[Avodah] Tiqun Olam

[Michael Makovi]

>  :>  But AFAIK that's not true... Whle RSRH was a strong proponent of
> :> social justice beyond the Jewish community, he didn't call it "tiqun
>  :> olam".
> :> R' Micha Berger

>  : http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n030.shtml#08
> : Mikha'el Makovi

>  I don't know if RnTK there meant the idiom, or if she was specifically
>  saying she meant the literal words taken non-idiomatically. If the
>  former,  I'm not sure she is correct. Many argue that RSRH's symbols
>  are a presentation of qabbalah. If so, his metaphor system would turn
>  Lurianic tiqun olam into a matter of teaching the truths that are the
>  opposite of tum'ah. Which is different than his call to social
>  justice, even if the two distinct concepts would overlap in what they
>  demand of us.
>
>  SheTir'u baTov!
>  -micha

Assuming I understand what you mean between idiomatically and
literally non-idiomatically, I don't see how she'd mean the idiom -
she specifically says she's taking it as p'shat, not according to its
popular Kabbalistic meaning. Tikkun olam means "repairing the world".

And how does Rav Hirsch describe repairing the world? By doing mitzvot
and educating, in practical terms, to world as to the meaning of
belief in G-d and avodat hashem, etc. Moreover, IMHO, the fact that
his entire approach to mitzvot is practical/worldly (i.e. giving
tzedaka doesn't pull spiritual strings; rather, I've simply helped a
poor person materially) and educational (tefillin teaches me something
about G-d; no strings to pull), it stands to reason that his approach
to tikkun olam is exactly the same - since tikkun olam is by
definition via performance of mitzvot, it stands to reason that
whatever one thinks about mitzvot, one thinks the same about tikkun
olam. I'll wager a guess that what Nefesh haChaim says about mitzvot
applies to tikkun olam the same way that whatever Horeb says about
mitzvot will apply to tikkun olam.

Many argue that Rav Hirsch was a Kabbalist, yes, and I have yet to be
able to understand this. In 19 Letters, he decries magical mechanism -
Dayan Grunfeld says he is merely decrying the popular
misinterpretation of Kabbalah, and DG does have textual basis.
However, one cannot ignore the fact that everywhere in RSRH's writings
where he interprets Kabbalah, he always takes the theosophy and
theurgy out - for example, in Parshat Bereshit near the beginning, he
says that our deeds influence the heavens because G-d sees what we do,
He takes cognizance, and He responds accordingly. If I am not
mistaken, I believe he might even have a partial quotation from the
Zohar here; in any case, notice the parallel to the Kabbalistic notion
of influencing upper worlds. But, Rav Hirsch has stripped all
theosophy and theurgy. Dayan Grunfeld will insist that Rav Hirsch did
so not because he denies, but only because his audience was not
receptive. But moreover, Rav Hirsch in 19 Letters also decried
theosophy and theurgy **b'klal**! Moreover, he elsewhere, in many
places, takes great pains to emphasize that Judaism is an anthropology
and is concerned not with knowledge of G-d and the heavens, but rather
solely with our duty here on earth in the temporal realm. In his
letter on aggadah, he says that he never much contemplated Olam haBa
or took sides on the machloket between Rambam and everyone else in the
reality of astrology, because there's no nafka mina. This is hardly
what a normal Kabbalistic says. Moreover, as 19 Letters makes clear,
and I will assume applies to all his writings, his objective was to
reinvigorate Judaism with the true, proper approach, after we had
become occupied with a dry hashkafa-less 4-cubits-of-halacha Judaism -
he is trying to pave the correct, true path, the true way to return to
Judaism as it is meant to be. So how could it be that he was hiding
the truth just because his audience might not have been receptive??!!
Rather, Rav Hirsch, I would say, simply stripped the theosophy and
theurgy out of Kabbalah and read it like any midrash - true, he
accepted Kabbalah per se, but on his own terms. It turns out that I am
holding aliba d'Rabbi Shelomoh Danziger. What needs iyun, however, is,
according to this shita, how did Rav Hirsch view Arizal et. al.? Did
he read Arizal as a metaphorical allegorical midrash like the Zohar,
or did he say Arizal had misinterpreted Zohar? How much Kabbalah,
besides the Zohar itself, did Rav Hirsch know, and how did he view it?

Mikha'el Makovi