Talk:Tikkun olam

Notability

from VfD:

Is this English language wikipedia or what? Mikkalai 07:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Extremely important concept in Judaism, a religion of some note. Let's delete Jihad and Novus Ordo Missae while we're at it. A breathtakingly obvious keep, though we need to merge it into Tikkun Olam and redirect. Samaritan 08:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've merged into Tikkun Olam, crediting author User:Rbarenblat in my edit summary. I'm still staggered this is on VfD. Samaritan 09:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A noteworthy concept. Even got a magazine named after it. Why is this here? -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that the magazine is after the term, not just Tikkun in its own meaning?Mikkalai 22:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Kinda both. Tikkun gets its name from the Hebrew word, "tikkun," which means "to transform, heal and repair." This concept was developed in the Zohar, a central text of the Kabbalah, to refer to the kind of healing and transformation of the world, "tikkun olam," in which each of us can participate.[1] --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain why it is there. Unilike Tikkun Olam, this article says nothing of importance of the notion. For me it was no better than "hello dolly" or "kick his ass", only in foreign language (and they give zillions of google hits too, why not to add them to wikipedia as well?). I am glad you are defending it. That's what VfD for. It is absolutely not necessary to expect everything deleted. I merely expressed my doubt, that's all.

• Merge - This is a kabbalistic concept. Worthy of mention as a subsection on Kabbalah. --Zappaz 04:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The nominator, with new information and a merger, made this a redirect to the pre-existing Tikkun Olam, so I'd venture voting on Tikkun olam is closed/resolved already. The article also describes relevance to liberal, non-Kabbalistic Jews. Samaritan 05:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

In prayer?

The article states: "The phrase is used in the prayer, such as in Aleinu..."

Question: I was once told by a learned rabbi that the Aleinu is the only place in prayer where we find the phase tikkun olam. Is that true? If so, it ought to be noted, no? -- Sholom 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't know much about wikipedia generally, but the text of "Aleinu" linked from this page doesn't seem to include the line.--79.178.115.104 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's total BS; that isn't text from the Aleinu, in English or in Hebrew. Somebody needs to delete that section of the article. 128.4.87.91 (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Confusion of POVs

There were originally one understanding of tikkun olam. The one that you might call social justice. Later the kabalists added another one. This is the messianic one. Reform based their on the original meaning twisting it to its non-religious agenda. Many rational Orthodox Jews understand it in a non-kabalistic way when used outside of kabalistic texts. I don't mean fringe groups like the Dor Deah. I mean groups like Brisk. 210.84.40.154 21:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the editors of this page seem intent on ensuring that only the Orthodox Kabbalistic and the non-Orthodox social justice models are depicted. I have repeatedly posted a description of the Orthodox social justice model, and it is repeatedly deleted. I wouldn't mind if someone would say why.

What I have written is as follows. It can surely be improved, for I lack the time to produce a polished work. Nevertheless, I think the kernel of what I have written is valid.

Some Jews, particularly among the Orthodox, believe that performing mitzvot is a means of tikkun olam, helping to perfect the world, and that the performance of more mitzvot will hasten the coming of the Messiah and the Messianic Age. This performance of mitzvot is seen to perfect the world in basically one of two ways:

- - 1) Amongst the mystically inclined, performing mitzvot mystically repair the world - see "In Kabbalah" above. - - 2) Performing mitzvot creates a model human society amongst the Jewish people, which will in turn influence the world to abandon their false philosophies and behaviors (see regarding Aleinu in "Jewish Prayer" above). The philosophies of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (Torah im Derech Eretz) and Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak haKohen Kook each espouse these ideas, the former rationally and in terms of Jews in galut influencing their gentile neighbors, and the latter mystically and in Zionistic terms of a Jewish state influencing the nations of the world; this philosophy of tikkun olam permeates the writings of each. Many more Orthodox philosophers could be adduced, such as Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits in God, Man, and History and Rabbi Isidore Epstein in The Faith of Judaism. The philosophy of Religious Zionism in particular holds that a Jewish nation in the land of Israel will radiate its ideals and messages to the world, and thereby fix the world.

Among many non-Orthodox Jews, the phrase tikkun olam has taken on political, as well as religious, significance. It is frequently used as a synonym for social justice, often with the implication that Jews should work toward the development of a fair and equal society with the same zeal with which their ancestors may have followed Jewish religious law. Tikkun magazine, edited by Rabbi Michael Lerner, is an example that reflects this worldview. Among many non-Orthodox Jews, the phrase tikkun olam has taken on political, as well as religious, significance. It is frequently used as a synonym for social justice, often with the implication that Jews should work toward the development of a fair and equal society with the same zeal with which their ancestors may have followed Jewish religious law. Tikkun magazine, edited by Rabbi Michael Lerner, is an example that reflects this worldview.

