| nt bs Divsion VI a a Section } LP aL ‘ Sad, of Ae er . aa : Bg = ae _ “ad, { eA ee Al i F ROR IE ¥ j : 5 ; perN eee Fett q \ a, iS PO CaTea) ed ch 4 i Tit SW R ot i ri a yeaey ahs ' ay AS 6 TVR ko ne Bi z . A SAN ee. aan AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK - BOSTON + CHICAGO - DALLAS ATLANTA + SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO., Limitep LONDON + BOMBAY + CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, L7. TORONTO AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPY From the Earliest Times To the Nineteenth Century BY v4 EPHRAIM FRISCH jew Pork THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1924 All rights reserved CopyRIGHT, 1924, By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Set up and printed. Published May, 1924. Printed in the United States of America by J. J. LITTLE AND IVES COMPANY, NEW YORK To My Wife RUTH COHEN FRISCH PREFACE THE word philanthropy has been used in the title of this essay rather than the term charity because the field covered by Jewish ministrations to those in need was broader than that of relief alone. A fuller explanation is found in the Conclusion. The period surveyed in this study ends with the changes set in motion by the beginnings of Jewish political and economic emancipation. Thereafter, as is brought out in the text, Jewish philanthropy takes a decidedly new trend, becoming both more secular and more highly organized. The fall of the Jewish State in the first century of the common era has been chosen as an important dividing point in the period treated. The restrictions upon their self-determination from that time on (until emanci- pation) left the Jews without authority to control the basic conditions of poverty. The author desires to acknowledge his deep gratitude for valuable guidance and assistance to Prof. Richard J. H. Gottheil, of the Division of Semitic Languages, Columbia University, for whose department this dissertation was written; to Prof. Samuel McCune Lindsay of the faculty of Social Science of Columbia; to Prof. Israel Abrahams of Vii Vill PREFACE Cambridge University, England; to Dr. Ismar Ellbogen, Dean of the Rabbinical College at Berlin, Germany; and to the late A. S. Freidus and I. Broyde of the Jewish Literature Division of the New York Public Library. He is also greatly in- debted to Mr. Harry Karp, of the last-named de- partment, and to the librarians of the Jewish Theological Seminary for practical aid. January, 1924 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE From THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE FALL OF THE STATE PAGE CuapTeR I—TuHeE Bist—e. . . DV Ra Dee ea re Ong 3 The Rise of a Problem of pies Utterances of the Prophets. Pentateuchal Laws and Thought. Agri- cultural Provisions. The Psalms and the Poor. Wis- dom Literature. Biblical Episodes and Exemplars. Economic Measures. Motives of Biblical Philan- thropy. The Legacy of the Bible and the Biblical Period to the Subsequent Centuries. Cuaprer II—TuHeE ApocryPHA . . . « « «© e« 25 Ecclesiasticus. Tobit. CuHapter IIJI—TuHe Earty SYNAGOGUE AND COMMUNAL PEFPARETVACIRGAMIZATION] (out rs 40) etal cd ile Yo bys at The Spread of Synagogues. The Beginnings of Or- ganized Communal Relief. The Synagogue as the Center. Influence on Early Christian Charity. PART TWO FRoM THE FALL OF THE STATE TO THE BEGINNINGS OF EMANCIPATION Paar Berl INTRODUCTORY (60 60 se mis ce el te 43 Cuapter II—Tue Tatmup. . . 48 Outlines of a System of Orenieed Relief j in . Mish- nah. The Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Ex- cerpts Quoted. ix x TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ILI—THE CopEs AND ETHICAL Works . The Standard Codes. Maimonides’ “Portions of the Poor.” His “Eight Degrees” of Charity Quoted. Jacob ben Asher’s “Four Rows.” ‘The Introductory Paragraph to his “Laws of Charity” Quoted. Joseph Caro’s “Shulchan Aruk.” Inspirational Sources other than Codes. Quotation from Bachya’s “Duties of the Heart.” CHapTEeR IV—Ru.LinGc PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS First Premise: The Poor and the Dependent the Spe- cial Wards of God. Second Premise: All Goods in Last Analysis Come from and Belong to God. First Basic Principle: Charity not a Favor but an Obliga- tion. Second Principle: Righteousness Finds Its Most Practical Expression in the Doing of Charity. CHAPTER V—MotTIvES AND SANCTIONS The Will of God the Ultimate Sanction of Conduct. Direct Controlling Motives: Terrestrial Benefits and Rewards in the Hereafter. Honor as an Incentive. Sympathy and Love. Maimonides Quoted. CHAPTER VI—CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE Two General Currents in Jewish Philanthropy: Charity (Zedakah) and Loving-kindness (Gemilut Chasadim). Types of Personal Service. CHAPTER VII—GENERAL PusBiic RELIEF AND ITs Ap- MINISTRATION The Two Public Charity Funds: The Coffer Coe pah) and Plate (Tamchui). Voluntary and Com- pulsory Aspects of Giving. Sources of Revenue. The Congregational Connection. ‘The Overseers of the Poor: Calibre; Function; Reaction of the Poor. Methods of Procedure: Case Work; Precedence; In- vestigation. Nature and Quantity of Relief: Norms and Standards for Ordinary and Special Aid. PAGE 61 74 84 OI 100 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER VIII—Setr-Support AND PAUPERIZATION Laudation of Labor. Limitations to Generosity. Reg- ulation of Begging. CHAPTER IX—MIsCELLANEOUS ‘ToPiIcs The Tithe. Defectives. Delinquents. Aid to Non- Jews. CHAPTER X—TuHeE RIsE oF SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS Specialization of Funds. Emergence of Separate Or- ganizations. Older Institutions: Shelters, Almshouses, Hospitals and Free Medical Care. Other Institutions and Societies: Burial Societies, Mutual Benefit Asso- ciations. The 17th Century the Century of the Spread of Societies. Redemption of Captives. Collection for Poor of Holy Land. CHAPTER XI—CHANGING CONDITIONS AND THEIR Er- FECTS New Internal and External Developments Calling for Changes in Charity Administration. The Effects of Political Emancipation. The Beginnings of Recon- struction. London and Paris as Examples. Brief Sketch of the Development of Jewish Philanthropy during the Contemporary Period. CHAPTER XII—CoNncLUSION i abi are he em Thariep tile OURS AN Ip Sa Ie ROAR nes Se ge URNA I NDEX r ° ® o ° ° e s ° * ° o ° ry 130 137 165 178 183 189 PART ONE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE FALL OF THE STATE. AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF JEWISH PHILANTHROPY CHAPTER I THE BIBLE THERE is very little need for charitable assistance, personal or financial, during the primitive stages of a people’s life. The family or clan takes care of its weak or disabled dependents. Our purpose is to find the first perceptible traces of the play of the philanthropic impulse among the people of Israel during that period of the usual course of a nation’s development when permanent settlements arise. Even then we must not expect to see poverty become a problem until those settlements have grown large. While, asa result of natural causes,— loss of the breadwinner, sickness, senility, disable- ment, deformity—there is found a certain irreduci- ble minimum of distress everywhere, this distress is easily alleviated by relatives and neighbors as long as society presents simple conditions. Just as soon as urban conditions develop and congestion of 3 4 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY population begins, the well-springs of philanthropy must be tapped. Disregarding the controversies as to when the Hebrew migration reached Palestine, which even the recently enlarged acquaintance with Egyptian and Mesopotamian history has failed to determine conclusively, and taking our own stand at once on the common ground of widely accepted progressive opinion, we find the Hebrews at about 1000 B.c. living in permanent settlements on the soil of Pales- tine, with Jerusalem as the newly established capital. Conditions of life were altogether rural. Jerusalem itself, although a walled city, could not have had a population of more than two or three thousand souls. Agriculture was the main, indeed well-nigh the exclusive, industry. Town life was slow in developing. Cities—very small ones, judged by our modern standards—began to arise at the time of Ahab and Elijah, in the early decades of the gth century.1 These urban communities reached a stage of considerable density of population by the middle * An echo of the acts of aggression which monarchs allow them- selves occasionally and which in this instance is reminiscent of King John and the events culminating in Magna Carta, comes down to us in the episode of Ahab and Jezebel’s appropriation of Naboth’s family estate and the judicial murder that accompanied it (x Kings, 20). This episode bears the earmarks of a historical incident. Such high-handed acts indulged in by those next in power as well as by the sovereign, later—in Amos’ days—became common and exercised a strong bearing on economic conditions by increasing poverty and kindling resentment. Still, at the time in question (the gth century) these acts must have been the exception and not the rule. THE BIBLE F of the following century,—a stage which brought with it the usual train of poverty, exploitation and corruption. The conquests of Jeroboam II in the North and those of Uzziah in the South had resulted not only in much booty but also in unusual trade opportuni- ties and had speeded the growth of large and powerful commercial classes. While the upper classes revelled in wealth and luxury, the great body of the people suffered from want and exploita- tion. Inthe decades that ensued the denunciation of these unbearable conditions by those two great tribunes of the people, the prophet Amos at Bethel, in Israel, and the prophet Isaiah at Jerusalem, in Judah (whose chapters on the economic and social abuses give every evidence of being contemporary documents), furnishes indubitable evidence of the misery and industrial wrongs prevalent at that time in the Hebrew commonwealths. Social maladjust- ments were not limited to city life. The landlord classes in the country grew fat, no doubt, at the expense of the small farmers and laborers; and the summer and winter homes of the magnates, includ- ing houses of ivory and other enduring monuments of display attacked by Amos, stood out in glaring contrast not only to the dingy shacks of the down- trodden city proletariat, but also to the miserable hovels of the country poor. The need for philan- thropic effort must have been dire and constant. It is in the utterances of the great prophets who 6 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY at this point loomed up as the outstanding figures in Hebrew life and who for four centuries con- tinued as its master spirits that philanthropy reaches a new height, hitherto unattained and _ scarcely surpassed thereafter. It remains the unique and everlasting distinction of the great prophets that they made clear the direct connection between economic oppression and want. As far as we know, they were the first ones anywhere to attack the problem of poverty at its very root. To their minds destitution was fundamentally a consequence of social and economic exploitation. ‘The sources of want they traced to undue advantage taken by the strong over the weak. These social wrongs they denounced fearlessly. Taking their stand on the basic principle that all men are brothers, the children of the self-same one God,? they attacked, in words of fire, the oppression of the poor and the defenceless. Amos, Isaiah and Micah were especially severe in their indictment of this phase of social wrongdoing. The first assailed those ‘‘who sell the needy for the price of a pair of shoes” and deny justice to the humble.* Isaiah *Mal. 2:10: “Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?” ‘This principle took root in a soil of feeling and is reiterated or implied again and again throughout the writings of the prophets. *2:6-8: Also, “Ye kine of Bashan... that oppress the poor and crush the needy,” addressed to the voluptuous women (4:1); “that trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat,” probably directed against the merchants who supplied the farmers on a tenant-sharing basis (5:11); who “swallow the THE BIBLE cried out, ‘‘What mean ye that ye ¢rush my people and grind the face of the poor?” and castigated monopolization of land and buildings.47 And Micah bitterly arraigns those wolves of society ‘‘who eat the flesh of my people and flay their skin from off them and break their bones,” and those who through manipulation dispossess people of their fields and homesteads.®> ‘The conception of the merging of philanthropy with social justice, so that the line of demarcation is wiped out, attained its most eloquent formulation in the Second Isaiah, in the passages, ‘Ts it not to deal thy bread to the hungry,” etc. (58:7-8), and “If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke,” etc. (58: 10-12). When the cycle of Scripture readings at public wor- ship was instituted some time later, this 58th chapter of Isaiah was adopted as the lesson from the prophets (Haphtarah) for the holiest day in the religious calendar, the Day of Atonement. It remains to this day a superb statement of what constitutes social service in its broadest in- terpretation. Side by side with the written exhortations and protestations of the great prophets, covering roughly the four centuries between the middle of the eighth and the middle of the fourth centuries needy and destroy the poor of the land,” in rebuke of exploitation and profiteering generally (8:4). “3:15. See also 1:23; 3:16-17; 5:7, 8, 203 10:1-23 11°4-53 16:4-5. *3:1-3; 2:1-2. The elements of social justice are also sketched briefly in Ezekiel’s description of the righteous man (Ezek. 18:7-9). 