in the sense that a putative Messiah will recalibrate the entire world to serve God together (Maimonides, Laws Concerning Kings and Wars, 11:4).
[18] Jacobs accurately noted that “[t]o our contemporary pluralist ears, the rejection of other religions appears intolerant and proselytizing. Most contemporary Jews who extol the value of tikkun olam certainly do not understand this term as a mandate to impose worship of the Jewish God on all other peoples.” While Jacobs offered some solace in explaining the historical context of Aleinu, she acknowledged that “[s]uch apologetics […] go only so far” (Jacobs, History of Tikkun Olam).
Isadore Twersky wrote that “Judaism insists that man is obligated to mitigate injustice and alleviate suffering,” and explained that “Judaism’s contribution is a new motive for philanthropy: the religious –humane motive, which means acting for the sake of humanity because of religious conviction and obligation” (Isadore Twersky, “Some Aspects of the Jewish Attitude Toward the Welfare State,” Tradition, 5:2 (Summer 1963): 142, 143, italics in the original). While Twersky did not use the term tikkun olam, I wonder whether the “religious conviction and obligation” he mentions is a reference to establishing the kingdom of God.
To mention two other examples of this phenomenon of modern half quotes that excise God: The late nineteenth century Bilu movement whose goal was the agricultural settlement of the Land of Israel, took its name from the verse in Isaiah (2:5): Beit Ya’akov lekhu veneilkha (House of Jacob: Go! And we will go), without the end of the verse that adds “by the light of God”. shalah et ami (Let My people go) became a slogan demanding freedom for oppressed people, such as African Americans and Soviet Jewry, though in its biblical context the phrase appears with a goal that the free should celebrate for God or serve God (Exodus 5:1; 7:16, 26).
[19] Bar-Ilan posited this correction and First dedicated a study to the topic: Bar-Ilan, Source of Aleinu, n. 72 at 20; First, Aleinu. In his conclusion, First noted that “[t]here is no question that social justice is an important value in Judaism,” but “it is almost certainly a mistake to read such a concept into the Aleinu prayer” (First, Aleinu, p. 197).
[20] Sagit Mor’s doctoral work is the most comprehensive treatment of tikkun olam in rabbinic literature. See Sagit Mor, “Tikkun Ha’Olam” in the Thought of the Sages (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2003), Hebrew; see also Sagit Mor, “Tikkun Olam: Its Early Meaning and Its Influence on Divorce Law during the Mishnaic Period,” Mo‘ed, 15 (2005): 24-51, Hebrew. The scope of this paper does not allow me to present her detailed analysis that differentiates between stages of development in rabbinic literature. For shorter analyses in English, see Lipman, Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam; Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, pp. 214-220; David S. Widzer, “The Use of Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam in the Babylonian Talmud,” CCAR Journal, (Spring 2008): 34-45.
[21] Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, p. 217.
[22] Ibid, p. 218.
[23] Ibid, pp. 219-220.
[24] Cf. Mor understood that Hillel’s prosbul legislation was the earliest use of tikkun olam and pointed out how the various tikkun olam laws come from different periods.
[25] Jacobs, History of Tikkun Olam.
[26] Widzer, Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam, p. 42.
[27] Cf. Widzer used the term “social status”, but it appears to me that personal status is more accurate (Widzer, Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam, pp. 35-36).
[28] Lipman wrote: “It is impossible to designate the legal status of tikkun olam in the Talmud as it is to define the phrase in a way which will cover all its uses in talmudic literature” (Lipman, Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam, p. 107).
The way the Talmud deals with the tikkun ha-olam justifications that appear in the Mishnah may be indicative. In a number of cases the Talmud discusses laws enacted with this justification without explaining why they fall under the rubric of tikkun ha-olam. The Talmud’s silence may be because the reason is self-evident (as per Widzer, Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam, pp. 37, 38). Alternatively, the Talmud may not have been concerned with delineating the tikkun ha-olam justification because it did not conform to prescribed parameters.