For many Orthodox Jews, tikkun olam can also have the same social justice implications as for non-Orthodox. However, for Orthodox, this is overshadowed by the primary consideration that performing mitzvot will either influence the character and behaviors of the world (by example) or mystically repair the world. In either case, social justice will naturally result without an active effort. For example, if the world would see how focused Jewish communities are on tzedaka (charity), and how much care there is for the poor in Orthodox communities, the world would soon realize to care for its own poor. Likewise, if the world would see what it means for Jews to care for their neighbors and love their fellow human beings, much suffering and abuse would cease. It is of course historical fact that much of the modern world's humanitarianism is due to Christianity and Islam, which inherited much from Judaism; Maimonides said that this was a key step towards all of humanity one day acknowledging G-d and the brotherhood of man. User:Sevendust62

Prior to my additions, the non-orthodox "social justice/social action" section was entirely devoted to Michael Lerner and his magazine, and to ML's politically conservative critics. The use of the term is widespread in the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements, both of which take positions on religious and political issues widely at variance with ML, but also often distinct from O positions. Given their size and impact, I think material on the meaning of the TO concept to them deserves far more weight. What I added is only a small beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Expansion and retitling of section on "modern views"

I've been expanding the section on modern views and adding citations. This has resulted in two significant changes:

• I have removed language that tied particular understandings of tikkun olam to particular movements. These claims were unsourced and can be removed as per WP:V. They also contradicted the available sources. Supporting sources can be found from leaders of all major US Jewish denominations for all of the following definitions of tikkun olam for all major streams of Judaism:
  • ritual mitzvot can "repair the world"
  • ethical mitzvot can "repair the world"
  • Jews repair the world by creating a model society among themselves
  • Jews repair the world by involvement with the non-Jewish world.

These last three points all involve tikkun olam as an ethical model rather than as a ritual one. The previous version of the page was divided between Orthodox-ritual-Lurianic and Modern/Non-Orthodox-ethical models, which was highly misleading, for there is definitely an Orthodox-ethical model (I knew nothing about the Modern/Non-Orthodox-ritual-Lurianic model, which apparently does in fact exist). Every time I'd add this material, it'd be deleted. Thank you so much for what you've done (cf. User:Egfrank talk page on this specific subject) Sevendust62 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The "In Modern Views" section has been split into two sections: one on tikkun olam and ritual mitzvot (ben adam l'makom) and one on tikkun olam and ethical mitzvot (ben adam l'chavero). This split I hope will improve the flow and overall readability. The added citations greatly expanded the amount of material and it seemed confusing to have all this material in one section. There are of course other ways to divide up the material, but at this point, this seemed to make the most sense. Egfrank 11:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lurianic Kabbalah

The section on Lurianic Kabalah ("In Kabbalah") has been split between the section on Ritual mitzvot and the section on "Ethical mitzvot". The original passage had no citations. When citations were found it became clear that the passage described a modern usage of Luranic kabbalah rather than the Lurianic kabbalah itself (see Lawrence Fine). The original conception seemed to fit nicely in the section on ritual mitzvot.

Some issues with the description of modern conceptions of the Lurianic myth(see end of Ethical mitzvot section):

1. The first paragraph needs some work. It is intended to provide both academic and popular examples of the modern interpretations discussed by Lawrence Fine in the second paragraph, however I'm not satisfied with the sourcing or even the characterization of the expanded use of Lurianic Kabbalah. Only popular sources are provided. I would like to add some more notable sources.

I added Derech Hashem, a basic but very thorough and extremely systematic work on Jewish philosophy based largely on Lurianic Kabbalah. I know absolutely nothing about the modern and/or non-Orthodox interpretations of Lurianic Kabbalah (cf. below), so I cannot comment on these. But Derech Hashem is highly representative of true Lurianic Kabbalah itself, at least so far as I know. There was some Lurianic Kabbalah material in the Ethical section, but I relocated it to the Ritual section, where it fits very well with the Lurianic material already there. Sevendust62 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. In particular, one of the sources available (a sermon by a conservative Rabbi) mentions two other more notable sources on Jewish thought. I originally included them and then deleted them (see edit with message - deleted nebulous sources) because I don't like citing sources I haven't actually read myself. The sermon can be found at http://www.bethelmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9MBSYaAzkJ4%3D&tabid=367&mid=1113. The two sources cited are:
   • Halakhic Man by Joseph Solevetchik
   • To heal a fractured world:The Ethics of Responsibility by Jonathan Sacks
2. One might assume that connecting ethical mitzvot to the Lurianic story of sparks would have the effect of turning ethical mitzvot into mitzvot ben adam l'havero. Lurianic Kabbalah saw prayer as repairing God, so if the Lurianic understanding of contemplative prayer is extended to ethical mitzvot then ethical mitzvot would also repair God. This would have the effect of elevating these mitzvot and giving them double duty as "ben adam l'havero" and "ben adam l'makom". Originally I included such as statement, but then removed it fearing it might be synthesis.