8 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY B.c., and, to some extent, no doubt, drawing their inspiration from the prophetic utterances, came the mass of injunctions, imbedded in an appropriate setting of sentiment, embodied in the Pentateuch, which, of the whole sacred canon, carried the great- est weight of authority. The oldest continuous section of the Pentateuch, the Book of Deuteronomy, promulgated by the re- former King, Josiah, in the year 621 B.c., shows dis- tinct traces of the teachings of the contemporary prophet Jeremiah and of his predecessors. Its characteristically humane spirit reveals itself, among other ways, in its tender solicitude for the poor de- pendent. ‘The passage that appears to have made the deepest impression on the minds of subsequent generations, judging from its constant use as the source from which all important later writings draw their texts, is Chapter 15, verses 7-11: “Tf there be among thee a needy man, any one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee; thou shalt not harden. thy heart, nor shut thy hand from thy needy brother. “But thou shalt open wide thy hand unto him, and thou shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, which his want requireth. “Beware that there be not a wicked thought in thy heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thy eye be thus evil against thy needy brother, so that thou wouldst give him nought; and if he cry concerning thee unto the Lord, it will be sin in thee; “Thou shalt surely give him, and thy heart shall not be THE BIBLE 9 grieved when thou givest unto him; for because of this thing the Lord thy God will bless thee in all thy work, and in all the acquisition of thy hand. “For the needy will not cease out of the land; therefore do I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open wide thy hand unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.” Admonitions of similar nature occur in other secs tions of the Pentateuch. An examination of these general admonitions and of the more specific injunctions which will be de- scribed later leads us to make the following ob- servations. Helping the unfortunate members of society is in the Torah (Pentateuch) commanded, not requested. For benevolence is viewed, not as a matter of grace, but as an imperative duty.® While only the boldest spirits dared openly concern themselves with the welfare of non-Israelites, and the others either accepted as a matter of course the racial and religious prejudices and animosities then prevailing everywhere, or reluctantly yielded to the social order as it was, feeling that all efforts to change it would be futile (in this respect resembling in their action the attitude of many modern lovers of democracy today with regard to the negro and to *“The right to assistance, this right, which economists and so- ciologists of various schools are still discussing—this question was definitely solved by the Bible long ago. ... Yes, the Bible has proclaimed the right to assistance for those who have nothing and the duty to assist on those who have means.” Joseph Lehmann, “Assistance publique et privée d’aprés l’antique Législation juive,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 35, p. 14. 10 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY Asiatic problems), and thus limited largely their efforts to Israelites, the lawgivers and exhorters, like the prophets, took the high ground, charac- teristic of the social outlook of modern times, that all persons were equal, the unfortunate being the equals of the fortunate, since they were all brothers, the children of the one God.? Explanations might differ as to how the unfortunate sank into distress, whether their condition was due to sin or indolence, or to other causes, or whether it must be ascribed to the inscrutable ways of God; nevertheless, they were to be regarded as the equals of the successful and had the same fundamental claim, in the eyes of the exhorters and lawgivers, to the land and its products as had the rich, God alone, the father of all, being both the owner and apportioner. With this premise of human equality based on common divine origin, the Torah made provision for the distressed classes in a variety of ways not at all partaking of the nature of alms, but rather, one might say, of enlightened profit-sharing. ‘There were ordinary measures of assistance suited to the recurring seasons, and having to do with the land and its products. Perpetual alienation of ancestral land and homestead was forbidden by the law of the Jubilee, a measure designed to prevent per- manent impoverishment. If this measure had not been nullified, as time went on, in actual application, it would have gone a long way to accomplish the "Cf. Deut. 14:1. “Ye are children of the Lord, your God.” THE BIBLE II desired result. The spontaneous growths of field and garden during the Sabbatical year—every seventh year,—were left free to all comers, with special thought and mention of the poor (Ex. 23:11). Every third year a tithe—one-tenth—of all products had to be given to the needy (Deut. 14:28-29). At every harvest a corner of all grain fields (Lev. 19:9 and 23:22), amounting approxi- mately to one-sixtieth, the gleanings, and the for- gotten sheaves, were left for the poor and stranger; and at every ingathering of the vineyard and olive- yard the imperfect and topmost clusters of grapes were reserved for them (Lev. 19:10). In connec- tion with the celebration of the three pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Weeks and Tabernacles) when attendance at the capital was required of all families (and notably of the males), it was ordained that the stranger, the widow and the orphan be invited to share the food of the pilgrims (Deut. 16:11-14). Special consideration and humanity were enjoined in the treatment of the weak. ‘The stranger was not to be oppressed; the widow and the orphan were not to be harshly dealt with (Ex. 22: 20-23; 23:9; Lev. 19 :23-34). With a clear understanding that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, it was legislated that even when it was to the disadvantage of the lender, the borrower was to be given a loan without interest (Deut. 15:7-11), and that the lat- ter’s garment, taken in pledge, was to be returned to him by nightfall (Ex. 22 :24-26; Lev. 25 :35-38). Le JEWISH PHILANTHROPY These injunctions were surrounded by a glow of sentiment. The Israelite was constantly reminded not only of the brotherhood of all men, rich and poor alike, but also of the time when he himself had had to drink of the bitter cup of poverty, oppres- sion and alienage—his grievous experience in the land of Egypt. Indeed, the entire Pentateuch, and more particularly, the book of Deuteronomy, breathes a fine spirit of humanitarian sympathy for the weak and dependent. The land provisions for the handicapped classes are of course the product of a society whose essential pursuits were agricultural. Even when the malad- justments due to the rise of industrial problems in the cities became acute enough to challenge the attention of the prophets, the vast majority of the people must have been engaged in tilling the soil and in grazing. The sentiments in regard to relief of poverty found expression in legislation, as has been indi- cated, as early as 621, and perhaps earlier. Their expansion and development continued throughout the period that witnessed the completion of the Penta- teuch, ending, roughly speaking, about 450 B.c. They commanded authority, very likely, before the books of the Pentateuch were canonized and re- tained their force, as law actually and practically carried out, until the conquest of the state at the hands of Vespasian and Titus (70 A.D.), when the THE BIBLE 13 loss of homeland and virtual exclusion from land- owning and land cultivation rendered their observ- ance impossible except by the remnants of the popu- lation left in Palestine after the carnage and the deportations attendant upon the conquest. Many times the question has been raised as to whether these ordinances dealing with the sharing in the products of the soil by the distressed elements of society were really ever in operation or were merely legislative ideals like the legislation evolved in the exile by Ezekiel for enforcement in a future restored commonwealth. Were the laws of the Jubilee and Sabbatical years and the ordinances relating to tithes, gleanings, and so forth, actually observed, or were they simply carried on the statute books in the hope that they would be observed, though in reality proving to be dead letter legisla- tion? The ordinance of the Jubilee year appears to have been actually observed only during the period when all the tribes were in possession of Palestine, i.c., until the deportation of Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh in 734 B.c. From that time on it was observed nominally, in the expectation of the return of the tribes, until the fall of the southern state when it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar (586 B.c.). After that the ordinance seems to have fallen into disuse.® ® Jewish Encyclopedia, “Sabbatical Year and Jubilee,” 14 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY There is, however, abundant and conclusive evi- dence that the law of the Sabbatical year was rigor- ously observed throughout the existence of the Jewish commonwealth, including the period of the Second Temple. The Maccabean defenders of the fortress of Bethsur had to surrender and those of Jerusalem were forced to make peace with the Syrians because of the shortage of provisions due to the Sabbatical year. (I Maccab. 6:49, 53). Indeed, the agricultural clauses of this law, calling for the non-cultivation of the land during that year, are observed to this day by Jews resident in Palestine and their further perpetuation is the subject of de- bate at the present time in the newly developed colonies in Palestine. That the regulations referring to the first fruits and to tithes were observed is evident from the history of the Maccabees where there is recorded the revival of their observance in connection with the re-dedication of the Temple (I Maccab. III. 49). From the Book of Ruth and from other sources we have every reason to believe that there was scrupulous compliance with the legislative pro- visions dealing with the corners of the fields, the gleanings, etc.® The Psalms were next in importance to the utter- ances of the prophets and to Pentateuchal legislation in the creation of philanthropic sentiment and the stimulation of charitable deeds, in the Biblical era. * Josephus: Antiquities, Book IV, Ch. 8, Sec. 21. THE BIBLE 15 The Psalms, the book of common prayer and song made up of hymns composed ?° for and used by the worshippers in the Second Temple and later assigned a place of the first importance in the daily prayers and study periods of the synagogue, are fairly shot through with a profound and overwelling sympathy for the poor and lowly. Indeed, the Psalmists fre- quently identified the needy and the humble with the true Israel (e.g. Psalm 37:14, 21), and still more often, with the righteous and innocent, while they mentally associated the rich with violence and wickedness. In their consciousness the successful and the ruthless were one and the same—the oppres- sors of the innocent destitute, whose sole compen- sation was, in the opinion of the Psalmists, com- munion with God,?? though in the end all would be well. | If the Psalms be interpreted, in line with the views of many scholars, as utterances of the com- munity of Israel rather than as those of the feelings * While a few of the Psalms may have been composed earlier than the return from the Babylonian captivity (536 B.c.), most of them were written between that time and 165 B.c. ™ Ps. 17:13-15: “Arise, O Lord, prevent him, cast him down; deliver my soul from the wicked, who is thy sword, “From these men—thy hand—O Lord, from the men of this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hidden treasure; they have children in plenty, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes. “As for me, in righteousness shall I behold thy face: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with contemplating thy likeness.” Also Ps. 10 and 14. 