[Avodah] Tiqun Olam

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:31pm IDT, R Michael Makovi replied to me:
:> ...
:> But even so, that's not what Tiqun olam
:> actually is. In post-Ari qabbalah, it has to do with broken keilim and
:> metaphysical forces.

: I'm not concerned with what the Ari says...

Then don't be surprised when I tell you that I don't find citations
of R' Hertz, R' Dr David Berger or R' Prof Marc Shapiro to be overly
peruasive. You need to deal with the sources that passed "peer review".
The majority of your fellow shomerei Shabbos *do* care. But that said...

:                                           First, Aleinu uses the
: phrase differently than the Ari, and I think the Aleinu has more
: authority than the Ari...

So then quote what I said WRT the Aleinu's usage, which also isn't the
modern "perfecting society" stuff:
>                        "Tiqun olam" has to do with making a malkhus
> Shakkai. Which may very well be acheived by ethics and fiscal honesty
> to the world vekhol tosheveha. But even so, that's not what Tiqun olam
> actually is.

And in fact, your own following citation doesn't fit the usage you're
giving:
:                         Rambam to Avot 1:2 says (commenting on al
: shelosha devarim ha-olem omed - al ha-torah, v'al ha-avodah, v'al
: gemilut hasadim), "Yomar, she'b'hokhmah, v'hi ha-torah; u'b'ma'alot
: ha-midot, v'hen gemilut hasadim; u'b'qium tzivei ha-torah, v'hen
: ha-qorbanot - hatmadat tiqun ha-olam v'sidur mitziuto al ha-ofen
: ha-shalem biyoter."
...
: But besides that, Rambam defined Avot's language "ha-olam omed" as
: "sidur mitziuto al ha-ofen ha-shalem biyot", and he then equated this
: with "hatmada tiqun ha-olam".

Tiqun olam is as much about bringing the world to avodah ("malkhus
Shakkai") as it is about gemilus chassadim. The Rambam identifies it
with all three amudim.

Tiqun olam doesn't mean social justice. The problem is doubled by the
fact that the majority of people who do use the term that way define a
just society in terms of a particular political philosophy to which I
don't subscribe.

As a halachic idiom, it appears to be a fiscal concept in particular.
But if we're looking more generally, I agree the Rambam is a great place
to start.

To quote your own blog
<http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/05/haredism-of-national-religious-in.html>:
: Rabbi Shelomoh Danziger, "Rediscovering the Hirschian Legacy", Jewish
: Action 5756/1996, p. 23,
: http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Danziger.pdf, quoting Rabbi
: Hirsch's Commentary on Genesis 9:27:

:     [T]hese spiritual pursuits ... are meant to lead to proper action,
:     to the right response to the ever-changing conditions of life, in
:     order 'to prepare the world for the kingdom of G-d', as we put it in
:     our daily prayers.

Note that despite your usage of this quote to prove the opposite, RSRH
(as RSD understands him) considers tiqun olam to be *spiritual* pursuits.
If you go through RSRH's oevre, you'll be hard pressed to find the words
"tiqun olam".


Jumping back for a tangen on the bit I ellided.
:              ..., "Yomar, she'b'hokhmah, v'hi ha-torah; u'b'ma'alot
: ha-midot, v'hen gemilut hasadim; u'b'qium tzivei ha-torah, v'hen
: ha-qorbanot - hatmadat tiqun ha-olam v'sidur mitziuto al ha-ofen
: ha-shalem biyoter."
: Now, what is most interesting, I think, is that Rambam equates Avot's
: "ha-avodah" with "qorbanot", which he in turn equates with "qium
: tzivei ha-torah". This of course fits with Rambam's general view of
: the qorbanot in general, trying to deemphasize their importance, and
: all the more so delegitimize them as the sine qua non of Judaism
: (Kuzari).

That parenthetic comment is one you'll have to justify. As I see it, the
Rambam classifies the Torah into two parts: the main point, bringing
manking to the truth, and the preperatory piece, eliminating the wrong
ideas we created first. He classifies qorabnos in the latter.