   The reason I'm not so sure that this association with Lurianic Kabbalah is transforming the ethical mitzvot into "ben adam l'makom" is that in at least one source (not cited), God being broken into vessels has been replaced with the world being broken (which is really saying something entirely different). It seems that in some modern interpretations the imagery of the broken vessels is sometimes borrowed without the underlying theology. I don't know if anyone has written a detailed analysis (maybe Lawrence Fine?) of all the different ways Lurianic Kabbalah is being reinterpreted, but if there is one, we need to read it and add it to this article.

3. I strongly suspect we need to include something from Arthur Green in this section. He has written a great deal on Kabbalah, tikkun olam, and spirituality, but I don't know what specific citations should be included. So again this has a {{fact}} tag.

Any help from other editors in expanding and sourcing this section would be appreciated. (And if you think what I've written is wrong - which it may be given the sourcing problems above - please don't bite).Egfrank 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Level of detail and Staying on-topic

I wonder whether the article goes into a greater degree of detail than is appropriate, and whether some of the material strays off-topic. For example, there's this footnote:

According to the rationalist philosophy of Hirsch and others, the social and ethical mitzvot have nearly self-explanatory purposes, while ritual mitzvot may serve functions such as educating people or developing relationships between people and God. As examples, prayer inculcates a relationship between people and God, and keeping kosher or wearing tzitzit serve as educational symbols of moral and religious values. Thus, the ultimate goal of mitzvot is for moral and religious values to permeate the Jewish people and ultimately the entire world, but the ritual mitzvot play a vital role in this model of tikkun olam. Hirsch's Horeb is an especially important source, as his exposition of his philosophy of the mitzvot. He classifies the mitzvot into six categories: (1) toroth (philosophical doctrines); the ethical mitzvot fall under (2) mishpatim and (3) chukim (commandments of justice towards (living) people and the natural world (including the human body itself) respectively) and (4) mitzvot (commandments of love); the ritual mitzvot under (5) edoth (educational symbolic commandments) and (6) avodah (commandments of direct service to God).

Does Hirsch's six-part classification of the mitzvot shed light on tikkun olam, the subject of the article? In general, footnotes are supposed to include sources for the article or brief explanatory notes. If the footnote is a full paragraph long it probably belongs in the text of the article or it may need to be pared down.

Or this footnote:

Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Derech Hashem I:5:3. For all the following references to Derech Hashem, cf. also the same author's Ma'amar haIkkarim (Essay on Fundamentals), s.v. baTorah u'baMitzvot (Torah and Commandments), translated in Feldheim's English translation of Derech Hashem (The Way of God, trans. Aryeh Kaplan, Feldheim, 1997.)This section of this essay reproduces much of the material from Derech Hashem proper, and is an important comparative reference.

Does the reader need the details of Luzzatto's two books? If there truly is an important comparative difference between the two books with respect to tikkun olam, maybe it should be mentioned in the article. If the difference is something that would be of interest only to a scholar researching Luzzatto, maybe it doesn't need to be mentioned.

Finally, the second paragraph of "The role of ethical mitzvot" seems repetitive to me, but maybe I don't understand some subtle differences between the way things are worded:

• "Some Jews believe that performing mitzvot will create a model society among the Jewish people, which will in turn influence the rest of the world."
• "The philosophies of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook are prominent in this field, the former rationally and in terms of Jews in galut (the diaspora) influencing their non-Jewish neighbors, and the latter mystically and in Zionist terms of a Jewish state influencing the other nations of the world."
• "In Modern Orthodox philosophy ... it is commonly believed that mitzvot have practical this-wordly sociological and educational effects on those who perform them, and in this manner, the mizvot will perfect the Jews. By perfecting themselves, the Jews set an example for the rest of the world."