16 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY of individuals, the deep-seated sympathy for the poor and humble is seen to be even more striking. Israel, poor and helpless, is the victim; his rich and powerful neighbors are the oppressors. It may be said, in fact, that the Book of Psalms is, more than any other book in the Bible, the book of the poor man and of the poor people. It is steeped in the emotions of the destitute and helpless. Expressions of fellow-feeling for their hard lot, sup- plications for their protection and vindication, and exhortations to mitigate their distress are found in large numbers. At a time when the official direction of Jewish life is commonly thought to have rested in the hands of the aristocratic and well-to-do priest party (the Sadducees), the canonization of these pleadings for the needy and humble and the pre- eminence later given them in the ritual indicate con- clusively the strong hold they had on Jewish life and the controlling influence they exerted in creating sympathy for the social classes concerned. Reflecting the concern of another group of leaders in the unfortunate classes is the Wisdom Literature of the Bible, consisting of the books of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes. These books, written between 380 and 180 B.c., the creations of teachers, often laymen ‘“‘opposed to the religious and political views of the official priesthood,” while differing widely in content and spirit from one another, all appealed to the individual conscience and thought, and not to traditional or national ideals and observances. All THE BIBLE 17 three abound in sympathy for the needy and the weak. Those that take advantage of them are re- buked and those who have mercy for them and re- lieve their misery are praised.1* Charity and hu- manity are exalted. ‘“‘Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker” (Prov. 17:5). God is the champion of the poor; their cry reaches him (Job 34:28), and He gives them their right (Job 36:6). The entire Bible vibrates and tingles with a quick and burning sympathy for the poor and the handi- capped. And for the Hebrew people its pages were not mere literature, but the recollections or impres- sions that had to do with experiences which had ploughed deep into its soul. The very beginnings of Israel were identified with a battle to save the nation from poverty, exploitation and oppression at the hands of their Egyptian masters, a battle that left a profound impress upon the consciousness of the Jew, making for social justice and humanitarian feeling and operating against the oppression of natives and strangers alike. As a result of these experiences of the Jewish people from the very earliest times and as a result of its deliberately con- ceived plan of self-education through the method of chronicling and canonizing its experiences, champion- ship of the unfortunate fell on responsive soil. Nota- ble episodes having to do with such championship ™Prov. 3:27; 14:21, 313 22:16; 29:7; 30:14; 31:9. Job 20:19; 22:6; 24:2-4, 9, 143 29 (entire chap.) ; 31:13-32; 34:28; 36:6. Eccles. 5:7-8; 11:1-2. 18 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY are recorded in the Bible. Leaving unmentioned the utterances and activities of the writing prophets, already referred to, one needs but recall the severe criticism of anticipated royal exploitation in Samuel’s farewell speech, the denunciation of the extrava- gance of Solomon and Jeroboam, the ascription of Rehoboam’s rejection by Israel to his reduction of the common people to desperate want, and similar incidents. In addition, there were the actions of leading Biblical personalities to serve as examples of benefaction to be imitated—Abraham’s hospitality to wayfarers, Boaz’s kindness to the widow-stranger, the poor widow’s altrujsm in sharing her mite with Elijah; and there was the visualization of nobility of conduct in the character of Job (historic or alle- gorical), type of the righteous man who, among his other virtues, treated justly and humanely his serv- ants, the poor, the widow, the orphan, the wan- derer.1? ‘There was also the exaltation of the prac- tise of charity as an essential virtue of the woman of worth held up as an ideal of a wife in the Book of Proverbs.‘ ‘This chapter was read by the hus- band at the Sabbath Eve home service preceding the meal, in the later centuries. Finally, the latest festi- val ordained in the Bible, Purim—the Feast of Esther and Mordecai—was to have as an essential 31 :13-22, 32: The fundamental principle here again is equality under one Maker. Cf. verse 15. ** 31:20: “She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reach- eth forth her hands to the needy.” THE BIBLE 19 feature of its observance “the sending of portions to one another, and gifts to the poor.’ 1> ‘This as- pect of Purim was universally cultivated in all sub- sequent ages. Of actual economic measures adopted to prevent poverty there are several indications. Besides the provisions contained in the law of the Jubilee year against alienation of homesteads, the law of the Sabbatical Year, in addition to its agricultural phases above referred to, also released all debtors of money obligations and thus served as a sort of bankruptcy law, permitting those in debt to have a fresh start every seventh year. We shall see that this law was later virtually evaded, but it appears to have been enforced throughout the Biblical era. We have the record of a thorough reconstruction of the economic life of the community according to a program of justice following what we in these days would call a survey of living conditions, by Nehemiah, soon after the re-establishment of the Second Commonwealth, and consisting of the aboli- tion of serfdom for debt and of landlords’ and land- owners’ profiteering and a redistribution of the popu- lation according to industrial needs.*® Such was the pure and powerful stream of chari- table ideals and ordinances and emotions which emanated from the Bible, and which, mingling with a perennial current of kindred humanitarianism, * Esther 9:22. “Neh. 521-133 11:1-36. 20 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY swept forward to water and enrich the vast expanse of rabbinical life. In turning to the consideration of the motives that animated Hebrew benevolence, it is well to avoid the error of assuming that there is but one motive operating in a person at any given time. Acts of benevolence, like all other acts, are not the result of a single, detached impulse or purpose, but are the result of a combination of motives, seldom clearly formulated or even comprehended. ‘There are several interplaying concurrent motives, usually merged in a complex, leading to any given step or course of conduct. Side by side with the most altruistic impulses, there may be found selfish con- siderations, often unformulated and _ inarticulate. What may be said—and even then with the greatest of caution and only as the broadest sort of generali- zation—is that a certain motive or a certain set of motives may at any given period, or, better still, among any given group of writers and personalities, be the dominating one. The prophetic writings may thus be characterized as asserting justice to be the animating reason for works of charity. The sanc- tion for justice itself is the Will of God: 1* ‘Thus saith the Lord.” Prosperity and happiness are de- scribed as the reward of obeying the will of God, “The will of God, as the ultimate reason for human goodness, derives its value from His ethical nature.” Moritz Lazarus: Ethics of Judaism, Vol. I, Ch. 2, Sec. 83. THE BIBLE 21 though these are not directly held up as considera- tions for beneficence and never obscure the worth of doing right for its own sake. The Deuteronomic legislation and exhortations appealed more to the humanitarian motive, though they held out, at the same time, a reward of long life and prosperity. In the Psalms, the impulses invoked are pity for the poor as wronged ones and justice to them as the special protégés of God. Rewards are offered in the shape of ultimate prosperity, but communion with God, was, nevertheless, considered sufficient. ‘The Book of Proverbs appeals to enlightened self- interest. Humanitarian and fraternal considerations seem to govern Job’s feelings. On the whole, it may be said that, in the attempt to induce men to be charitable, the writings of the prophets appealed to the highest ethical motives; the Book of Deuteronomy gave philanthropy the deepest emotional touch; the Psalms invoked aid to the distressed on the most fervent religious grounds, and the Wisdom Literature met the demand of the most practical utilitarianism. Everywhere the love of one’s fellowmen ?* as brothers of the same pa- ternity—God—ran alongside as a concurrent de- termining force. ‘The penitential motive—righteous- ness for the sake of salvation in the hereafter—did not yet figure. What, then, did the Biblical period and its chief *<«“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Lev. 19:18. 22 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY creation, the Holy Scriptures, have to pass down to the subsequent generations, in the way of philan- thropic teaching and action? First of all, a warm, glowing feeling for charitable deed, which amounted almost to a passion. In pointing out that “‘the Leviti- cal law first applied a new standard to social life” through its injunction ‘“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’? (Lev. 19:18), Charles Stuart Loch de- clared: ‘This thought is the outcome of a deep ethical fervor—the element which the Jews brought into the work of charity.’ 1® In his ‘Christian Charity in the Ancient Church” Uhlhorn erred when he assumed throughout his book ?° that there was no element of love in charity until the advent of Christianity. The long and distinguished record of Christianity in the field of redeeming love, even after due deduction has been made for the pauperi- zation brought about by the monastic system com- plained of by Lecky 7! and others, can stand on its own merits and does not need the glory belonging to an older religion—that of being the first, to imbue benevolence with love. Secondly, it was the Jewish Biblical law that first made charity a human obligation incumbent on every person.22. While the amount of much—no doubt most—of the benevolence enjoined was left to the * “Charity and Charities,” in Encyclopedia Britannica. ® See particularly pp. 7-9, 39 f. ™ History of European Morals, Ch. 4. * Kohler: “The Historical Development of Jewish Charity,” in Hebrew Union College and Other Addresses, p. 230. THE BIBLE 23 conscience of each individual in the form of mo- nitions, the giving of the elements of subsistence was made compulsory through legislation. Thirdly, definite measures of relief of those in want and regulations of a preventive nature were evolved and set into motion. The scheme was frag- mentary and the action, except for the enforcement phase, was a duty laid upon individuals acting severally and not collectively. Yet a clearly defined, tangible set of obligatory contributions was present, although in embryonic state, and it formed a skeleton for a more complete body of obligatory charity in later ages. Fourthly, during this period there was made clear for all time the chief, the basic causes of poverty and misery, namely, economic maladjustment and injustice due to human greed. This was the special contribution of the great prophets, although the Psalmists and law-makers and seers had a share in the great work. We are not surprised at Philo’s glowing laudation of the charity injunctions in the Pentateuch which he gives in the course of his sum- mary and elaboration of the humanitarian laws of the Pentateuch.?? ‘The benefits extended by these regulations are, in the interpretation of this cultured Jew, who in his person and thought blended the noblest of Hebrew and Greek civilization of the time (end of first century B.c. and first half of first cen- * Cf. his On Humanity, C. D. Yonge’s translation, Vol. III, p. . 423-453. 24 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY tury A.D.), not limited to Hebrews; at least, Philo’s own sympathies are all-inclusive. The Biblical period did not develop a comprehen- sive system of philanthropy, in our modern mean- ing of the word, but it had in it the germ for such a system. It exercised a profound, yes, a determining influence on all future Jewish benevolent thought and endeavor. It was the main current in the stream of Jewish charity and thereby helped water the soil of kindness and uplift among humankind generally. CHAPTER II THE APOCRYPHA IN the literature of the Apocrypha, which was written during the period immediately following the close of the Bible canon, there are two books which devote special attention to the doing of charity. They differ diametrically from one another. Ec- clesiasticus, the work of Ben Sira, belongs to the Wisdom Literature. ‘Tobit is a religious tale deal- ing with the tribulations of a righteous couple. Ben Sira has several observations on beneficence and loving-kindness of the same pattern as those found in the Bible, particularly the book of Proy- erbs. Here is a passage appealing to the human sympathies of the strong in behalf of the weak and also charging him in the spirit of the prophets not to exploit the poor nor to permit the latter to be wronged in judicial litigation (4: 1-6, 8-10) : My son, defraud not the poor of his living, and make not the needy eyes to wait long. Make not an hungry soul sorrowful; neither provoke a man in his distress. Add not more trouble to an heart that is vexed; and defer not to give to him that is in need. Reject not the supplication of the afflicted; neither turn away thy face from a poor man. 29 26 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY Turn not away thine eye from the needy, and give him no occasion to curse thee: For if he curse thee in the bitterness of his soul, his prayer shall be heard of Him that made him. Let it not grieve thee to bow down thine ear to the poor, and give him a friendly answer with meekness. Deliver him that suffereth wrong from the hand of the oppressor; and be not faint-hearted when thou sittest in judgment. Be a father unto the fatherless, and instead of an hus- band unto their mother: so shalt thou be as the son of the Most High, and he shall love thee more than thy mother doth. Injustice to the poor is denounced in still more drastic terms in the following lines. Robbery of the needy cannot be atoned for by gifts to religion (34:20-22)-% Whoso bringeth an offering of the goods of the poor doeth as one that killeth the son before his father’s eyes. The bread of the needy is their life: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood. He that taketh away his neighbour’s living slayeth him; and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a