Tz’dakah, Tikkun Olam , and the Educational Pitfalls of Loose Talk

Abstract

Tz’dakah, Tikkun Olam, and the Educational Pitfalls of Loose Talk Earl Schwartz (bio) Jill Jacobs contends, “There may be no other term that is simultaneously as beloved and as reviled in Jewish progressive circles . . .”1 Arnold Jacob Wolf has bemoaned its “capture” by “liberal political circles,”2 while Byron Sherwin describes its popularity as “promiscuous.”3 The term is tikkun olam, and it has taken its place in a long line of expressions associated with social progress that have risen to prominence among Jewish educators, only to be replaced, in time, by yet another catchphrase. In the nineteenth century, terms such as “elevation” and “prophetic Judaism” served this purpose. More recently, a growing concern for “authenticity” has spurred a return to Hebrew as a source of such terminology. Current usage of tikkun olam as a rubric for positive social involvement exemplifies this pattern.4 Criticism of this usage is increasing, but comparison with a similar appropriation of the term tz’dakah a few decades earlier demonstrates a larger process at work. A short review of recent reconfigurations of these expressions follows, along with a discussion of the problems such terms pose for Jewish educators. Shifting Definitions of Tz’dakah and Tikkun Olam Tz’dakah In the Tanakh: One of the connotations of the word tz’dakah in the Tanakh is “receiving one’s due.” It is this connotation that gave rise to use of the term in rabbinic [End Page 3] sources to mean support due to poor people, though it already may be indicated in the latest layers of Tanakh.5 However, the associated obligation was also clearly implied in the biblical designation of leket (“gleanings”), pei·ah (“corners,” i.e., of a field being harvested), shikh’ḥah (“produce left in the field”), and olelet (“misshapen grape clusters”) as the property of the poor, in as much as God, as true proprietor of the land, had designated poor people as owners of a portion of its produce. In Early Rabbinic Sources: During the period of the Mishnah, the term tz’dakah came to specify monetary support of poor people.6 Characterizing this support as “due” was in keeping with biblical precedent, and though unlike crops “left” in a field it would seem that tz’dakah taken from one’s pocket would necessarily be “given,” early sources had an enduring effect on subsequent thinking regarding tz’dakah in two important respects: (1) tz’dakah continued to refer specifically to financial support of poor people, and (2) it continued to be commonly characterized as the property of the poor, even before it had been “given.” Neither the Tanakh nor the Mishnah speaks of “giving” leket, pei·ah, shikh’ḥah, and olelet to poor people, insofar as these are already theirs.7 The would-be landowner’s claim to the crop comes after satisfaction of this encumbrance. Counting contributions for other purposes as tz’dakah, no matter how worthy the cause, was in halakhic terms stealing from the poor, akin to “putting a basket under falling grapes.”8 Recent Usage: Despite tz’dakah having long denoted financial support of poor people, by the 1970s it was commonly being used more broadly to signify “charitable giving, philanthropy,”9 or even “all manner of good deeds.”10 American tax law played a role in the transformation of the term, as did Jewish fundraisers eager to capitalize on its provenance. The appropriation of the charity box, the pushke—commonly associated with tz’dakah—by the JNF epitomizes the process. Distinctions frequently drawn in this period between “Christian charity” and the “justice” of tz’dakah had little influence on this trend, typically going only so far as to contrast the obligatory nature of “justice” with the voluntary character of “charity.” [End Page 4] Tikkun (Ha-)olam: In the Tanakh: Many biblical passages foretell a world made right through God’s reassertion of sovereignty, but none uses the terms tikkun or tikkun olam, or describes a perfected world as a human accomplishment. People are called to act in accordance with God’s ultimate designs, but they neither author nor effect them. In Early Rabbinic Sources: The rabbinic movement sustained the expectation of future redemption...