To me, that seems like three different ways of saying the same thing. Admittedly, the second time the article provides additional detail and attributes the philosophy to two specific rabbis, so it is different from the first. But how is the third different from the preceding two?

I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[With respect to the footnote concerning Hirsch's six-part classification of the mitzvot]

My intention in this footnote was to give a useful source that clearly and without ambiguity shows the role of both ethical and ritual mitzvot, i.e. that both play a role in this tikkun olam model (alternatively, once the reader learns that ethical mitzvot drive tikkun olam, they'll ask what role ritual mitzvot play, and tangentially then, this is important to explain). Hirsch's Horeb is (1) A popular and authoritive source, widely respected across the Orthodox spectrum, and (2) It very clearly shows the differentiation between ritual and ethical mitzvot, as Rav Hirsh cleanly divides the mitzvot into multiple non-overlapping categories that unmistakably show the differentiation. If someone can find a way to shorten it without affecting the meaning, I'd welcome such an edit. However, once Horeb is mentioned, if one only says that categories 2-4 are ethical/social and 5 and 6 are ritual, the reader will be confused; once you mention this fact, you have to go the full way and tell what these categories are, and then you may as well say what category 1 is.

There are of course more succint sources that could be adduced. Rabbi Isidore Epstein's Jewish Way of Life and Faith of Judaism and Rabbi Berkovits's G-d Man and History, all differentiate between these mitzvot clearly and more briefly than Horeb (for these three works, a single page number would suffice. Rav Hirsch, on the other hand, never describes the difference in one phrase/paragraph/page, but rather implies the difference in his categorization. Therefore, in theory, Epstein and Berkovits would be a better reference. Thus, it would seem better to reference Epstein and/or Berkovits instead. However, but these sources are less popular and authoritive than Rav Hirsch's Horeb. Rav Hirsch's categorization necessitates more explanation than would Epstein or Berkovits, but Hirsch's greater availability, popularity, and authority outweigh this, in my opinion. Ravs Epstein and Berkovits are relatively obscure except amongst well-learned Modern Orthodox, whereas Rav Hirsch is well-known even in Charedi ("Ultra-Orthodox") circles.Sevendust62 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[With respect to the two works by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto]

These two works mutually shed light on each other. Furthermore, since they are included in the same physical book (at least in Feldheim's English translation), it is useful for the reader of Derech Hashem proper to know where in the appendix-essay to look for further details.

As an aside, I think the information on gentiles is an important facet of what tikkun olam is according to Lurianic Kabbalah. Otherwise, Lurianic Kabbalah would not say it. In any case, it is NOT my personal opinion; it is the opinion of Lurianic Kabbalah; besides, I myself do not follow Kabbalah anyway (I am a student of Hirsch, Hertz, Berkovits, etc.) Sevendust62 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[With respect to the second paragraph of "The role of ethical mitzvot"]

My intention is that the first point is a general summary, the second point shows two of the most important thinkers on this topic (almost everyone who is Orthodox, agree with Hirsch and Kook or not, has heard of Ravs Hirsch and Kook), and then to generalize again on this topic (as a continuation of point one) on what this means and who (in general) holds by it (viz. Modern Orthodox and Religious Zionism). I think all three points are important.

However, perhaps points two (Hirsch and Kook) and three (Mod Orth and Rel Zio) could be swapped in their locations, so that the sequence is (1) General (2) More general, inc. Mod Ortho and Rel Zio, (3) Detail (Hirsch and Kook). Sevendust62 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OR issues

We need to be careful to find sources that actually use the word tikkun olam. It is relatively easy for us to rely on our "common sense" understanding that (a) tikkun olam=repairing the world (b) repaired world=messianic age (c) Mitzvot=making the world a better place/bring closer the Messianic Age. ergo any source talking about mitzvot and Messianic age is also talking about tikkun olam. Unfortunately as much as this seems "common sense" and obvious to us living in this day and age, it hasn't always been the case. This connect-the-dots between mitzvot/ethics---Messianic age---tikkun olam has been obvious to some and completely ignored by others.

Bottom line: if we connect the dots on our lonesome we are doing synthesis. To avoid this we need to find published third parties that are connecting these dots for us. For example, rather than quote Hirsch directly we need to find a source that talks about Hirsch as a one with a vision of tikkun olam - using that exact phrase "tikkun olam".