blood- shedder. In the next passage obedience to God’s command- ments and resultant prosperity are emphasized as the motives for beneficence. It would seem that the rewards are those of this world (29:9-10, 12-13): Help the poor for the commandment’s sake, and turn him not away because of his poverty. THE APOCRYPHA 27 Lose thy money for thy brother and thy friend, and let it not rust under a stone to be lost. Shut up alms in thy storehouses: and it shall deliver thee from all affliction. It shall fight for thee against thine enemies better than a mighty shield and strong spear. Ben Sira charges the reader to withhold charity from the ungodly, lest it strengthen him in his re- sources to do evil (12:1-7): He takes a fling at miserliness, thus (14:3) : Riches are not comely for a niggard: and what should an envious man do with money? He believes there is a standing warfare between the rich and the poor (13:18-20). He grows sarcastic about the deference shown the rich and the belittling of the poor, thus (32 2-29')': When a rich man is fallen, he hath many helpers: he speaketh things not to be spoken, and yet men justify him: the poor man slipped, and yet they rebuked him too; he spake wisely, and could have no place. When a rich man speaketh, every man holdeth his tongue, and, look what he saith, they extol it to the clouds: but if the poor man speak, they say, What fellow is this? and if he stumble, they will help to overthrow him. He appeals to the pride and self-respect of the needy not to make use of the grudging hospitality and loans of patrons. He exhibits a fine insight into human nature of both beneficiaries and benefactors (29:24-18): 28 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY For it is a miserable life to go from house to house: for where thou art a stranger, thou darest not open thy mouth. Thou shalt entertain, and feast, and have no thanks: moreover thou shalt hear bitter words: Come, thou stranger, and furnish a table, and feed me of that thou hast ready. Give place, thou stranger, to an honorable man; my brother cometh to be lodged, and I have need of mine house. These things are grievous to a man of understanding; the upbraiding of house-room, and reproaching of the lender. In a kindly spirit, again appealing to the basic human sympathies and suggesting the more spiritual rewards, he calls for charity, acts of consolation for those who sorrow and mourn, and friendly visiting of the sick (7:32-35): And stretch thine hand unto the poor, that thy blessing may be perfected. A gift hath grace in the sight of every man living; and for the dead detain it not. Fail not to be with them that weep, and mourn with them that mourn. Be not slow to visit the sick: for that shall make thee to be beloved. The Book of Tobit shows an entirely different trend of thought. It attaches extraordinary im- portance to alms-giving and to acts of kindness in connection with burial and acclaims these as chief virtues. Such acts avert evils and yield prosperity. The doctrine of merit through- good works has already attained a dominant position here. This development must have taken place in the wake of the wholesale suffering and slaughter that befell THE APOCRYPHA 29 the people in the Maccabean wars. A few verses from the admonition given by Tobit to his son will suffice, as they are characteristic of the entire book, which dwells on almsgiving repeatedly (4:7-10) : Give alms of thy substance; and when thou givest alms, let not thine eye be envious, neither turn thy face from any poor, and the face of God shall not be turned away from thee. If thou hast abundance, give alms accordingly: if thou have but a little, be not afraid to give according to that little: For thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity. Because that alms do deliver from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness. It is to be noted that the doctrine of merit, while already appearing as a powerful motive, avoids the crude assertion of precise relation between virtue and reward. For though Tobit, like Job, is eventu- ally restored to happiness, nevertheless the heroes of both these tales suffer great tribulations, despite their piety and righteousness. ‘Their merit, there- fore, flows out of their persistence in virtue even when virtue does not pay, although in the end, contrary to expectation, it is recognized and re- warded. It is also interesting to note the change in the meaning of the word ‘‘Zedakah.” In Proverbs, this word signifies “righteousness,” and this is the mean- ing it has in the phrase “Righteousness delivers from death’ (10:2 and 11:4). But in Tobit 30 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY Zedakah has come to be identified with ‘“‘almsgiv- ing,” and is so used in the same phrase “Almsgiy- ing delivers from death.” ‘This transition in a sense narrows the maxim of Proverbs, but it at the same time discloses the tendency to make practical ap- plication of a general moral rule. We see also the growing conception of the aton- ing power of almsgiving.! This conception later on played a great part in the doctrine of atonement. It found expression in the formula, “Repentance, Prayer and Charity avert the evil decree,” recited in the liturgy of the New Year and the Day of Atonement as a leading belief of popular theology. Associated with this belief was the regular collec- tion of alms on fast days which became a standing feature of Jewish charitable organization. In rep- resenting Jesus as denouncing the public distribution of alms as evidence of a love for displaying one’s virtue, Matthew (6:1-2) erroneously associated the blowing of the trumpet with the collection of alms. The blowing of the trumpet was part of the public ceremony of repentance on fast days called at times of drought. The distribution of alms on those oc- casions constituted a practical exercise in mercy. At all other times charity was distributed with special safeguards against publicity.? *“Prayer is good with fasting and alms and righteousness.” Tobit, 12:8. “Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sins.” Ben Sira, 3:30. *Cf. C. G. Montefiore: Synoptic Gospels, Vol. 2, pp. 530-532, Macmillan Co., London, 1909. CHAPTER III THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE AND COM- MUNAL CHARITY ORGANIZATION THE liberation from Greco-Syrian rule achieved by the Maccabees and their followers (165-142 B.C.) brought along in its train an increased de- votion to the Jewish religion. The preservation of Judaism had been the predominant motive in the valiant fight put up by the Jews. The Bible emerged from the issue with a new distinction—as a precious possession that had been imperilled. Many books that had become endeared as religious literature were now declared sacred. The canonization of the third and last section of the Hebrew Scriptures—the Kethubim or Holy Writings—at about 160 B.c., rendered the Bible the ultimate authority on all matters, civil and re- ligious, in Jewish life. It became the constitution of the Jewish people, the text-book and source of all doctrine and conduct. The adoption of the Bible as the supreme law in Jewish life tended to increase the importance of the synagogues as centers of religious and social activity by providing a medium of instruction at 31 32 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY these places of meeting and common worship. The synagogue, which had sprung up in Babylonia in the sixth century, B.c., during the period of the Exile, when the Temple at Jerusalem lay in ruins, soon became a permanent institution, at first found only in large centers of population, both in the restored Second Commonwealth and outside of Palestine, and later on everywhere, even in the very smallest communities. Synagogues arose in Jeru- salem itself, alongside of the Temple. Everywhere they answered the daily spiritual needs of the people as seats of worship and instruction and as centers of communal activity. The Temple at Jerusalem remained the great national shrine, where public worship and the sacrificial cult were maintained with pomp and circumstance, and to which pilgrimages were made. In at least two cases known to us, settlements far away from Jerusalem (one in Ele- phantine in Upper Egypt, the other in Leontopolis, in Lower Egypt), had disregarded the prohibition laid down in Deuteronomy against the offering of sacrifices in any other place than the national sanc- tuary. To the establishment of synagogues, how- ever, there was no Biblical objection. Synagogues began as religious agencies supplementary to the Temple, but, as their usefulness grew, they drew to themselves more and more the allegiance and the support both of the common people and of the scholarly elements. It is likely that by the middle of the second century, B.c., they were the recognized THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE 33 communal centers for worship, learning and as- sembly. Since we shall presently advance the view that the beginnings of organized Jewish relief are closely associated with the rise and spread of synagogues, mention may be made at this point of the earliest instances of these institutions substantiated by his- torical records. There was a synagogue at Schedia, near Alexan- dria, dedicated to Ptolemy III, Euergetes (247-222 By): In the latter half of the second century, B.c., a synagogue existed in Xenephyris, in the Delta region of Egypt. An inscription, engraved in Greek on a block of marble, found in 1912, reads: ‘In honor of King Ptolemy and of the Queen Cleopatra, his sister, and of the Queen Cleopatra, his wife, the Jews of Xenephyris (have consecrated) the portal of the Synagogue, the presidents being Theodorus and Achillion.” ‘The reference here is to Ptolemy Physcon, and the date of the inscription falls be- tween 143 and 117 B.c., probably nearer to 143.” We have records of several other Egyptian syna- gogues extant in the second and first centuries, B.c.® *Samuel Krauss: Synagogale Altertiimer, Berlin and Vienna, 1922, p. 263; Emil Schirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes, Ul, P- 499- 7 Joseph Offord: “A New Inscription Concerning the Jews in Egypt.” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, Jan., 1914, PP. 45-46. * Krauss, op. cit., pp. 263-265; Schiirer, loc. cit. 34 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY In 1914, the remains of a synagogue were dis- covered at Jerusalem, in the course of excavations on Mount Ophel. This synagogue, according to Prof. Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, was built sometime during the Herodian period (37 B.c.-66 A.D.), more probably about 10 B.c., either to replace or to sup- plement an original structure extant when Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 B.c.* There was a famous synagogue in Alexan- dria extant at this time, which we shall refer to presently. Josephus and the New Testament speak of syna- gogues frequently, treating them as fixtures in Jewish life. According to Schirer,> who made an intensive study of this period, there were syna- gogues in every Jewish community in Palestine, Egypt, Asia Minor and Greece, Italy and Africa. Even the smallest town had one, and there were several in Jerusalem, Rome and other large centers. It was around the synagogues that public relief sprang up. Already in the Temple itself, according to an old, carefully preserved rabbinical source, * Stanley A. Cook: “The Synagogue of Theodotos at Jerusalem,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Monthly Statement, Jan., 1921, p. 23; Gerald M. Fitz-Gerald: “Notes on Recent Discoveries,” ibid., Oct., 1921, p. 181; Clermont-Ganneau: Découverte a Jérusalem d’une Synagogue de l’Epoque Hérodienne in Syria, Vol. I (1921), p. nt ere cit. II, 497 f. Krauss, in the work cited, also has a com- prehensive summary of the spread of synagogues in these centuries. Ch. III, pp. 199-267. THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE 35 there was a room, the Lishkat Chashaim © (‘‘Cham- ber of Whispers or Silence’), where the pious, unobserved, left donations for the respectable poor. But the synagogues, being local institutions, where the needs of neighborhoods or of groups received more attention than at the national sanctuary and where laymen enjoyed special opportunity to par- ticipate in all activities, developed, naturally, into agencies that provided for the wants of the poor, the dependent and the stranger. The need of co- ordinating the assistance granted various individuals and of having them attended to by some person or persons who stood out as representative of the public must have been felt in all of the growing communities. The emergence of a new type of institution in the form of the synagogue, while pri- marily meant to meet a religious and educational demand, at the same time answered certain social desiderata, among them an instrumentality for the collection and distribution of food and clothing for those in want and for the provision of shelter for the stranger. Data are still wanting to permit us to speak with absolute assurance of the social wel- fare services rendered by the synagogues at any given time during the three centuries preceding the common era. But we have one very old record re- ferring to the large synagogue-——the Basilica—in *Mishnah Shekalim 5:6: “The God-fearing left donations there, unobserved and the godly poor provided themselves there, un- observed.” 