Why does the word "tzaddik" and the "righteousness hierarchy" mean different things or have different terms depending on author and context?

Question

The word "tzaddik", typically translated as "righteous", comes up quite a lot in different Jewish texts. Someone who is righteous would be called a "tzaddik", as a noun. There are often different levels of righteousness, which I am here referring to as the "righteousness hierarchy", for lack of a better term. Generally, this refers to multiple gradations of being a tzaddik, or some level beyond that of a tzaddik. More "normal" people would be either a rasha (wicked) or beinoni (in between).

There is a lot of variation in what exactly the term means, however, depending on the source. For instance, the Talmud (I have no specific page number, but this is what I understand the Talmud to say by other sources) states that a tzaddik is anyone whose good deeds outweigh their bad, and so is written in Sefer Tzaddikim on Rosh Hashanah. The Tanya's first chapter, meanwhile, states that a tzaddik is far above such a level, and in fact not only has no sins, but has no desire to sin at all (and, if I understand the text correctly, may not even have any evil inclination!). The beinoni, meanwhile, has no sins but may still have a desire to do so, that must be overcome. The Tanya explains that the Talmud uses the concept of a "relative tzaddik" when discussing the idea, and does not, as far as I know, discuss any level or gradation above that of the tzaddik. It also says that people are either born with this capability (or at least potential for it), or they are not and so the beinoni is the highest achievable ranking for most.

Mesilas Yesharim, by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, gives a gradation of yeshar < tzaddik < chasid < kodesh, where the first three are attainable by anyone through their own merit but the kodesh requires intervention from Hashem. I am not certain whether all four levels are in fact "tzaddikim" (that is, the whole concept has the name of its second level) or if only the second level is. Meanwhile, one footnote to the Koren NCSY Siddur for weekday and shabbos (page 423) quotes another rabbi, Rabbi Chayyim of Volozhin, who places the yeshar's status above that of the tzaddik, and says the tzaddik retains a desire to sin and the yeshar does not. In this formulation, the tzaddik is like that of the Tanya's beinoni, and the yeshar is like the Tanya's tzaddik. (Information is not given as to if or how a normal person can attain these levels).

There are enough commonalities between these different ideas that it seems as though they might be talking about the same phenomenon and simply disagree on the nomenclature, but there are also some notable differences. What exactly are the relationships between the concepts of tzaddik, beinoni, chasid, etc, within these different fromeworks? Do they refer to the same thing but with different words? Are they related but distinct ideas? Or do the sources disagree on what it means to be a tzaddik in a more fundamental way than simply what word refers to what status?

Answer 1

The tl;dr answer is that the terms are variable, but the concepts are the same (perhaps with some minor debatable differences).

You've done a good job in the question demonstrating this. A comparison between Mesilat Yisharim and Tanya would be a good way to approach this.

In Mesilat Yisharim, the first 3 chapters are about becoming a "Tzaddik". The highest rank of that is a "Naki" and Ramchal confirms in Chapter 13 that he describes a "Naki" as a "Tzaddik". It refers to someone who has completely stopped all sinning, because he has become aware of Hashem to the point where he would be simply too ashamed to sin anymore, even though he could feel temptation.

This matches up with Tanya's "Benoni" practically to a T. In chapter 1, the Rebbe explains with reasoning why he chose that word, after Rabba, instead of Tzaddik. Ramchal didn't go into detail in the terminology in that way, so just uses the more standard "Tzaddik" to explain the idea.

It's the idea, that is the important thing. I.e. that there is a grade which anyone can achieve where one graduates beyond good and evil. Evil no longer exists in a person's range of free-will options. Both sefarim then take the reader to a new place, the first rung in the ladder of being a real mentch, which is to be a Chassid.

After sorting out one's actions and middot, a person now has a new task - to work on their intentions. Once a person is no longer battling their yeitzer hara daily, they have a new job to do, which is overcome self-centeredness altogether. I.e., reach a point where one doesn't spend their time and energy in the pursuit of their own survival and wants (which doing good deeds and avoiding evil can certainly just be an extension of), but spend it serving others, pursuing their survival and wants.

Mesilat Yisharim takes us through three steps in that. The first is perishut, which is the first step in weaning oneself off one's desires and self-service. Then one begins working on one's intentions in "Tahara", so that they are doing good because it's right, not because it's good for me. Then they will move on to working on their heart and mind as a "Chassid", who does good because it pleases Hashem and one's fellow man, and this is their great passion, borne out of a true altruistic love for ones fellow Neshamot, and one's Creator. All of this can be found in Tanya or other Chassidic works. There's no fundamental disagreement on anything.

I have not personally done a good comparative study between "Kadosh" and "Tanya Tzaddik", I wouldn't be surprised to find many parallels, although if they are different, that would also make sense, as there is a lot to discuss in these topics.

The point is, all of these works, which were all produced in a similar time in history, all stand on the shoulders of the giants of old. They build from the same sources: Talmud, Aggadah, Rambam, Chovot Levavot... One can see how they draw from these and produce, remarkably, very similar ideas (using different words) to teach us what Hashem wants. Even though they didn't live in the same countries or lifetimes, they all end up following the Torah to the same place and that's what is our charge to learn and follow, each to their preference and minhag.

I hope that answers your question. Don't worry too much about terminology.