Please understand I am not criticizing the fact that we see these connections, but rather pushing us to be more selective and energetic in raising the quality of our sourcing. Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have just (within the last few minutes) added two footnotes, one in which Hirsch himself speaks of tikkun olam, and another in which a commentator does. The former is Hirsch quoted by Elias quoted by Danziger, and the latter is Dr. Judith Bleich. Sevendust62 (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I tidied up the footnotes a little bit for clarity and brevity. I don't think any of my edits changed the meaning. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethical mitzvot recommendations

I think the repetitious nature of this section may reflect the sections under development. this ethical section has room for development. Assuming we can find sources that explicitly link those who talk about "model society" to tikkun olam, we have a number of thesis points in this section that need to be developed:

• biblical sourcing: the biblical sourcing of Israel=model society goes well beyond the verses cited. This needs to be developed citing appropriate thinkers (seems like something Heschel might have a word or two about?) Egfrank (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The verses Exodus 19:5-6 (kingdom of priests and holy nation) and Isaiah's "light to the nations" verses have been used extensively as prooftexts. I don't have my books in front of me at the moment, but I am absolutely positive that Rabbi Isidore Epstein does (Jewish Way of Life, Faith of Judaism), I think the Hertz chumash probably does, and Rav Hirsh's Horeb might use it too; I'll check into this. Sevendust62 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• relationship between tikkun olam, model society, and Zionism - rather complex. Isreal=model society has been (a) netural on the issue (b) used as an argument against Zionism (if we are isolated in our own country how can the world "see" our light?) (c) used as an argument for Zionism (Rav Kook is a great example of this and his influence is not limited to the orthodox).
• relationship between tikkun olam, model society, and support/criticism for the state of Israel. Tricky to write about but still essential. A good part of the dialog on Israel is incomprehensible without understanding this relationship. Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of leftist critique a good bit of it is based in the idea that the Jewish people have an obligation to create a model country. Egfrank (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

These two points of yours seem similar to each other.

I can cite sources for how the world is supposed to "see" the light. Rav Berkovits's God Man and History speaks on this, likewise Rabbi Epstein's Faith of Judaism, there is also an article at www.azure.co.il "Eliezer Berkovits: Theologian of Zionism", Rav Kook is big on this, Rav Hirsch's essay on Tisha B'Av in his Collected Writings (despite his being non-Zionist), Rav Moshe Shmuel Glasner's "haTzionut b'Ohr haEmuna" ("Zionism in the Light of Faith" - trans. at www.dorrevii.org) I think might have something on this. I don't have my books in front of me now, however. As an aside, I think www.azure.co.il "Why Judaism has Laws" and "Eliezer Berkovits: The Revival of Jewish Moral Thought" might have something on this topic of tikkun olam also. I'm sure not though, and I don't have time at the moment. Sevendust62 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by (a) neutral on the issue. Sevendust62 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinkers after the foundation of the state of Israel tend to be for or against. However, if we look back to the pre-state period, many of the thinkers took no position either for or against the founding of a state for the simple reason it was just unimaginable. This changed in only in the mid-late 19th century as the concept of "volk" developed into cries for national independence for various ethnic groups.

For example, Hirsch's focus on the role of Jews in galut was not anti-zionist because the concept of a state was not even under debate in mid 1830's when he wrote his Nineteen Letters on Judaism. Hess's book on Jews and nationality, Rome and Jerusalem was not published until 1862. Hertzl's book, The Jewish State was not published until 1896. Egfrank (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the difference between "relationship between zionism/tikkun olam" and "critique of Israel" - they are related, but not the same. It is important to distinguish between how a thinker is used after the fact and what the thinker intended to say at the time. The first issue "relationship between zionism/tikkun olam" is about the thinker's perception of the relationship: how are they related? (Or not?) To make claims pertaining to this point we need sources analyzing the thought of Hirsch, Holdheim, Geiger, Rav Kook, etc.

The second issue "critique of Israel" is about how ideas are applied by people today. The sources cited for this would be things like statements and platforms by various parties and social action groups: Shalom Achsav, Rabbis for Human Rights, Meimad, Netivot shalom. Also critical academic articles on Israeli politics. See Steinberg, Gerald M. INTERPRETATIONS OF JEWISH TRADITION ON DEMOCRACY, LAND, AND PEACE. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. I'm not of course suggesting we open this entire can of worms in this article - only that we discuss (in a calm academic manner) the ways in which beliefs about tikkun olam have influenced the various positions right and left. This of course presumes we can find sources on this topic that actually use the word tikkun olam :-). The link I provided above does not. Egfrank (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional edits:

