i wholeheartedly respect the pride our fellow jews have for upholding the traditions of their forefathers. we all want to be in sync with what came before and this is part of what makes klal yisrael so unique - the spiritual magnet implanted within each neshama that yearns to be connected just won’t let go that easily. and while time marches on and we find ourselves in new worlds within each successive generation, we are challenged to find meaning within new scenarios and changing realities…the truth is that anyone who wants to believe that they can remake judaism, as as we each travel down our separate paths, and refashion it in their own image was granted the right to this belief by virtue of free will (bechira). but engaging in this pursuit, and then calling myself a “carrier of the true traditions of our forefathers” would mark me as either really misinformed about the original material, or perhaps really deluded. our forefathers, as a united whole, were orthodox. yes, of course there were always those whose observance slipped from the optimal (just as “even” none of us - the orthodox today - are perfect), but they were still orthodox. (see lawrence kelemen’s excellent piece re this in jewish action summer 1999 entitled TRACING THE TREE OF LIFE)..)

“halacha” (law), “mesora” (tradition) and “emes” (truth), like “tikun olam”, actually have real meanings. they are not subjective terms. “tikkun olam” begins with “tikkun atzmi” - changing myself. only once i’ve effected change within myself can i hope for change in the larger world around me. remaking or reinventing torah concepts around what i want to see happen - changing the standards, the qualifiers, and the rules - just doesn’t cut it, unfortunately. and doing this and then thinking we’re carrying on the traditions of our forefathers - well…

No, but I probably should, considering how few people seem to know the origin of the word. “Not kosher” suffices just fine.

-DMZ

Furthermore, where is his argument against the Kabbalists of Sefad? According to the Mishna and the bit of Maimonides he cites tikun olam means to protect the world from evil, but the Kabbalists took it to mean imbuing the world with holiness. These aren’t the same thing.

So when you hear someone refer to a cheeseburger or a ham sandwich as “treyf”, do you rebuke them for redefining treyfah?

Very well put!

Improving the world is indeed a wonderful Kiddush Hashem. Distorting traditional Jewish thought and history (which is what casually redefining Tikkun Olam is) is not. Debbie’s really brings this point out. This isn’t an either-or situation - just find a new phrase for it.

“While true that absolute truth is a credo of many religions and movements, I ask you to look at the results of this belief system (e.g. the Crusades, Nazis and of late the Taliban and Bin Ladenism were all bearers of the absolute truth.)”

It turns out the Nazis, crusaders, and radical Islamists also:
1. Eat
2. Sleep
3. Breathe

I think you know my point, which is that correlation is not causation. Comparing your fellow Jews (of any stripe!) to these groups is stunningly insensitive, and you really should be ashamed of yourself. Indeed, the problem was not that they thought they held absolute truth - it was that their absolute truths had no room for anyone else. This is, of course, diametrically opposed to any Jewish thought I’m aware of, which accepts the presence of non-Jews in this world as almost necessity.

As for your pseudonym, I think you’re just a coward hiding behind the anonymity the Internet provides so your constant slander of Orthodoxy doesn’t actually impact your real life. Not all of us are cowards - see below.

-David Michael Zakar (http://david.zakar.com)

First, a Jewish King was given this great power, because he was imagined to be the Pure and Humble Servant of God. His presumed goodness, and loyalty to the Torah was meant to function as a check on his power. An American president is entitled to no such presumption of Goodness, which is why the Founders imposed serious checks on his power. Second, as the Book of Kings dramitically demonstrates the king who is also a Pure and Humble Servant of God is a chimera. He never existed, not even when the Temple stood.

Rabbi Shafran argument is no good not because Bush is bad, or because the Rambam was wrong, but because the King who was worthy of the power Shafran wishes Bush to have, has never in human history existed.

The post was only pointing out the “traditional” definition of Tikkun Olam according to the sages of the Talmud, the author of the Aleinu prayer, and Maimonides (all of whom I highly doubt were unqualified individuals with an agenda).

Tikkun Olam was a great kiddush Hashem when it was combined with the mitzvah of Tzedaka. But when you take the term and twist it to be used for things totally unrelated to mitzvahs there is a perversion of the definition.

But languages and meanings of words change with time and perhaps that is just what has happened with the term Tikkun Olam. As has already happened with Mitzvos (any good deed vs when it is traditionally meant commandments from Hashem), Kosher (anything that is appropriate vs things appropriate under Hashem’s commandments), and of course Kabballah (something any person can learn and follow vs some mystical book that only people knowladgeable about Judaic studies and is old enough to have sufficient life experiences should undertake).

These changes from the original definitions could be viewed as bad or they might be good. But you can not deny that they are not the original meanings.

Aaron: So you object to my pseudonym? I have no problem with yours. While true that absolute truth is a credo of many religions and movements, I ask you to look at the results of this belief system (e.g. the Crusades, Nazis and of late the Taliban and Bin Ladenism were all bearers of the absolute truth.) Orthodox Judaism has many factions believing themselves the sole purveyors of the “truth” to the exclusion of their neighbors. Are you suggesting this is acceptable? Which leads us to your last point; I too have serious reservations over the bona fides of Shabbateans, the followers of Chabad-Lubavitch and Ger and would point out that the more exclusionary we get, the more we look like them.

Finally, in response to those who accuse me of intolerance due largely to my “ilk” tic, I confess that I am intolerant. However, unlike Rabbi Shafran and his ilk (oops), I limit my intolerance to an intolerance of intolerance.

-DMZ

I look forward to the rabbi’s next learned treatise explaining that (a) the Pope is Catholic, and (b) the sun rises in the east.

Apparently we agree that all branches of Judaism believe themselves to be the carrier of the true traditions of our forefathers. Rabbi Shafran from his corner of the universe and our more secular minded brethren from theirs.

So long as Rabbi Shafran and his ilk refrain from their indefensible posture of exclusive truth, we can all agree to coexist in peace and harmony. After all there is room for much and varied Tikkun Olam.

As our sages used to say after an unresolved heated debate in which the opposing sides firmly believe in the sole truth of their position, “ailu v’ailu divrei elokim chaim.”

Rabbi Shafran, its time for tolerance and a return to your true religious roots.