[29] Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, p. 220. Cf. Widzer grouped the appearances of tikkun ha-olam in the Babylonian Talmud into four categories: (1) Addressing issues of social status; (2) Preventing harm to society; (3) Maintaining communal wellbeing, and; (4) Best orienting society in service of to God (Widzer, Mipnei Tikkun Ha’Olam, pp. 35-42). It is not clear how Widzer’s categories further the discussion, given how broad and general they are. Was Widzer trying to limit the scope of the legal justification by delineating these categories?
[30] The universalist meaning can also be found in the Midrash; see Midrash Haggadol, ed. Mordecai Margulies (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook Publishing, 1956), Exodus 21:1, p. 452.
[31] See also Schacter, Tikkun Olam, pp. 184-5, 192-7; Halkin, How not to repair, p. 23.
[32] Blidstein, Import, p. 65. Rosenthal noted this turn and added that Aleinu is an “other-wordly” pursuit as opposed to the “this-worldy” focus of the legal mechanism in the Talmud (Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, pp. 220-221). I am not convinced that Aleinu should be described as an “other-wordly” pursuit.
[33] Rosenthal succinctly highlighted four such rare cases and concluded: “But these are remarkably few exceptions to the phenomenon that a potentially broadly applicable principle of law was essentially ignored for centuries by jurists and codifiers” (Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, p. 222).
[34] See Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, pp. 223ff.
[35] See, inter alia, Wolf, Repairing Tikkun Olam, p. 479; Jonathan Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility (New York: Schocken Books, 2005), 72, 75-78; Jacobs, History of Tikkun Olam (Jacobs went so far as to call this “the most well-known use of the term”); Halkin, How not to repair, p. 23; Sarah Breger, “How Tikkun Olam Got Its Groove,” Moment, May/June 2010, http://ftp.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2010/06/Jewish%20Word.html. This would appear to be the subtext of the English language quarterly Tikkun, published since 1986. Fine noted, however, that “Michael Lerner’s original editorial statement in TIKKUN makes absolutely no mention of and betrays no interest in the kabbalistic tradition which is the source of his journal’s name” (Michael Lerner, “Tikkun: To Mend, Repair, and Transform the World,” Tikkun, 1:1 (1986): 3-11; Lawrence Fine, “Tikkun: A Lurianic Motif in Contemporary Jewish Thought,” eds. Jacob Neusner, et al, From Ancient Israel To Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), IV:51).
[36] In Lurianic writings the term tikkun is common, but it seldom appears as tikkun olam and in those cases it appears as tikkun olam X (X being one of the four worlds – asiya, beria, yetzira, atzilut); that is, the mystical tikkun of a particular sphere. Lurianic writings also refer to olam ha-tikkun – a world beyond our current existence, where all matter returns to its original spiritual condition.
I find it indicative that in his definition of tikkun olam, Arthur Green – no stranger to Jewish mystical tradition – did not invoke the Lurianic concept of tikkun. Moreover, Green included the definition in the section headed “Community, Life with Others,” not in the sections headed “God and Worlds Above” or “Spiritual Life” (Arthur Green, These Are the Words: A Vocabulary of Jewish Spiritual Life (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Pub., 1999), pp. vi-vii, 175-176). Cf. the critique of Wolf, who charged Green (and others) with “the manipulation of the esoteric doctrine to support political views of the soft left in our own time” (Wolf, Repairing Tikkun Olam, p. 479). Green’s definition of tikkun olam appears not to be drawing on the esoteric doctrine, but on liturgical and legal usages of the term.
[37] Fine, Tikkun, p. 51-53.
[38] In a 2008 New York Times article, Daphne Merkin explained the history of Kabbala, noting that the “fragmented and disordered state of affairs […] can only be made whole through selfless devotion to tikkun olam.” Moreover, Madonna was credited with bringing “the Kabbalah Center’s message of egoless dedication of tikkun olam (repairing the world) home to her fans both in her music and in personal appearances” (Daphne Merkin, “In Search of the Skeptical, Hopeful, Mystical Jew That Could Be Me,” The New York Times, magazine, April 13, 2008, p. 52).