36 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY Alexandria, which indicates that new-comers in that community found opportunities for affiliation in crafts and guilds through the medium of that in- stitution. In this edifice, our record informs us, the people were grouped according to their crafts and occupations ‘‘in order that, in case a stranger came, he might join his craft. And thence came his livelli- hood.’ 7 It is not known when this synagogue, the cathedral congregation of that populous old Jewish community, was founded. It must have been extant in the second century, B.c., and probably earlier. It was destroyed, according to one version of this old description, by Trajan in 116 A.D. If economic opportunities were to be had in synagogues, shelter, food and raiment for those in need were surely offered there. We have a record, again undated, but very old, which makes it clear that the ancient synagogues were used as places of shelter and sustenance for wayfarers. It is found in the tractate Pesachim in connection with a dis- cussion concerning the recital of the Sanctification of the Sabbath wine and bread. ‘‘Why should Kid- dush be said in the synagogue? In order to give strangers who ate, drank and slept in the synagogue an opportunity to discharge their religious duty.” ® And we have indisputable historical evidence of at "kede sheyehe aksenoi ba umittattel letimanaso umisham hayesah parnaso yozeah. ‘Tosephta IV 5. Zuckermandel edit., p. 198. German translation and other recensions given in S. Krauss: Syn. Alt., pp. 261-263. *ro1 a. THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE 37 least one synagogue which offered shelter to way- farers in the Herodian era.® Excavations of ancient synagogue sites are still in their infancy, but the few records already found and the fact of the existence of a long-established system of public relief centering around the syna- gogues a little over a century later (antedating for some time the codification of the Mishnah, c. 200 A.D.), and having its counterpart in the earliest Christian churches, warrant the conclusion that or- ganized public relief, in connection with the activities of the synagogue, arose during the period between the closing of the Bible canon and the political dis- ruption of the Jewish state. We are inclined to accept with Lehmann ?° the report of the Tosephta that each city had a place corresponding to the Chamber of Silence in the Temple, where donations were left and taken un- observed, and to assume that this place was in the principal synagogue. From some such fragmentary provisions, measures of relief of a systematic nature sprang up, although we are at present still in the dark as to their precise nature, just as we are simi- larly uninformed as to the date of their first emergence. Concerning at least one aspect of aid administered by the synagogue in those days, there is some cer- *See page 38 f. * Joseph Lehmann: “Assistance publique et privée d’aprés |’an- tique Législation juive,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 35 (1897), Appendix, p. xxii. 38 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY tainty. Shelter, as well as food, no doubt, was sup- plied to strangers. The Greek inscription belonging to the synagogue (reeonstructed c. 10 B.c.), found on Mount Ophel in Jerusalem and referred to above, mentions a hostel as one of its features. The translation, as given by Clermont-Ganneau and ren- dered from the French into English by Stanley A. Cook, reads: ‘“Theodotos, son of Vettenos, priest and chief of the synagogue, grandson of the chief of the synagogue, built this synagogue for the read- ing of the law and for the teaching of the command- ments, and also this hostel with its chambers and water-fittings for the need of those who, coming from the outside, have lodged there; (an establish- ment) founded (of old) by his fathers and by the elders and by Simonides.”’ #4 Commenting on the Theodotos inscription, Gerald M. Fitz-Gerald declares: ‘‘This is not the only instance of a hostel in close connection with a synagogue. In some cases the hostel was perhaps on the ground floor with the synagogue above.”’ 1” This function of the early synagogues, as of the later, as places of hospitality, tallies with their accredited character in rabbinical literature as seats of social welfare, of charity for strangers and the homeless, for the sick and the needy. Perhaps the “Stanley A. Cook, loc. cit. “Loc. cit. Cf. also A. Marmorstein: “The Inscription of Theod- otos,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Jan., 1921, pp. 23-28. THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE 39 nysy or upper chambers, attached to the synagogues, were designed for these uses. It is uncertain whether, during the early stages of the evolution of the synagogue, the president (Rosh Ha-keneset npsan wen, apxeovvdywyos, archi- synagogus) had charge of relief measures or a special official acted. But if not at the beginning, then very soon thereafter there appeared spe- cial administrators of charity (Gabbai Zedakah mpwy x22), who had no connection with wor- ship.1? They served without remuneration. Their position was one of such honor that members of priestly families might marry into the families of the charity administrators without the need of any certification on the part of the latter. This Hebrew name is the one the administrators of charity most commonly bore thereafter. In some communities in the Orient and the Occident, their appellation was that of Parnas (psp Provider or Sustainer), a title used also in many places to designate the presi- dent or a supervising trustee of a congregation." The appointment of special charity officers was * Schiirer, of. cit., p. 509 f. “In the Babylonian Talmud and the Codes, they are as a rule called Gabbai; in the Jerusalem Talmud, Parnas. Thus in the latter, Rabbi Akiba (50-132 a.D.) is referred to as Parnas, and so too several of his contemporaries. Peah 6:6-8. In the communi- ties of Egypt during the tenth and eleventh centuries the same title is used. Jacob Mann: The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs, 2 vols., Oxford University Press, 1920-1922, Vol. I, p. 259. So also still later in Rome in the 16th and 17th centuries. Vogelstein and Rieger: Gesch. der Juden in Rom, Ber- lin, 1896, Vol. 2, p. 129. 40 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY probably due to the necessity for a division of labor in the larger communities but these officers always worked hand in hand with the president of the con- gregation or under his guidance. The congregational basis and form of organized relief was taken over by the Christian churches when these separated from the Jewish community. The Christian deacons and presbyters in their ca- pacity of supervisors and dispensers of charity corresponded to the Jewish Parnasim (Providers) and Gabbaim (Treasurers or Dispensers). The Church even took over bodily the ecclesiastical tithe and collected it, whereas the Synagogue, after the fall of the state, contented itself with keeping it on its books as suspended legislation, to be enforced again when Palestine would be restored to the Jewish people. Meanwhile organized Jewish charity kept on de- veloping. In the next period we find it in a com- paratively advanced stage of evolution. PART TWO FROM THE FALL OF THE STATE TO THE BEGINNINGS OF EMANCIPATION CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY Tue fall of the state in 70 A.D. changed pro- foundly the conditions of Jewish life. From that time on, and until the era of emancipation which, broadly speaking, set in with the French Revolution, the Jews were not the final arbiters of their own destinies. The ultimate determination of their economic and social condition was in the hands of their political masters, civil or ecclesiastical, as the case might be. Whether they lived in Asia, in Africa or in Europe; whether their overlords were Mohammedans or Christians, they were regarded as a special class, distinct from the rest of the popu- lation and subject to special laws. Left without political unity of their own and not permitted to assimilate with their neighbors, their traditional Law, with the Bible as its heart, became all the more cherished. It stood forth as the one great bond that united them. Academies arose and scholars multiplied, in order to preserve and ex- pound the Law and its accumulated interpretations. Rabbinical law, accordingly, grew by leaps and bounds. It attained great prestige and carried great weight. 43 44 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY The very exclusion of the Jews from the political life of the states in which they lived gave an open- ing for the rabbinical law to serve as the law of Jewish life, secular and religious. For, while Jew- ish life was circumscribed and restricted in re- lation to the general population and, subject to continual disturbance from the outside, as de- scribed, within those narrow confines it was sub- stantially self-directed. “The governments under which they lived interfered but rarely in the internal life of the Jews, finding it to their advantage to let them manage their own affairs, and to deal with the community as a whole in matters of taxation, restrictions and privileges.1 With the discontinu- ance of the Sanhedrin, the last surviving legislative and judicial organ, rabbinical law became the su- preme authority in Jewish life and was recognized by the government and given the backing of the state. Henceforth and up to the era of modern emancipation, the jurisdiction of the rabbinical law was undisputed, its sway extending both over secular and religious affairs. [oa people as devoted to the classic period of their past as the Jews were, who loved their religious treasures—literature, customs, institutions, precepts—so passionately, the permis- sion to use their own organic law as their governing code came as a blessing and served as a compensa- tion for all misfortune. And, more than that, the *Israel Abrahams: Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Phila., Jew- ish Publication Society, 1911, Chap. 3 (Communal Organization). INTRODUCTORY 45 observance of the same law everywhere brought about a remarkable unity and uniformity in Jewish life, no matter how far apart the communities might be, and no matter under what dominion. The word ‘law’ does not really cover the case. We mean not only law in the strict sense, but also the whole mass of doctrine, precepts, ideals and usages elabo- rated by the post-Biblical religious authorities. The rabbinical laws and regulations concerning charity and relief, like those bearing on other as- pects of existence, had for their heart the legislation and ideals and standards of the Bible. Around these latter the rabbis of the Talmud and their successors built the superstructure of their teach- ings. The decisions of the learned bodies in the Palestinian and Babylonian academies? and the opinions of individual teachers of distinction re- corded in the Talmud (the former having the force of law and the latter of revered instruction) ; the enactments of local and district councils, carrying compulsion in the territories over which they exer- cised jurisdiction and conviction in other regions; the precepts of eminent teachers like Maimonides and Jacob ben Asher and Joseph Caro, embodied in their monumental literary works; the decisions (Teshubot) of learned rabbis in answer to questions addressed to them by communities and individuals; ?The leading academies of Palestine were Jabneh, Usha, Sep- phoris and Tiberias, while the main seats of learning in Baby- lonia were at Nehardea, Sura, Pumbedita and Machuza. 46 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY and the ethical and homiletical dicta of authors on religious themes stretching from the close of the Bible to the era of secularism ushered in by Moses Mendelssohn—all these were in the nature, not of displacement of the Biblical doctrine, but of elaboration and supplementation. ‘The new ma: terial, rising to the noble heights of philosophic abstraction and ethical idealism in the hands of a Maimonides, and sinking to the level of involved legalism and hair-splitting casuistry in the hands of certain inferior writers, never obscured for them the beauty and the inspiration of the original Bible sources, nor rendered tnem less receptive to the influences of Israel’s experiences during his early classic, creative days. It was in fact the rich reser- voir of humanitarian and ethical ordinance and sentiment, accumulated during centuries of un- paralleled outer and inner experiences preceding the era we are surveying, that supplied both the mo- mentum and the plan for the unbroken chain of philanthropic ideals and endeavors, forged during the subsequent generations. The very pre-eminence of the Biblical doctrine insured its immortality in the rabbinical era. The supreme authority vested in the Law and its accredited elaborations tended to cast all legisla- tion into fixed molds and to circumscribe freedom of inventiveness so far as the general outlines of personal and communal procedure were concerned. But within these general molds much latitude was INTRODUCTORY 47 permitted. Real rigidity did not set in until the codification of the Talmud (c.500 a.p.). Even then, eminent teachers permitted themselves to differ from the traditional rulings. And, side by side with the legalistic material there issued from the mouths of sages and homilists a mass of instruc- tion which took the form of episode and aphorism. Life, with its demands and its experiences, always independent of previously created molds, instituted its own norms as it needed them. CHAPTER II THE TALMUD WHEN the interpretations and elaborations of Scripture reached a stage where they could not, on account of the quantity of material accumulated and because of the inaccuracy of human memory, pro- ceed any further by way of oral transmission, the decisions of the rabbinical academies and of the more notable teachers were assembled and edited by Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Jehudah Ha-Nasi in the Mishnah (c. 200 aA.D.). The Mishnah contains utterances and enactments extending as far back as 200 or 250 B.c. Its contents are, for the most part, legal in form. There are some ethical por- tions of a high order, like the Pirke Abot, com- monly known as the “Ethics of the Fathers.” Towards the end of the treatise ‘‘Peah,’’ where the regulations concerning the corners of the field (observed only theoretically since the fall of the state) are elaborated, we find the outlines of a sys. tem of organized relief enacted into law and, to all appearances, treated as an old and long-estab- lished part of the social order, as, indeed, it was. Herewith is a translation of this important Mishnaic source, cited in its entirety. 