Where does the Kuzari say that Qorbanos are "the sine qua non of Judaism"?

Back on topic...

: I could rest my case, but I will bring one random quote which I first
: saw yesterday. The quote is taken from Professor Marc Shapiro's review
: (www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/3_2_Shapiro.pdf)  of Rabbi
: Jonathan Sack's The Dignity of Difference. Professor Shapiro actually
: quotes Rabbi J. H. Hertz as preempting Rabbi Sack's general thesis;
: Professor Shapiro quotes a different passage of Rabbi Hertz's than I
: did, but he comes out to basically the same effect, that Judaism is
: concerned with gentiles' morality, not their theology...

1- About the subject line: Theology is part of tiqun olam. 

2- Further down you backtrack from making a statement this strong. I'll
bring it up there.

...
: Professor Shapiro's citation of Rabbi Isaac Palache: "R. Isaac Palache
: too regards the Noahide Laws as no longer binding on Gentiles by
: virtue of divine law, although he argues that one is still permitted
: (!) to instruct them in these laws because they have a strong
: utilitarian purpose, in that they make for a civilized society (tiqqun
: ha-olam)." My purpose here is not to argue whether the gentiles are
: obligated to keep the Noahide laws - see Shapiro there for this
: argument - but rather, I just want to call attention to how Rabbi
: Palache used tiqqun olam, as making for civilized society.

The parenthetic "tikun olam" is RIP's or R"P MS's? You're quoting the
Aqeidas Yitzchaq, which doesn't contain the term once, according to Bar
Ilan.

I think the problem is that you have a false dichotomy -- social justice
/ BALC or metaphysical repair.  And in trying to argue against the
latter, you jump to the former without real justification.

Tiqun olam is making the world the one G-d intended. All three amudim.
Making the messianic world progressively more manifest. Mequbalim can
discuss the metaphysics of that, but to the extent of the first two
sentences of the paragraph, it's the same basic message as the Rambam's.

:> What is qedushah? To be set aside for the purpose of imitating Hashem by
:> being good to His creatures.

: EXACTLY. Qedusha (for us, not for G-d) is to imitate G-d. As Hazal
: say, "How can one walk after G-d, a consuming fire? Rather, be
: merciful just as He is merciful, etc." Notice how Hazal never say,
: "Put on tefillin just as He puts on tefillin."...

Where does this Chazal mention the word qedushah?

That said, imitatio Dei is on ALL THREE AMUDIM. Recall the Rambam defines
Torah in terms of an internal refinement, which reflects in BALM as much
as BALC.

:                                  Hazal could very well have defined
: imitateo dei as wearing tefillin....

And didn't they when they assume our tefillin implies the existence of
Hashem metaphorically wearing tefillin reading "mi ke'amkha Yisrael"?

:> According to the Meshech Chokhmah, all qedushah derives from human
:> activity. There is no such thing as an inherently holy place or object.

: But while this works fantastically for Rambam, it is anathemous to
: Kuzari and Kabbalists. According to the Kuzari, tumah is something
: tangible that a sensitive individual can feel after he walks through a
: graveyard....

Source?

Kuzari 2:60-62 reads like RSRH's notion that tum'ah is that which
convinces us we are physical beings with only physical drives whose
existence ends in death.

    A dead body represents the highest degree of malignancy, and a leprous
    limb is as if dead. It is the same with lost sperma [Hertwig's
    translation spells it in Greek] because it had been endowed with
    living power, capable of engendering a human being. Its loss,
    therefore, forms a contrast to the living and breathing, and on
    account of its ideal potentiality only affects noble minds and highly
    strung souls which incline towards the divine, prophetic, visionary,
    and towards genuine imagination. There are people who feel depressed
    as long as they have not purified themselves after such an accident.

Does that sound like a metaphysical substance?