• Hirsch footnote: I rather think the footnote about Hirsch needs to be in the body of the section on ritual mitzvot. The nub of Hirsch's argument is (a) ritual mitzvot prepare and stimulate ethical mitzvot (b) ethical mitzvot bring about tikkun olam. Placing it there also provides a nice segway to the section on ethical mitzvot. Egfrank (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I still personally feel it is better in the ethical section. The way I see it, the focus is on tikkun olam, and here it is the ethical mitzvot that perform the tikkun. The reason for mentioning the ritual mitzvot is that they are an adjunct to the ethical tikkun olam. That is why I put it in the ethical section, and moreover as a footnote. Sevendust62 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Hirsch's thought on this specific issue (types of mitzvot) is too important to hide in a footnote and placed outside of a footnote it makes more sense in the section on ritual mitzvot. Part of the reason behind his analysis was an apologetic in response to certain reformers who thought ritual was mere ceremonial that could be eliminated in the name of a pure philosophical Judaism. He lived in a world where ethics was highly valued (remember Kant was as big then as post modernism is now). The ethics argument was especially valued because it gave religion a place in a world that was dominated by an increasing role for scientific determinism and the sense that religon was an irrational primitive hold over that would be replaced by "objective" science and philosophy.

However, I'm not suggesting that we put Hirsch only in one section - he is too complex for that and I think if we look at other parts of his thought we will see plenty of material that relates specifically to ethics and messianic age (I don't think he used the word tikkun olam though - or did he? - if not we need to deal with this - see my concerns about WP:SYNTH above. Egfrank (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• model society vs. working in the world at large - split into two sections? This would make it easier to expand both topics Egfrank (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe two sub-sections within the ethical section? In any case, the thrust of the two approaches is pretty much the same. Whether you say Jews will influence gentiles by being an example within the gentile country, or in Israel, has large practical significance, but its theoretical significance vis a vis tikkun olam (per se) isn't much at all. Sevendust62 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the range of thinkers and examples needs to be developed for each. Remember its not our thought we are documenting, but the thought of others. Egfrank (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• list of thinkers used as examples of each approach to tikkun olam - we need to include a balance here: many important non-orthodox thinkers have been left out from this list. While I realize that orthodox readers may reject these thinkers out of hand, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE requires us to consider the full range of notable Jewish thinkers. We especially need to keep in mind the 70%+ in the USA who are affiliated with non-orthodox synagogues. We also need to keep in mind that many modern-day orthodox thinkers are persuasive and very widely read and quoted both inside and outside of orthodoxy. Influence on Jewish thought as a whole, and not just on the orthodox community has to be considered when we decide which writers are notable. Egfrank (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I myself know next to nothing about the non-Orthodox thinkers. Actually, it is easy to see that I have an intense attachment to Ravs Hirsch, Hertz, Berkovits, and Epstein lol. Sevendust62 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'm glad for your passion. Egfrank (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, I will have a chance later this week to get to the library and do some research on this. Egfrank (talk)

Best, Egfrank (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Link from Kingdom of Heaven

The article on the Christian concept of the kingdom of heaven has a link to this page in its "See Also" section. Is that appropriate?--Nowa (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the term

I don't think that the origin of the term "Tikkun Olam" lie back in the middle ages. Instead, one can easily found very similar language in Jewish pray books, in large parts of the prayer that are written in Aramic. In the Mishna (Sanedrin d:e) it's written that every person should think that the world was created for him. The exact expression is present at the preface for "Psukey Malchuyot" in Rosh HaShana paryer. So maybe the exact term first appear in the Middle Ages, but the idea itself is very old.--Gilisa (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Steven Plaut is WP:FRINGE viewpoint

... that doesn't warrant mention. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Steven Plaut probably represents the view of the majority of people familiar with the term. Bear in mind that most observant Jews would be familiar with the term because the term is part of the daily prayer services held in synagogues. Additionally, the "social action committees" that Plaut is pointing out as being associated with the use of the term Tikkun olam are more likely associated with those synagogues at the liberal end of the spectrum of Jewish observance than at the conservative end. He points this out in the article.

He writes: "This Judaism-as-Liberalism form of reductionism is extremely common in the Reform synagogue (especially its misnamed Religious Action Center) and is universal in the Reconstructionist movement. It is popular among many Conservative Jews and even has its Orthodox advocates."