48 THE TALMUD 49 Chapter 8, Paragraph 7: “A poor man should not be given less than a Kikkar (of food), which sells for a Pundyon, when wheat sells four seahs for a Sela. If he spends the night, he should be provided with the expenses of lodging. If he spends the Sabbath, he should be given food for three meals. Whoever has food for two meals should not take anything from the community plate (‘non Tamchui). If he has food for fourteen meals, he should not take anything from the community chest (npyp Kuppah). ‘The Kuppah is collected by two persons and distributed by three. (Paragraph 8) ‘“‘Whoever has two hundred (200) Zuz should not take of gleanings, forgotten sheaves, corners of the field and tithes for the poor. If he has two hundred (200) less one dinar, even if he be given one thousand (1,000) Zuz in one gift, he may take. If (these two hundred Zuz)- are pledged to a debtor or as a marriage dower, he may take. He cannot be compelled to sell his house or his utensils.1 (Paragraph 9) ‘Whosoever has fifty (50) Zuz and does business therewith should not accept charity. And whoever does not need to take and does take shall come to want at the hands of man before he departs from the world. And whoever needs to take and does not take,? shall not die of *This refers to accepting aid from private sources, not from the public funds. *JI.e., manages to get along without it. 50 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY old age until he shall have supported others out of his own means. And concerning him Scripture says: ‘Blessed be the man who trusts in the Lord; the Lord will be his refuge.’ * And the same is the case with a judge who executes true justice to his fellow- man. And whoever does not limp on one foot, is not blind, or lame on both feet, and passes off as such, will not die of old age until he be like one of them, as Scripture says: ‘But he that searches for evil, it shall come upon him,’ * and ‘Justice, justice shalt thou pursue.’® And every judge who takes bribes and sets aside justice shall not die of old age before his eyes are dimmed, as Scripture says: ‘And thou shalt take no bribe, for a bribe blindeth them that have sight.’ ”’ ® This passage gives a fair indication of the lines of development taken by Jewish philanthropy since Bible days. Private charity and public charity were found existing side by side. Public charity had be- come systematized, and now had two funds, a daily collection (plate or basket) and a weekly collection (chest). The workings of these will be described later. [here were charity administrators, the num- ber of whom was fixed. Their specific functions and qualifications will also be dwelt on later. Fixed standards were set, to indicate the minimum of ‘Jer. 17:7. *Prov. 11:27. * Deut. 16:20. Pex. 2438. THE TALMUD 51 relief allowed to transients. We shall see later that local poor were to be provided for according to their needs. Standards were also set to ensure self- support and prevent pauperization of the applicants for relief. The taking of charity was not held up, as in the medieval church and in the system of Buddha, as an ideal.. Imposition was forbidden. The dominant motive appealed to was long life and prosperity in return for obedience, in contrast with troubled years in return for disobedience, all under divine dispensation. Motives of altruism were not men- tioned here, although they always, as we shall see, existed, alongside of the more utilitarian appeals. Neither was the reward of salvation in the life to come used here, although the Mishnah already used freely the appeal of the future life, employing it, indeed, in the very first paragraph of this book Peah, where it says: ‘These are the things, the fruits of which one enjoys in this life and the capital of which holds over for him in the world to come: Honoring of parents, deeds of loving-kindness and the promotion of peace between a man and his neighbor. But the study of the Law excels them eid There is a section corresponding to this passage from the Mishnah in the Tosephta,® which is a col- lection of legal decisions and observations not in- 7Mishnah Peah 1:1. *Tosephta Peah 4:8-21 (Zuckermandel edition, pp. 23-25). 52 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY corporated in Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi’s compilation. Most of this section from the Tosephta, as is true of this compilation generally, consists of remnants from compilations earlier than the Mishnah, but it also contains some later additions. It is difficult to fix the date of each unit. But the Tosephta pas- sage discloses the system of early relief as much more elaborately developed than the Mishnah’s briefer account suggests. Since the chief portions of this passage are quoted in various places in the Gemara (which will be treated presently) we shall not cite it in extenso but merely call attention to those points which represent substantial differences from the Mishnah passages or important additions thereto. ‘The problem of the professional beggar was already then an acute one. The rule is here laid down: ‘There is no obligation towards those who beg from door to door,” but this recommended unconcern did not meet with favor and the rule was never accepted. We shall see that Maimonides in his codification of the law requires that something shall be given to the beggar. ‘The subsequent codists follow Maimonides. The purposes of the two funds, the time of dis- tribution and the degree of obligation devolving on length of residence, are clearly stated. The duty to keep in mind the accustomed social status of the needy in the giving of relief is strongly insisted upon. It is urged to disguise charity as a loan or gift in the case of proud poor and to resort to a THE TALMUD 53 ruse, if necessary, to persuade misers to support themselves properly. ‘The charity collectors are cautioned to avoid exposing themselves to sus- picion. High intention and noble motive are em- phasized, the story of King Monobaz ® being used as an illustration. Personal service is lauded, un- charitableness classed in the same category of sins as idolatry. Charity and personal service are de- clared to serve as an intercessory force between Israel and God. The Mishnah, representing the codification of the Oral Law, now became the text of the acade- mies. When, in the course of many generations, the dicta and the agenda of the doctors of the law be- gan to assume vast proportions and were in danger of being confused or even lost, these and the dis- cussions that went with them were edited as the Gemara. The two component parts took shape as the Talmud, the Mishnah appearing as text, and the Gemara as running commentary. The Talmud consists, in reality, of two distinct works: (1) The Jerusalem ‘Talmud, the product of Palestinian teachers, concluded approximately by 350 B.c., and (2) the Babylonian Talmud, the product of Baby- lonian teachers, finished and edited approximately s00 AD. The Babylonian Talmud is by far the larger of the two. It contains teachings, legal opinions and narratives of rabbinical leaders, dating from 250 B.c. to 500 AD. This is the Talmud *See below, p. 57. 54 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY commonly meant when the word “Talmud” is used without any other appellation. The decisions of the Talmudic doctors, arrived at by a majority vote, or at least by an informal taking of the consensus of opinion in a learned body possessing the proper authority, became the accepted law of Jewish life, while their “‘obiter dicta” carried considerable moral weight. The charity injunctions or precepts of Scripture received a great deal of attention in the ‘Talmudic discussions and legislation. The pages of the Tal- mud reflect the high spirit of the Bible regarding relief and show the practical application of the Biblical sources to the solution of the problems of a later day. The elaborated and amplified material now became the recognized authority. As is characteristic of the very loosely ordered arrangement of the Talmud in general, there is no systematic assemblage of philanthropic material in any given tractate. Matter bearing on charity is found scattered throughout the various’ treatises. The largest single section in the Babylonian Talmud is Baba Batra, pages 8a through 11a, while the tractate Peah (chap. 8, para. 6-8), contains the most considerable single portion of the Jerusalem Talmud (Jerushalmi). The legislation and thought of the Talmud on charity, as well as on all other matters, established the standards of procedure and the general outlines of sentiment for the entire rabbinical era which fol- THE TALMUD 55 lowed, this being substantially identical with the medieval. Since all later writings derive their au- thority from the Talmud, we have, in order to make clear the historic continuity of the stream, as well as for reasons of convenience, merged what the Talmud has to say on the subject of general public relicf with the matter found in the writings of the subsequent masters bearing on the same theme under the heading “General Public Relief and Its Adminis- tration.” Indications of sources are there given, so that the reader can, if he so desires, trace the data to their chronological moorings. All that we can attempt here in the way of pre- senting something of its vast amount of dicta on the other aspects of philanthropy, scattered over hun- dreds of pages without classification, in unordered sequence, and usually called forth in connection with some discussion only incidentally related, is to cite a few rulings, observations and incidents, under ap- propriate captions. Importance of Doing Charity. “R. Assi said, ‘Charity outweighs all the other commandments together.’’’ Baba Batra ga. “R. Huna said, ‘Whoever busies himself in the study of the Law alone (without engaging in acts of loving-kindness) is like one who recognizes no God.’” Abodah Zara 17b. “Even a poor person who receives charity must in turn give charity.” Gittin 7b. 56 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY ‘Simon the Just used to say, “The world rests on three things: upon the Torah, worship and the prac- tice’ of scharity:: i) pote <2: The Spirit of Giving, Not the Amount, Counts. ‘R. Isaac said: ‘Whoever gives a farthing to a man is blessed with seven blessings; and whoever comforts him with words is blessed with eleven bless- ings.’”’ Baba Batra gb. ‘‘R, Simeon ben Yochai said: ‘It is meet for a man to deliver himself unto a burning oven rather than cause his fellow-man to blush in public.’ ” Ketubot 67b. “Tf a poor man does not want to accept charity, a ruse may be used and he should be given it as a present or a loan.” Ibidem. Generosity and Parsimony. “Tf a man’s means allow, he should give according to the needs of the poor. If his means do not allow that much, he should give a fifth of his possessions, this being the highest standard; or one-tenth, which is the average. Less than that betokens a mean spirit.”’ Ketubot 50a and 67b. The Poor to Be Given More Than Mere Subsistence. ‘‘Mar Ukba sent his son to a poor man with the usual 400 Zuz he allowed him on the eve of the Day of Atonement. The son returned and said the man was not in need. ‘Why, what have you seen?’ asked THE TALMUD 57 Mar Ukba. He said, ‘I observed that he was served with old wine.’ Said Mar Ukba, ‘He has been brought up to it (i.e., he is used to it; it is proper).’ He thereupon doubled the amount and sent it to him. When Mar Ukba was on the point of death, he said, ‘Bring me my charity account.’ He found the total to be 7,000 dinar. He said, “The provisions are meagre and the road is a long one.’ ’”’ Ketubot 67b. Motives and Rewards. “I believe you should do the good deed (give away the money) for its own sake.’’ Quoted as a teaching of R. Jochanan to his own relatives. Baba Batra 10a. ‘All charity and kindness that Israel does begets great peace and powerful intercessors between Israel and their father in heaven.” Ibidem. “Charity actually averts death.” Sabbath 156b. “King Monobaz distributed lavishly his own treasures and the treasures of his fathers. His brothers and relatives complained and said to him: ‘Thy fathers stored up and added to what their fathers left and thou squanderest it all.’ He an- swered, ‘“‘My fathers hoarded up for here below; I store up for heaven. My fathers hoarded up in a place where the human hand can lay hold; I store up in a place where the hand cannot reach. My fathers hoarded up something that yields no fruit; I store up something that yields fruit. My fathers 58 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY hoarded up money; I store up treasures in the shape of human souls. My fathers hoarded up for this life; I store up for the life to come.” Baba Batra Ita; Jerushalmi Peah 1:1; Tosephta Peah 4:18. Zuckermandel edit., p. 24.1° Rabbi Judan, reduced in fortune, sells half of the small field left to him, and contributes the money from the sale to the collectors of charity. He finds a treasure in the remaining portion of the field and is restored to his former prosperity. Jerushalmi Horayot III, 4. Why God Permits Poverty to Exist. ‘“R. Meir said, Should a skeptic object and say, ‘If your God loves the poor, why does He not sustain them?’ answer him, ‘In order that we may be saved from hell.’ And this is the very question Turnus Rufus asked of Akiba.” The Roman compared the sufferings of the poor to the punishment visited by a king on a servant who had angered him, and argued that God must be displeased with those who relieve the lot of the poor, just as the king would be offended if someone supplied his imprisoned servant with food. Akiba retorted by saying that the comparison is rather with a king who had imprisoned his own son for an offense but who was pleased with any one who sent the prisoner food. Baba Batra toa. ** Cf, Sermon on the Mount: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal,” etc., Matt. 6:19-20. THE TALMUD 59 Prevention Better Than Relief. “R. Abba said, in the name of R. Simeon ben Lakesh, ‘He who advances a loan is greater than he who gives charity and he who puts in capital for partnership (with the person in distress) is more meritorious than all others.’ Sabbath 63a. Destitution and Repugnant Work to Be Preferred to Taking Charity. ‘“‘Make thy Sabbath a weekday and do not be reduced to need the help of human beings.’”” Rabbi Jochanan. Pesachim 113a. ‘Skin a carcass on the street and take pay for it, and do not say, ‘I am a priest,’ or ‘I am a great man.’’’ Said by Rav to R. Kahana. Ibidem. On Neglecting to Support One’s Children. ‘‘“A snake bears children and casts them on the city (for support). Ketubot 49b. ‘Turn a mortar upside down (i.e., erect a plat- form) in public and call out: “The raven wants children and this man does not want children.’ ”’ Ibidem. Sympathy and Understanding Required cs Both Giver and Receiver. In giving a symbolic interpretation of the charac- _ ters of the alphabet (put in the mouth of children who visited the academy), the Talmud muses whim- ically on the forms of the letters Gimmel and 60 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY Dalet. The two letters together mean ‘Gemol Dallim” (os 51), “Show kindness to the poor.” ‘Why does the foot of the Gimmel go out towards the Dalet? Because it is the way of the benevolent to run after the poor. Why is the foot of the Dalet turned towards the Gimmel? ‘That the Dalet (2.e., the poor) should be on hand (i.e., they should not make it necessary for the benevolent to run after them). Why is the face of the Dalet turned away from the Gimmel? ‘That the help should be given to him secretly, sparing him blushes.’ Sabbath 104a. CHAPTER III THE CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS As already indicated, the Talmud remained the supreme authority over Jewish life until the Jewish communities came under secular jurisdiction as inte- gral portions of the common citizenry in modern times.t But because of its complexity and loose order, which made its use difficult for the average man, and also with the view of recording and stand- ardizing the various interpretations that had sprung up around its legislation, several later scholars of dis- tinction endeavored to systematize its material into orderly codes of law. Three of these became stand- ard manuals in Jewish life whose authority was wide- spread, well-nigh universal. The first of these compilations is the Mishneh Torah (Second Law) also known as the Yad Ha- Hazakah (The Mighty Hand), the work of the greatest of the medieval Jewish thinkers and scholars, Moses Maimonides (born Cordova 1135, died Cairo, 1204). Owing to the advanced thought *It still wields great authority among the faithful of the ortho- dox. ... “The compilation of the Talmud signifies nothing less than the final fixation of the entire Jewish law.” Louis Ginzberg, “Codification Law,” in Jewish Encyclopedia. 61 62 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY and methods of Maimonides, the authority of this code, as well as of his other writings, was challenged by a considerable fraction of Jewry during his life- time, but it met with universal recognition soon there- after, and retained its hold until the dissolution of rabbinical control in modern days. Philanthropy occupies a position of dignity and importance in the Maimonides code. His own ad- ditions and exposition of the Biblical and Talmudic material reach a height of humanity and spirituality without parallel in medieval times and scarcely ex- celled by any legislation or dicta in the twentieth century. It would be hard to find any brief summary of the motives that should animate relief and the manner that should characterize its dispensing that compares to his Eight Degrees of Charity. THe ErcHut DEGREES OF CHARITY (From Maimonides, ‘Portions of the Poor,’ Chap. 10, Paran7-14) There are eight degrees in the giving of charity, one su- perior to the other. A high degree, than which there is no higher, is that of one who takes hold of an Israelite who has become impoverished and gives him a gift or a loan or goes into partnership with him or finds work for him, in order to strengthen his hand so that he be spared the necessity of appealing for help. And concerning him it is said, “Then shalt thou uphold him, as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee’ (Lev. 25:35), as if to say: Take hold of him that he fall not and come to need. Less than this (i.e., next below in rank) is the case of one who gives charity to the poor, without knowing to whom he gives and without the poor knowing from whom he CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS ~ 63 takes. For behold this is a good deed done for its own sake. An instance of this is (what took place) in the Chamber of Silence (or Unostentation) in the Sanctuary, where the righteous brought their gifts secretly and the respectable poor helped themselves secretly. And akin to this is the case of the one who contributes to the public charity fund. And one should not contribute to the charity fund unless he knows that he who is in charge of it is trustworthy, wise and understands how to manage it properly, like R. Chan- aniah ben Teradyon. Less than this is the case of the one who knows to whom he gives, without the poor knowing from whom he receives. An example of this is the practice of distinguished wise men who used to go secretly and leave money at the doors of the poor. And in this manner it is fitting to act, and it is then the highest procedure, if those appointed over the charity work do not conduct it properly. Less than this is the case where the poor man knows from whom he takes but the giver does not know the receiver. An example of this type is the practice of the wise who used to wrap up money in their cloaks and cast the bundles back of them (without looking), the poor coming after- wards to pick them up, thus being spared all shame. Less than this is the case of him who gives without being asked. Less than this is the case of him who gives after he is asked. Less than this is the case of him who gives less than is proper, but in a pleasant manner. Less than this is the case of him who gives reluctantly. Teachings on the subject of helping the poor occur in his various writings,” but the major portion of his Maimonides codified and interpreted the Rabbinic law based on the Biblical injunction to “send gifts to the poor.” (Esther 64. JEWISH PHILANTHROPY treatment of charity is found in the second section of Book Seven, Division Three of The Mighty Hand under the caption “Portions of the Poor” (Matnot Aniyyim oy nnn) from which the “Eight Degrees of Charity” was quoted. Following the order of the Mishnah, he attaches his observa- tions on charity generally to his codification of the Biblical agricultural provisions for the poor and de- pendent classes. To the end of incorporating and harmonizing the various decisions and opinions on Jewish law which accumulated since Maimonides’ codification and also with a view to abridging and simplifying it, Jacob ben Asher (born in Germany, date uncertain; died in Toledo, Spain, before 1340) made a new codex called Arbaah Turim (‘The Four Rows’’) or, more popularly Tur, which, without displacing Mai- monides, held the field as the standard authority for two centuries. The subject of beneficence receives elaborate treat- ment in the J'ur, in the ‘“‘Row”’ called Yoreh Deah, under the caption Hilkot Zedakah (‘“The Laws of Charity’). The Tur formulates the principles ana methods of relief with scientific care and in lucid style. ‘his compilation of all preceding enactments and dicta on charity is the most complete one made up to that time. The subject matter is arranged ac- 9:22) on the Feast of Purim. Cf. Claude G. Montefiore’s transla- tion, in his Bible for Home Reading, Vol. 2, pp. 406-407. Mac- millan Co., London, 1920. CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS _ 65 cording to logical divisions and subdivisions, such as The Duty to Give, the Measure of Giving, and so forth. Its general plan became the model for all subsequent codifiers. The author’s own opinions and additions while perhaps not quite as original as those of Maimonides, breathe a deep spirit of humanity. I translate from the Hebrew and quote the first section which is in the nature of an Introduction to the whole. “Tt is a duty to give as much as one can afford. One must be very, very careful, more so than with any other positive commandment, lest the needy die if he does not receive help at once. He who hides his eyes from the poor is called a base fellow (Deut. 15:9), while he who is conscientious in this is by that very fact attested as coming from the seed blessed of God. The eminence of Israel and the Re- ligion of Truth are dependent for their con- tinued security on Zedakah (Is. 54:14) and Israel’s redemption is conditioned upon Zeda- kah. It is greater than sacrifices. One is never impoverished through the giving of charity and no evil is ever caused thereby, for it is said: ‘The work of Zedakah shall be peace (Is. 32:17). And whoever shows mercy to the poor receives mercy at the hands of God. And a man should also give earnest thought to the consideration that as he seeks at all times from the Holy One that He should provide for his 66 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY support and heed his supplication, so he should heed the cry of the poor. And also that God is near to the cry of the poor and also that God has a covenant with the poor (Ex. 22:21-26). A man should further consider that the revolv- ~ ing wheel of life makes it certain that he himself must eventually come to such a pass, and if not he, his son or his grandson. And he should not be influenced by the thought, ‘Why shall I reduce my possessions by giving to the poor?’, for he should know that his money is naught else but a trust fund to be used in accordance with the will of Him who entrusted it, and His will is that he distribute thereof to the poor, and that is the best portion He derives from it. And furthermore (he should know) that the fact is clear and established that he will not come to want on account of the charity he gave but, on the contrary, it will bring him added wealth and honor. . .. And further (the giving of charity) averts hard decrees and in famine saves from death, as happened to the woman of Zarephat (I Kings, 17: 8-24) by virtue of the small cake she gave Elijah. And the withholding of charity keeps away those who are approaching the Shekinah*® (the Divine Presence) from it and from the Torah, as happened with Ammon and Moab who were near to us but were kept away because they did * That is, those ready to embrace the faith. CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS 67 not receive us with bread and water. But it brings near those who are far, to nestle under the wings of the Shekinah, as happened to Jethro when he said: ‘Call him and let him eat bread’ (Ex. 2:20). Accordingly, one must be very scrupulous to give as is meet. ‘And I shall presently explain the nature of it as I found it written in the name of R. Saadia and out of the words of R. Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), together with some other opinions. And I shall make clear at the outset who is obligated to give, and how much he is obligated to give, and when he must give, and how much it is meet to give to each one, and to whom he shall give, and which takes precedence, and who is eligible to receive, and from whom, and how it is collected and distributed, and its voluntary phases, and its diversion before it reaches the hands of the collectors and after.” Circumstances resembling those which led to the production of Jacob ben Asher’s Tur, in time made necessary the creation of a new code. The Shulchan Aruk (The Set Table), the work of Joseph Caro (b. Spain or Portugal 1488; d. Safed, Palestine 1575), answered this need, appearing in 1565.* It eclipsed the Tur as the standard au- *The “Shulchan Aruk” was written by Caro in his old age for the benefit of those who did not possess the education necessary to understand his earlier and more erudite work “Bet Yosef,” published 1550-1559. His own preference was for the “Bet 68 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY thority, without however rendering it obsolete. The Shulchan Aruk, following the same general classifi- cation as the Tur, likewise treats of charity in the division Yoreh Deah and under the subject ‘‘Laws of Charity” (Hilkot Zedakah).