[39] Leonard J. Mervis, “The Social Justice Movement and the American Reform Rabbi,” American Jewish Archives, 7:2 (June 1955): 178; Albert Vorspan and Eugene J. Lipman, Justice and Judaism: The Work of Social Action4 (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1961), 253.
[40] On the contemporary influences that precipitated the resolution, see Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 286-289. See also Vorspan and Lipman, Justice and Judaism; Abraham J. Heschel, The Insecurity of Freedom: Essays on Human Existence (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1966), chapter 7; Jeffrey S. Gurock and Jacob J. Schacter, A Modern Heretic and a Traditional Community: Mordecai M. Kaplan, Orthodoxy, and American Judaism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 102-103; Eilon Schwartz, “Social Responsibility and Educational Audacity: Heschel’s Challenge to 21st-Century Jewish Education,” Kol Hamercaz, 10 (April 2008): 1; Schacter, Tikkun Olam, pp. 189-191.
[41] Early platforms and resolutions made no mention of tikkun olam. Namely, 1885 Pittsburgh Platform, 1918 resolution cited herein, 1928 report of Commission on Social Justice, 1946 Columbus Platform, 1976 resolution adopted in San Francisco. See Declaration of Principles, adopted in Pittsburgh, 1885; Vorspan and Lipman, Justice and Judaism, pp. 255-260; The Guiding Principles of Reform Judaism, adopted in Columbus, 1937; Reform Judaism: A Centenary Perspective, adopted in San Francisco, 1976; Platforms and resolutions can be found at the CCAR website http://ccarnet.org/. For social justice in the Reform movement, see Meyer, Response to Modernity, according to the index.
[42] Fine, Tikkun, p. 51. Fine noted uses of the term in the Conservative movement through the 1970s. Regarding the Conservative movement’s use of the term, see also Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, pp. 238-239. Cf. Mirsky’s assessment: “The term [tikkun olam] entered contemporary usage as the rubric for spiritually charged social justice efforts in recent decades, most notably via the journal Tikkun, founded in 1986″ (Yehudah Mirsky, “Tikkun Olam: Basic Questions and Policy Directions,” Facing Tomorrow, Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI), 2008: 214, www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=5245).
[43] The 1999 Pittsburgh Platform was officially titled A Statement of Principles for Reform Judaism; Hebrew words appear in the original. In the Commentary on the Principles for Reform Judaism that also appears on the CCAR website, tikkun olam is contextualised by reference to Aleinu and to the “kabbalistic overtones” of the phrase, and then the Reform use is explained: “In the latter part of the 20th Century, the Reform Movement appropriated this phrase to refer to acts of social justice which could help repair our broken world.”
Two years before that, the 1997 Miami Platform, officially titled Reform Judaism & Zionism: A Centenary Platform, also used the term: “Confident that Reform Judaism’s synthesis of tradition and modernity and its historic commitment to tikkun olam (repairing the world), can make a unique and positive contribution to the Jewish state, we resolve to intensify our efforts to inform and educate Israelis about the values of Reform Judaism. We call upon Reform Jews everywhere to dedicate their energies and resources to the strengthening of an indigenous Progressive Judaism in Medinat Yisrael.”
[44] Cf. First proposed that the paragraphs are complementary and “our presumption should be one of unitary authorship” (First, Aleinu, n. 28 at 195).
[45] Jakob J. Petuchowski, Prayerbook Reform in Europe: The Liturgy of European Liberal and Reform Judaism (New York: World Union of Progressive Judaism, 1968), 298-306. Petuchowski quotes Abraham Geiger who in 1869 wrote: “the separation between Israel and the other people, which existed at one time, has no right to be expressed in prayer. Rather ought there to be an expression of the joy that such barriers are increasingly falling” (ibid, p. 299). For two specific episodes, see Meyer, Response to Modernity, pp. 56, 158. Regarding the second paragraph of Aleinu, Bleich observed: “Indeed, at times, the relative length of this Hebrew passage is striking, appearing as it does in some Reform rites in its pristine form as one of the lengthier Hebrew selections to be found in the prayerbook” (J. David Bleich, “Tikkun Olam: Jewish Obligations to a Non-Jewish Society,” eds. David Shatz, Chaim I. Waxman and Nathan J. Diament, Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought and Law (Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson, 1998), 99).
Cf. the more recent Reform approach as exemplified by the 1975 Gates of Prayer prayerbook (Meyer, Response to Modernity, pp. 374-375), and the approaches of liberal Jewish communities as described by Jacobs, History of Tikkun Olam.
[46] Schacter, Tikkun Olam, pp. 189-190.
[47] Regarding Elliot N. Dorff, The Way Into Tikkun Olam (Repairing the World) (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Pub., 2005), Schacter wrote: “Despite its title, this book deals virtually exclusively with Jewish obligations and responsibilities to other Jews, not Gentiles. One searches the entire volume almost in vain for any sources that specifically address the Jewish obligation towards non-Jews, which is how the phrase tikkun olam is generally understood” (Schacter, Tikkun Olam, n. 9 at 202).
[48] Bleich, Tikkun Olam, p. 98.
[49] Sacks, Tikkun Olam. I will return to Sacks’ approach below. For his fuller treatment of the subject, see Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World. See also Jonathan Sacks, Tradition in an Untraditional Age (London: Valentine, Mitchell, 1990), 132, and the critique of Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, n. 101 at 237.
[50] Twersky’s 1963 essay, entitled “Some Aspects of the Jewish Attitude Toward the Welfare State” (above note 20) is an early Orthodox exploration of social responsibility and would undoubtedly fit into the contemporary category of tikkun olam. Indicatively, Twersky did not use the term tikkun olam (regarding Twersky’s essay, see Schacter, Tikkun Olam, n. 1 at 201).
[51] David Shatz, Chaim I. Waxman and Nathan J. Diament, eds., Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought and Law (Northvale, NJ: J. Aronson, 1998).
[52] Gerald J. Blidstein, “Tikkun Olam,” Tradition, 29:2 (1995): 14 (Blidstein’s article appeared before the publication of the conference volume). For a critique of Blidstein, see Rosenthal, Tikkun ha-Olam, n. 1 at 214.
[53] Blidstein, Tikkun Olam, p. 11.
[54] Ibid, p. 33.
[55] Bleich, Tikkun Olam, pp. 61-102.
[56] In his later work, Sacks commented: “Of all the ideas in Judaism’s ethics of responsibility [tikkun olam] is the least halakhic, the least rooted in law”; “[Tikkun olam] is not a concept given to precise definition, still less is it spelled out in the crisp imperatives of Jewish law” (Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World, pp. 72, 82).
[57] Sacks, Tikkun Olam.
[58] Schacter, Tikkun Olam, pp. 184-188.
[59] Schacter, Tikkun Olam, pp. 192-200.
[60] Mirsky, Tikkun Olam, p. 215.
[61] See, for instance, a recent publication on social justice by an Orthodox rabbi: Shmuly Yanklowitz, Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century (n.p.: Derusha Publishing, 2012). See also the favorable review by Rabbi Margie Klein where she notes that Yanklowitz is effectively rebuking his Orthodox peers “to think beyond the bounds of their community to engage with the more universal aspects of the Jewish tradition” (Margie Klein, “Why Liberal Jews Should Read an Orthodox Social Justice Book,” Zeek, March 22, 2012, http://zeek.forward.com/articles/117526/). Previously in 2007, Yankolowitz founded the Orthodox social justice organization Uri L’Tzedek (www.utzedek.org/).
[62] Matthew Baigell, “Social Concern and Tikkun Olam in Jewish American Art,” Ars Judaica, 8 (2012): 80; see also pp. 78-79. Baigell noted that there was a gender difference, in that women “are in the forefront of contemporary Jewish American artists who explore aspects of tikkun olam […] For them, feminism, Judaism, and an art of social concern go hand in hand” (ibid, p. 80).