That is found here. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If Plaut's viewpoint represents a majority POV, finding a WP:RS that articulates it shouldn't be difficult. Plaut is not a RS when it comes to issues of religion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz—please don't suppress that which you may personally disagree with. The article is an OP-ED piece and identified as such. It appears in the Jewish Press. It is specifically on the subject of this article. It is not a small factor that Judaism manifests itself differently across the spectrum of Jewish observance. The Plaut article sheds light on the varieties of ways of relating to a concept (Tikkun olam) by the differing movements in Judaism. It is not information that should be suppressed because it is about as on-target as a contemporary viewpoint could be. You need not personally agree with Plaut's perceptions. No reader need agree. But bear in mind Tikkun olam has a theological meaning as well as a widespread application to non-theological areas. Plaut's article highlights this. I've confined my commentary to a few sentences. It does not in any way overshadow the rest of the article. Please stop imposing your personal views on the shape that the article should take. Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop: What makes a professor of finance a RS when it comes to religious subjects? As I wrote, if this is a widely held POV, it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source that expresses this viewpoint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is popular among many Conservative Jews " The idea that Judaism-as-Liberalism is widespread among Conservative Jews is surely a fringe position. CJ is Judaism as Halacha and ritual observance. While CJ changes halacha to fit notions of ethics and modernity some would call liberal, its approach to what is central in Judaism is certainly very different from "its all about social action". And I think any serious Orthodox source would agree. Ricardianman (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A major restructuring is needed

This article is currently so filled with random religious errata that it completely misses the main point of what tikun olam is. The encyclopedic value here is unfortunately minimal since the article seems to be mainly concerned with how it relates to random parts of Judaism, rather than how the concept effects people and how they live their lives.

This article should either be fixed or deleted.

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you took to write that, but unfortunately, you haven't given us a single detail that needs fixing. Until you do, I'm removing the tags. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A Jewish POV is not a Neutral POV

This article spends a lot of time explaining Jewish points of view on Tikkun Olam. That's understandable since it's a concept from Judaism. But those explanations are not written from a neutral point of view. For example, the page currently says:

The Aleinu, said to have been written by the Biblical Joshua, praises God for allowing the Jewish people to serve God, and expresses hope that the whole world one day will recognize God and abandon idolatry. The phrase tikkun olam is used in the longer expression l'takken olam b'malkhut Shaddai, "to perfect the world under God's sovereignty." In other words, when all people of the world abandon false gods and recognize God, the world will have been perfected.

This is clearly written from a Jewish point of view about "false gods", "God", "idolatry", etc. A god is a "false god" if it isn't the Jewish god; it's "idolatry" if it references a god other than the Jewish god, etc. This is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article; for example, Wikipedia shouldn't be calling non-Jewish gods "false gods".

A few days ago, I tried to rewrite this graf from a neutral point of view, but people have now reverted the edits twice (without trying to improve them at all). Here was my proposed rewrite:

The Aleinu, said to have been written by the Biblical Joshua, praises the Jewish god for allowing the Jewish people to serve him, and expresses hope that the whole world one day will recognise that god. The phrase tikkun olam is used in the longer expression l'takken olam b'malkhut Shaddai, "to perfect the world under God's sovereignty." In other words, if and when all people of the world abandon their other gods and recognise the Jewish god, the author thought that the world would be perfect. This tacitly self-centered world view is not unique to this prayer or to Judaism.

OK, so the last sentence was provocative. I thought it was warranted because otherwise the previous sentence, which was not mine, looks rather foolish -- the world will be perfect if everybody drops their own opinions about theology and they all instead become jews? It's self-centered wish fulfillment at best; suppression of the rights of others to choose their own morality and theology at worst. Yet that seems to be exactly the meaning of the "in other words" sentence. If we throw out or rewrite the final sentence, leaving just the "in other words" sentence, is there something else objectionable about rewriting the graf, and eventually the rest of the page, from a neutral point of view? - Gnuish (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence you wrote ("This tacitly self-centered world view is not unique to this prayer or to Judaism.") has nothing to do with tikkun olam (the subject of this article) and everything to do with disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the paragraph describes a world in which everybody has become Jews? This is certainly a novel interpretation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I don't see it as novel at all; to me it seems obvious, but let's go through it and see where we agree and where we disagree.

To "recognize God and abandon idolatry" seems to be the phrase whose meaning is in question. When it says "recognize God", it isn't talking about recognizing Vishnu, or Allah, or Jesus, or any other gods; it's talking about recognizing the Jewish God, that YHWH deity. So, what is it to "recognize" the Jewish God? In my mind, to recognize something is to know it for what it is; when I recognize you in a crowd, it means that I can distinguish you from the strangers around you, and mentally tie that sight of you to all the other things that I know about you, like what foods you like to eat, and how your kid skinned their knee last week.

To "recognize" an conceptual noun like the Jewish God is, at a minimum, to understand the conceptual framework of Judaism, even if you don't personally believe it. It would be hard to say that you recognize the Jewish God if you'd never heard of Moses or the Talmud, for example. And you could recognize other conceptual nouns like socialism, prejudice, or more famously, obscenity, only by knowing their basic concepts and by applying that knowledge to a situation visible to you. But in this context I think "recognize" goes further, as in recognizing the authority of a sovereign. Not only do you understand the roots of the sovereign's place in society (e.g. why they think they can tell you what to do), but you also accede to that imposition of power (you agree that they have the right to tell you what to do). As in "recognizing Arthur as the true king" because he pulled the sword from the stone. The Jewish God is largely conceived of as a sovereign -- a king, who lives in "the kingdom of heaven" and is "omnipotent" (can tell everyone and everything what to do); the graf as it stands even uses the phrase "under God's sovereignty". So, in summary, I see the phrase to "recognize God" as meaning: to agree to the Jewish ideas about a complicated sovereign with a long detailed history, who has the right and the power to tell everyone, particularly you the recognizer, what to do. I think we usually call people who agree with the ideas of Judaism "Jews"; and "becoming a Jew" is another phrase for the process of adopting the Jewish religion.

The rest of the phrase, "abandon idolatry", supports that meaning. The Wikipedia article Idolatry goes into far more detail than I should here, both about the general concept and about its place in Jewish thought. Basically idolatry means to worship a god or gods other than the speaker's god. In Judaism in particular it referred to worship of the pantheistic gods which preceded Judaism. In extreme definitions, such as in some popular in Islam or in early Judaism, the mere making of a painting or statute that represents any deity, even the speaker's god, is considered idolatry, and is forbidden or punished. In Judaism the Seven Laws of Noah prohibit idolatry, even by non-Jews, and it is punishable by decapitation, i.e. by being killed. In general, idolatry is a perjorative -- a word that demeans those referred to, or treats them as less worthy of respect; a verbal way to smash people who you disagree with. Sometimes the smashing is less verbal and more physical. Many people have been forced to "abandon idolatry" while the speaker (of any religion) was threatening to kill them if they didn't. Many historical incidents record the forceful destruction of other religions' idols, icons, or symbols; indeed there's a word for it, "Iconoclasm". So, to "abandon idolatry" is a more perjorative way to say "to come to agree with the speaker's religion", possibly while under duress.

So when a historical Jew says "the whole world one day will recognize God and abandon idolatry", it means everyone will someday agree to the Jewish faith and will abandon all other faiths. Does that not sound to you like "everyone becoming Jews"? I would be interested to hear what other interpretation you have for the phrase. - Gnuish (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If no-one else cares to weigh in on this topic, I will proceed back to the Tikkun olam page and continue improving its neutral point of view. - Gnuish (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concern

The article currently has a template indicating that it is suspected to have been copied and pasted from an external source. The primary evidence is the existence of numbered inline footnote markers [1] through [17]; because these are plain text rather than links made with the <ref> tag, they look suspicious. I went through the history to trace the origin of these:

• 13:19, 16 September 2013‎ 129.64.182.173 (Rewrote section of Tikkun Olam in prayer) for [1]
• 13:56, 16 September 2013 129.64.182.173 (The role of ritual mitzvot) for [6]-[17]

Both edits were made by the same IP contributor using VisualEditor. The text is clearly pasted from the previous revision of the Wikipedia article, not from an external source. The cause could have been unfamiliarity with editing, or a bug in VisualEditor as has sometimes happened, but it's not a copyvio. The citations should be fixed either by restoring the old text from 2013, or by finding the original refs and pasting them into the current text, or perhaps as part of a careful merge of past revisions into the current article. Accordingly, I am removing the copyvio parts of the template, and editing the cleanup line. --Amble (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Observing Shabbat

I quote the article, "Jews renew their commitment to bring about a world where love and mercy will reign."

My brother, how do you claim to speak for all Jews? G-d will reign, but you have received his mercy.

Lead

@Jberrebi: I am not seeing any consensus. Why did you revert me? Furthermore it has been done wrongly, causing ref errors. Ar2332 and Headhitter: Thoughts? Any ideas on how to improve this section? Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't like either of your two versions, so I wrote a new version which I think is more comprehensive and less redundant. The article as a whole still needs lots of work, but this should put the intro on a better foundation. Ar2332 (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Pinsky The current version is really better. Well done.

I have to check a few things to see if the distinction you made between Pre Haskalah and Post Haskalah is right. I'll come back here with my findings. Jberrebi (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

When adding new messages, please use indents. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)