:> This [viz. R' Hirsch's view] might be "holiness", it certainly is Rudolph Otto's definition, but
:> if so it has nothing to do with qedushah. ... Otto is speaking from a Xian perspective,
:> where salvation is viewed as a gift. We work from the position where
:> man partners with G-d to redeem himself.

: I'm sorry, but you lost me. What has Rabbi Hirsch's view to do with
: Christian vicarious salvation? ...

What you misrepresent as RSRH's view is the notion of holiness being
bestowed by G-d to those who open themselves to receive it. The Xian
model of salvation through grace. Rather than the Jewish notion of
redemption through covenant.

Otto therefore considers holiness to be the "experience of the numinous".
G-d is holy, and man receives holiness from him. Man is an object,
not a subject.

In Yahadus, as in your own quote above about imitatio Dei, qedushah
comes from people committing themselves to G-d's purposes. Qedushah is
not an experience of the numinous, and RSRH wouldn't frame the issue
that way.

...
: I'm not learned in the laws of AZ vis a vis gentiles. But see Shapiro
: whom I cite above
: (www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/3_2_Shapiro.pdf) - he brings
: Shemot Rabbah, Akedat Yitzhak, and Abarbanel (the latter two relying
: on Deut 4:9) as saying that gentiles are not prohibited from AZ -
: totally exempt l'gamre! Additionally, he notes that Rashbam and R'
: Hertz both interpret Deut. 4:9 in this same way. So how do we fit this
: with the halakhot of AZ? Tzarikh iyun.

Note the others aren't the same as the Aqeidas Yitzchaq's claim that
the 7 mitzvos were conventional rather than be decree.

So there are only 6 mitzvos? Don't you think that screams "darsheini"?
How can I possibly accept this tertiary source against the very list
he's describing? Obviously he means patur, not mutar, whether as
according to my understanding of R' Aharon Soloveitchik or some other
line of reasoning.

It's not just tzarikh iyun -- it's your entire thesis needs to wait
until after that iyun is done. You base yourself on something you admit
you aren't fully understanding.

: Oh, don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying that belief in G-d is
: unimportant, G-d forbid! I'm only saying that a gentile is not
: OBLIGATED to believe in G-d, as far as reward and punishment goes.
...

The Rambam's yedi'ah-based model of redemption would obviously disagree.
Not that I know anyone else who teaches redemption through yedi'ah rather
than middos.

Clearly if we can debate whether the Notzri trinity is AZ, there is no
room to question the prohibition of AZ altogether. Tzarikh iyun indeed.

: Similarly, there is a difference between what is true and what is
: dogma; not everything that is true is a dogma whose denial causes a
: loss of olam ha-ba....

Thus the whole discussion of nachriim being allowed to believe in
shituf.

: The Yerushalmi, based on either Eicha or Yeremiyahu, says something to
: the effect that, "Though they didn't believe in me, if only they had
: nevertheless kept my Torah!" Now, if one doesn't believe in G-d, of
: what use is keeping the Torah - tefillin, kashrut, etc.? Therefore, it
: seems clear to me that by "Torah", the Yerushalmi means the mitzvot
: sikhliot. If I remember correctly, Rabbi Benjamin Blech, in the
: introduction to his Understanding Judaism, interprets this Yerushalmi
: similarly, something to the effect that G-d would rather we keep His
: mitzvot but not believe in Him rather than the reverse, but I'm not
: sure.

1- Another tertiary source? What does the Y-mi say when /you/ read
it? I would personally prefer to believe that HQBH prefers we keep
His mitzvos, and even in particular his mitzvos BALC and even more
particularly the ones like ve'asisa hatov vehayashar than believe in
Him. But that doesn't say anything about a lack of importance of belief.
(And I don't even know if I could prove my instinct.) Rather, it would
say something about the imporance of derekh eretz.

2- Sikhlios includes much of BALM too -- you shift terms by bringing
that up. Is not tefillah rational?

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha at aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar