"I am," he said, "a good Jew. I give charity."
The remark took me aback, yet the logical development to the point of view that he expressed was inevitable. In an environment where the call of ambition is generally a call toward de-Judaization, the connection between Jews who prosper and the great masses of the Jewish people becomes, perforce, an external and artificial one. It is notorious that the temple has thus far had no appeal to and no message for the Jewish masses, that its membership is recruited from the well-to-do and the successful, and that its relation to the great groups which are destined never to be well-to-do or successful becomes purely a relation of philanthropy. The elements of brotherhood, of a common consciousness and a common purpose, fade or get submerged. Where the masses are concerned the whole corporate essence of reformed Judaism becomes concentrated in the word "charity."
Justice vs. Charity in the Jewish Ideal
YET it is significant that in Hebrew there is no special word for charity. The term צדקה (Zedakah) meant originally righteousness, and the righteousness which the prophets advocated was the substance of social justice. It was incorporated into the fundamental law of the Jewish state, which differed from that of other ancient states in the fact that its intention was to secure freedom and "life" for each individual man. Charity, as we now understand the word, had no place in the social conceptions of the prophets and was not acknowledged in the Law. The three codes which are preserved to us in the Bible from the covenant in Exodus to the extraordinarily profound legislation of Leviticus express an evolution of the social sense founded on a right appreciation of social justice and democracy. "Life," and its sustenance food, and shelter were regarded as the rights of each and every man and not as gifts from one man to another. The law concerning the tenure of land is particularly significant for its insight into the economic basis of social justice, and the laws concerning indebtedness and slavery only less so. Charity appears only when the state disintegrates. It is coincident with the decay of the social organization and the consequent failings of the sense of corporate responsibility, and consists substantially of the conversion of a right into a gift. This change is registered in the new meaning which the word "Zedakah" receives. For a state in which social justice prevails there is no room for charity, while a social order which involves charity is not one which maintains justice. Thus it may be said that the prophets, because they operated in terms of the reorganization of the whole of society and not of the incidental correction of piecemeal evils, were humanists. Their program was constructive and aimed at the enfranchisement of manhood. The rabbis, on the other hand, were (relatively only) philanthropists. Their program was remedial, and they aimed rather at the relief of suffering than the realization and perfection of human potentialities.
To-day the term "charity" has given way to a new equivalent, with a somewhat different connotation. This new equivalent is "social service." That it should be urged, as Mr. Lewis urges it, upon liberal Judaism is simply another indication of the evanescing adherence of that sect to the corporate life of the Jewish people. Although "social service" carries with it more of the sense of justice than the term charity, it is still, in intention, a charitable thing. It is not a thing done through the inevitable forms of right social organization, but through the gracious good will of a kindly individual. It still maintains the Christian quality of "grace" which is a condescension, a going down, a philanthropy. It stands in contrast to law, which knows no such qualities, and the call which Mr. Lewis makes to liberal Judaists for a special kind of social service is itself a demonstration that "liberal Judaism" thus far has little in common with the substance of Jewish life. Indeed his whole book is a demonstration of this fact, for of the six chapters that it contains only one has anything to say of social service as such in the present day, while four are analyses, not of charity, but of the law of righteousness as it operated in the Jewish polity, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. Even the actual charity of the Middle Ages carries a quality of obligation and socially ordained necessity which is derived from the basic law of the Jewish people.
The Hope of Liberal Judaism
BUT to-day, while the great Jewish masses still live, more or less adequately under the basic law and exercise such righteousness as they may in the division of obligation which the laws of the Galuth lands compel, the classes are divorced from its rule altogether. The call with which Mr. Lewis closes his book,—
"We must teach the masses of our people, upon whom the Judaism of yesterday has lost hold, that their salvation lies in liberal Judaism, which is beginning to find itself to-day and which will become the Judaism of to-morrow,"
—is the best indication of this. Liberal Judaism has not touched the minds or hearts of the masses. The radicals despise it as a capitalistic system of compromise with the social environment. To the rest of the working classes, it makes thus far no appeal whatever. It is only upon the radicals that the "Judaism of yesterday" has lost its hold, and to them liberal Judaism can have no appeal. To the rest of the Jewish people it can be significant and really developed into the "Judaism of to-morrow" only in so far as it can succeed in reincorporating itself into the common life. I am an old social service person, and I am prepared to deny categorically that such a reincorporation is possible through social service. What is needed is sympathetic intelligence, insight into the life and aspirations of the masses, return of the classes to the masses, participation in their ideals, their traditions, and their common life. It is not by a cutting off from the past, but by a development out of it that such a reincorporation can be consummated.
If liberal Judaism is to be a living and growing force at all, it can become so only by accepting the inevitable conditions which govern all life. Life is organic; religion is only one of the many organs of human society, even Jewish society. Its health and vitality are dependent upon the health and vitality of the social residuum. The hope of liberal Judaism lies in a reincorporated national life for the Jews. That alone can preserve the Jewish religion, either from petrifying as orthodoxy through resistance against environmental pressure, or from evaporating as reform through submission to environmental pressure.