[63] Cf. the organization headquartered in New York City called Repair the World. According to their website “Repair the World works to inspire American Jews and their communities to give their time and effort to serve those in need. We aim to make service a defining part of American Jewish life.” See http://werepair.org/.
[64] Schacter, Tikkun Olam, pp. 190-192. Schacter’s survey included former New York governor Mario Cuomo, African American Studies professor Cornel West, Madonna and then-Senator Barack Obama. See also Breger, How Tikkun Olam Got Its Groove. For another survey that focuses on social concern (not just use of the term tikkun olam), see Baigell, Jewish American Art, pp. 55-58.
[65] Halkin, How not to repair, p. 23.
[66] Baigell, Jewish American Art, p. 55.
[67] Baigell wrote that tikkun olam and social concern are “concepts which today are basically interchangeable” (Baigell, Jewish American Art, p. 58). Jacobs aptly described the elasticity of the term, commenting that “the meaning of the term tikkun olam has expanded to apply to virtually any action or belief that the user thinks is beneficial to the world” (Jacobs, History of Tikkun Olam).
[68] Nashim, February 24, 2012, front cover, Hebrew.
[69] Tammy Polak, “Lo al HaKinoa Levada,” Nashim, February 24, 2012, p. 47, Hebrew. The article was a feature interview with Phyllis Glazer, chef and accomplished cookbook author.
[70] In addition to the sources I will detail, see Halkin, How not to repair. This article is a review of a collection of essays that cover a range of social justice causes, grouping many of them under the rubric of tikkun olam: Or N. Rose, Jo Ellen Green Kaiser, and Margie Klein, eds., Righteous Indignation: A Jewish Call for Justice (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Pub., 2008). In his brusque review, Halkin critiqued the trend of using tikkun olam as a buzz term for every cause.
[71] Wolf, Repairing Tikkun Olam, p. 482. Wolf had a long history of social activism: he marched in Selma for civil rights, travelled to Washington D.C. to protest the Vietnam War and in the 1970s campaigned for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
[72] Mirsky, Tikkun Olam, pp. 216-220, 224-229. Mirsky also addressed other issues in his paper, namely: how to ensure that tikkun olam work is not merely aimed as assuaging the conscience of those involved; whether tikkun olam can ground Jewish identity, and; the relationship between tikkun olam and political advocacy. As Mirsky pointed out, the first question has been discussed in non-Jewish forums; see also: Jo Ann Van Engen, “The Cost of Short Term Missions,” The Other Side, January and February 2000, pp. 20-23 (the author is a board member of the Association for a more Just Society, www.ajs-us.org); Mark Hill, “5 Popular Forms of Charity (That Aren’t Helping),” Cracked.com, July 1, 2012, www.cracked.com/article_19899_5-popular-forms-charity-that-arent-helping.html.
[73] Jacobs, History of Tikkun Olam. Jacobs serves as executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights – North America, is the author of There Shall be No Needy: Pursuing Social Justice through Jewish Law and Tradition (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Pub., 2009) and wrote a responsum dealing with minimum wages, dignified workplaces and related issues; the responsum was approved by the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards in 2008 and is available at www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/20052010/jacobs-living-wage.pdf?phpMyAdmin=G0Is7ZE%252CH7O%252Ct%252CZ1sDHpI8UAVD6.
[74] Because of the limitations of this article, and in consideration of the paucity of rabbinic sources in this direction, I have not properly explored this expression of tikkun olam (but see sources cited above in note 8 and note 19).
[75] Jacobs, History of Tikkun Olam.
[76] Sacks, Tikkun Olam.
[77] In starker words, Halkin wrote: “Classical rabbinic thought represents a turning-away not only from utopian thinking about humanity but from the notion that it is the Jews’ task to help save humanity – except, that is, insofar as it is their task to build a society that the rest of humanity might some day wish to emulate” (Halkin, How not to repair, pp. 25-26).