- What does it mean for Jewish communities to “model for other faith communities and ethnic groups” how traditions can “incubate moral citizenship”? How do you understand that responsibility?
- What does a “Jewish re-commitment to American civic renewal” look like for you personally? For your community?
(ג) אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִפְרַעַת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת לַיְתוֹמִים כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, וְגוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. הִלֵּל הִתְקִין פְּרוֹזְבּוּל מִפְּנֵּי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:
(3)A widow can collect payment of her marriage contract from the property of orphans only by means of an oath that she did not receive any part of the payment of the marriage contract during her husband’s lifetime. The mishna relates: The courts refrained from administering an oath to her, leaving the widow unable to collect payment of her marriage contract. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should take, for the benefit of the orphans, any vow that the orphans wished to administer to her, e.g., that all produce will become prohibited to her if she received any payment of her marriage contract, and after stating this vow, she collects payment of her marriage contract. The mishna lists additional ordinances that were instituted for the betterment of the world: The witnesses sign their names on the bill of divorce, even though the bill of divorce is valid without their signatures, for the betterment of the world, as the Gemara will explain. And Hillel instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] for the betterment of the world, as the Gemara will explain.
- Looking at these examples in the Mishnah, what kinds of situations did the rabbis consider important enough to legislate “for the sake of tikkun olam”? What patterns or values do you notice in these rulings?
- Some of these rulings balance competing goods — e.g., redeeming captives but limiting the ransom, or emancipating a slave sold into an exploitative situation. How do you see the rabbis negotiating between individual needs and the welfare of the broader community? How does this balancing act continue today?
- What might be an expansive translation of the term “tikkun olam” in these rulings? How can a more expansive view of this term inform how we think about tikkun olam in our own communities?
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to this expression: For the betterment of the world, is it due to the financial pressure of the community? Is the concern that the increase in price will lead to the community assuming financial pressures it will not be able to manage? Or perhaps it is because the result of this will be that they will not seize and bring additional captives, as they will see that it is not worthwhile for them to take Jews captive?
- The Gemara debates two rationales for the rule limiting ransom: protecting the community from crushing financial burden, or discouraging kidnappers from taking more hostages. What is at stake in each of these explanations? Which seems more persuasive to you, and why?
- How does this discussion expand or complicate your understanding of what tikkun olam means in traditional understandings?
- The rabbis are weighing individual suffering (of captives and their families) against long-term communal stability. How do you see similar tensions playing out in American civic life today? Where should the balance fall?
- The text imagines tikkun olam as not just fixing an immediate problem but preventing future harm. How might this understanding of tikkun olam shape our actions today, addressing systemic civic issues like polarization, declining trust, or threats to democracy?
- How can we bring Jewish values to guide our decisions when the needs of a vulnerable few and the stability of the broader community seem to be in tension?
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת, וְלִשְׁבַח קַרְקָעוֹת, וְלִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.
Rava raised an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman: It is taught in a mishna (Gittin 48b) that one cannot appropriate liened property that has been sold as payment for consuming produce or for enhancement of land, cases that will be explained later, or for the sustenance of a man’s wife and his daughters after his death, to which he committed in his marriage contract. This is despite the fact that each of these financial liabilities or commitments predated the sale of the land. These ordinances were instituted by the Sages for the betterment of the world, as these liabilities are not of a fixed amount, and the purchaser of the liened property cannot assess the risk he is assuming should some other person come to collect compensation from that property.
- Why do the Sages prohibit collecting from liened property for these obligations (e.g., sustenance for a wife or daughters, enhancement of land)? What risks are they trying to prevent?
- How do you see the rabbis balancing compassion for vulnerable family members (widows and daughters) with the need for predictability and fairness for property buyers?
- How might this principle — protecting economic actors by making financial risks predictable — apply to contemporary issues such as inheritance laws and consumer protections?
- How might Jewish communities apply the rabbis’ balancing act between individual needs and communal economic stability in our own institutions (e.g., synagogues, schools, federations)?
עַל כֵּן נְקַוּה לְךָ יהוה אֱלֺהֵֽינוּ לִרְאוֹת מְהֵרָה בְּתִפְאֶֽרֶת עֻזֶּֽךָ לְהַעֲבִיר גִּלּוּלִים מִן הָאָֽרֶץ וְהָאֱלִילִים כָּרוֹת יִכָּרֵתוּן לְתַקֵּן עוֹלָם בְּמַלְכוּת שַׁדַּי וְכָל בְּנֵי בָשָׂר יִקְרְאוּ בִשְׁ֒מֶֽךָ, לְהַפְנוֹת אֵלֶֽיךָ כָּל רִשְׁ֒עֵי אָֽרֶץ, יַכִּֽירוּ וְיֵדְ֒עוּ כָּל יוֹשְׁ֒בֵי תֵבֵל כִּי לְךָ תִכְרַע כָּל בֶּֽרֶךְ תִּשָּׁבַע כָּל לָשׁוֹן:
Therefore we put our hope in You, Hashem our G-d, that we may soon see Your mighty splendor, removing detestable idolatry from the earth, and false gods will be utterly cut off, when the world will be repaired/perfected under the sovereignty of the Almighty. Then all humanity will call upon Your Name, to turn all the earth's wicked toward you. All the world's inhabitants will recognize and know that to You every knee should bend, every tongue should swear.
- What does it mean that the world will be repaired/perfected “under the sovereignty of the Almighty”? How is this different from simply “repairing the world”?
- How might this phrase expand our understanding of tikkun olam beyond the pragmatic enactments we saw in the Mishnah and Gemara?
- Why does the prayer that ends each service include this aspiration? What does it signal about the connection between prayer, our relationship to the Divine, and our obligation to action?
- In the context of civic renewal, how can Jewish communities embody this prayer in partnership with others while maintaining our unique perspective?
- How might the aspiration of Aleinu challenge or inspire American Jews to approach today’s civic needs differently than other communities? Would that be useful, or problematic?
(ב) א כִּי צָרִיךְ כָּל אָדָם לוֹמַר: כָּל הָעוֹלָם לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִילִי (סנהדרין לז). נִמְצָא, כְּשֶׁהָעוֹלָם נִבְרָא בִּשְׁבִילִי, צָרִיךְ אֲנִי לִרְאוֹת וּלְעַיֵּן בְּכָל עֵת בְּתִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, וּלְמַלְּאוֹת חֶסְרוֹן הָעוֹלָם, וּלְהִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעֲבוּרָם.
1. Since each person must say, "The whole world was only created for me." (Sanhedrin 37) -- hence, insofar as the world was created for me, I must at all times see and look into tikkun olam/rectifying the world and to fill the lackings of the world and pray for them.
- Rebbe Nachman builds from the teaching that “the whole world was only created for me.” How does this shift the meaning of tikkun olam from a communal/legal category (in the Mishnah) to an intensely personal and spiritual one?
- What does it mean to “see and look into tikkun olam” at all times? How does this frame repair as an ongoing spiritual practice rather than a one-time action?
- Why do you think Rebbe Nachman includes prayer as part of rectifying the world? What does this suggest about the connection between inner spiritual life and outward action?
- The framing essay describes American Jews as equal participants with civic rights and responsibilities. How does Rebbe Nachman’s vision expand our sense of personal responsibility for civic repair?
- What might it look like to bring this deeply spiritual, prayer-centered vision of tikkun olam into public and civic life? How might it change the way we engage in political or communal work?
- If we seriously engage Rebbe Nachman’s claim that “the whole world was created for me,” how would that affect the way we show up for our communities and country?
- What practices — spiritual or practical — could help American Jews “see and look into tikkun olam at all times,” in ways that strengthen both Jewish life and the broader public square?