> The material here takes the form of commandments (Mizvot). ‘The Shulchan Aruk has remained the standard law of Jewish life wherever rabbinical authority has maintained itself. It must be understood clearly that these three standard codes which served as the guide books of Jewish law from the twelfth century on did not in any way supersede the Talmud, which remained the only real decisive and final authority. Their ex- positions of the Talmud were, however, commonly regarded as the correct ones, though there were not lacking instances of very eminent rabbis who per- mitted themselves independent interpretations (Pose- kim) of specific points not in accord with the standard codifiers.® Yosef,” but the “Shulchan Aruk” became the popular work. (Cf. ‘Louis Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Joseph b. Ephraim Caro.” °An English translation has been made by Louis Feinberg under the title, “Section on Charity from the Shulhan Arukh,” as Number 6 in the “Studies in Social Work,” of the N. Y. School of Philanthropy, N. Y., Nov., 1915. ° Prof. Ginzberg thus summarizes the work of the three great systematizers of rabbinical law: “The three great codifiers of the Middle Ages, Maimonides, Jacob ben Asher and Caro, had each a special task: Maimonides, that of systematizing the law; Jacob ben Asher, of sifting it critically; and Caro of unifying it.” J. E., Codification of the Law. CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS _ 69 Numerous lesser codes appeared from the days of Maimonides on, virtually all of them devoting a section of their works to philanthropy under the headings Zedakah and Gemilut Chasadim. On the whole they add very little to what the major sources contain. The same thing is true of the entire type of Responsa literature (Sheélot U-teshubot—‘‘In- quiries and Responses”) which abounded through- out the medieval period. ‘These latter are indeed much more given to legalistic content and style. Inspirational Sources Other than Codes There is a vast array of inspirational sources bear- ing on charitable ideals and effort outside of the legal material (Halakah). Ethical and homiletical litera- ture, in the form of story and instruction (usually called Haggadah or Agadta) is found intertwined with the legal decisions or set down in independent works. Narratives and admonitions of this kind occur frequently throughout the Talmud while the Midrashic literature containing the homilies of teachers and preachers extending over many cen- turies—probably from the third to the ninth—fairly teems with them. ‘The codes allude to them and the numerous Biblical and Talmudic commentaries, and supercommentaries, busy themselves with them. Of independent works devoted altogether, or in large part, to philanthropy, the following deserve special mention: 70 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY (1) Sefer Ha-Chinnuk (>:nn sep), “The Book of Pedagogy,’ by Aaron (ben Joseph) Halevi of Barcelona (13th century) who devotes several para- graphs to charity, where a high spiritual note is struck, (2) Sefer Chasidim (pron 120), “The Book of the Pious,” a work accredited to Judah He-Chasid, written c. 1200, which sets aside several considerable sections to the treatment of this theme and, at times, reaches a lofty ethical level. (3) Menorat Ha-Maor (x07 mi»), “The Candelabra of Light,” by Isaac Aboab the Elder (13th century), where paragraphs 186-221 concern themselves with Charity and Loving-kindness. (4) Matteh Mosheh (nem non), “The Staff of Moses,” by Moses of Przemysl (c. 1600), which devotes seven chapters to Charity and one to Loving- kindness. (5) Meil Zedakah (np syn), “The Mantle of Charity,” by Elijah ben Solomon Abraham Ha- kohen of Smyrna (d. 1729), a large anthology of thoughts and sentiments on the subject of charity and personal service gathered from various sources— Talmud, Midrash, later writings—mostly of an ethical character, and containing also personal re- © flections by the author. Other works, concerning themselves to a lesser extent with our subject, are referred to elsewhere in this study as the need arises, or are listed in the bibliography. CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS 471 There is one writer of the Middle Ages whose incidental reflections on benevolence deserve to be singled out, like the rest of his teachings, because of their noble spiritual character, representing a beauti- ful blending of philosophy and religiousness and, at times, bordering on the mystic. We refer to Rabbi Bachya Ibn Pakuda, judge in the rabbinical court at Saragossa, Spain, in the first half of the eleventh century. He wrote a remarkable book on Jewish Ethics, Duties of the Heart, in Arabic, in 1040. It was translated into Hebrew under the title Cho- bot Ha-Lebabot by Judah Ibn Tibbon in the years 1161-80. We quote some excerpts which are specially notable for their analysis of human motives—im- mediate and ultimate—as they bear on benevolence. The Motives of Human Benevolence “There are five aspects of human beneficence:—(1) that of the father to his children; (2) of the master to his slave; (3) of the rich to the poor, in order that he may receive the reward of heaven; (4) that of some men to others, for the sake of acquiring a good name, or honour, or worldly reward; (5) that of the strong towards the weak, because he pities them, and because he is pained on account of their condition. “Tf we look closely at all these kinds of benevolence, we shall find that, in motive, not one of them is entirely disinterested.” (Here follows an analysis of the first two aspects. ) 72 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY “The beneficence of the rich to the poor, for the sake of the reward of heaven, is like the purchase by a business man of a great and permanent advantage to come to him at some future time, in return for a small, perishable, and contemptible good that he parts with immediately; and his only intention is to adorn his own soul in his after-life. And yet, in spite of all this, gratitude is due to him. (Here follows an analysis of the fourth aspect.) “Even he that takes pity upon the poor and the afflicted whose sufferings are painful to him, intends, by relieving them, to relieve himself of a pain that afflicts his own soul; and he is like one who, by the goodness of God, is healing himself of a painful illness; but yet he is not left without praise. “Thus the primary intention of everyone in doing good to others, is to do good to himself, or save himself from pain. Man’s Obligation of Gratitude to God “Tf man earns gratitude, reward and love for intermittent beneficence that is not unselfish, how great must be our obli- gation of service, gratitude and praise to the Creator of goodness, who therewith causes all good, and whose goodness is without end and continuous, and is entirely free from all egoistic motive or intention, but is a pure freewill gift, and whose kindness is extended to all reasonable beings. The Motive Forces That Impel Man to Grateful Service “There are two distinct motive forces impelling man to humble and grateful service of God. One of them is in- herent in human reason, implanted in man’s intelligence, and hidden deep within the very roots of his being; the CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS 73 second is acquired by means of his hearing and under- standing. ‘This second is the Torah. “The service due to the humility of hope and fear is that which arises from the acquired, external motive which enforces the obligation with rewards and punishments in this world and in the world to come; the second kind is induced by the working of the hidden motive force of Reason, innate in human nature, and bound up with the union of man’s soul to his body. Both kinds of humility are praiseworthy, and both lead to a right way of life and conduct; but the one is the complement of the other, and the motive of the Torah is the stepping-stone to both, while the motive of Reason, and the way of proof, is the prefer- able and nearer to God. “The service undertaken at the prompting of Reason is free from all suspicion of hypocrisy, and from all admixture of hope or fear. It springs from a philosophic knowledge of how the creature is indebted to the Creator, and is not restricted to actual outward acts, but will include the ethical working of the heart and mind—the fulfilment of the duties of the heart.” * ™The English translation used here is taken from Edwin Collins’ version of the book in the Wisdom of the East Series, pp. 26-30. N. Y., Dutton, 1910. CHAPTER IV RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS IN a history extending over so many centuries, an experience so diverse and a literature correspond- ing, there is naturally a mass of sentiments and ideals of great variety and of some discordance, but in this case there is nevertheless easily discernible an impressive substratum of unified opinion and aspira- tion which we may with perfect propriety desig- nate the fundamental or underlying principles and ideals basic to Jewish philanthropy. The reverence for the original nucleus drawn from the Bible and from traditions of Biblical times and the similarity of living conditions throughout the various settle- ments in which Jews found themselves during this long period account in part for this unity; while the comparative rigidity of rabbinical legislation and outlook furnishes an additional reason why the early basic principles retained their position of primacy in the later generations of our era. We shall point out several currents of conviction and ideals that run through the field of Jewish charity laws and literature, watering and enriching the whole. 74 RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 75 Clearly stated at times and implied always as a premise, is the thought that the poor and dependent are the special wards of God and are therefore com- mended to the conscience and tender solicitude of the well-to-do by their common Maker. “God is nigh unto the cry of the poor and has a (special) cove- nant with them,’ ? writes Tur. ‘‘Who are His people (i.e., his relatives)?” ‘The poor,” declares the Midrash.® In the spirit of the Bible, which speaks of the poor as “‘thy brother” and of his needs as the special con- cern of God, the ‘Talmud and post-Biblical authorities constantly admonish those who are comfortably cir- cumstanced to look after the proper maintenance of those in want or distress as if the well-to-do were His agents on earth. They are to give this matter their closest thought. R. Jonah * remarked, “‘Scrip- ture does not say, Happy is the man who giveth to the poor, but Happy is the man who considereth the poor (Ps. 41:2). This wording refers to one who *“God created the rich and the poor.” Meil Zedakah § 1598. The Biblical source for this sentiment is Prov. 22:2: “The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all.” Cf. also Tur 247. * Tur 247. Cf. also Meil Zedakah § 1501. “The withholding of charity from the poor being like withholding it from God who undertakes to provide for the poor.” *Ex. Rabbah 31:12: “The ways of God are unlike the ways of human beings. Among men when one is rich and has a poor relative, he hides from before him, being embarrassed to converse with him. ... But if the relative is rich, all cling to him and love him. But the Holy One is not so. Who are His people? Re poota, 1.” *Palestinian teacher, 4th century, A.D. 76 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY considers well how to do a good deed.” > The most devoted cultivation of religion misses its mark unless accompanied by works of loving-kindness. God himself has, set the example for human beings in personally ministering to the distressed, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, comforting the mourners, burying the dead. Commenting on the verse “After the Lord your God shall ye go” (Deut. 13:5) the Talmud says, “Just as He clothed the naked, as it is written, ‘The Lord God made tunics for Adam and his wife and clothed them’ (Gen. 3:21), so thou shouldst clothe the naked; as he visited the sick, as it is written, ‘The Lord appeared to him in the plain of Mamre’ (Gen. 18:1, i.e., Abraham was sick as the result of circumcision), so thou shouldst visit the sick; as God comforted the mourners, as it is written, ‘The Lord blessed Isaac, his son’ (Gen. 25:11), so thou shouldst comfort the mourners; as God buried the dead, as it is written, ‘He buried him in the valley’ (Deut. 34:6), so shouldst thou bury the dead.’ Indeed, points out Rabbi Simlai, summariz- ing the above, the Torah begins and ends with in- stances of loving-kindness, God being the agent.’ The 613 commandments were reduced by David to 11, by Isaiah to 6, by Micah to 3, and again by Isaiah *Jerush. Peah 8:8. Cf. also Tur 247: “One must be very, very careful, more so than with any other positive commandment, lest the needy perish through not receiving help at once.” Also Mat. An. 10:1. ° Cf. Conversation of Chanina ben Teradyon and Eleazar ben Porta, Abodah Zarah 17 b. "Sotah 14 a. RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 77 to 2, and by Habakkuk to 1, but in all the reductions charity (Zedakah) is mentioned or implied.2 God attaches great credit to the rendering of help to those created in His image.® Whoever denies the value of loving-kindness (Gemilut Chasadim) denies as it were the first principles of religion, i.e., the divine origin of the world, the foundation of which is loving-kindness (Chesed).1° Indeed, communion with God is hindered by the disinclination to do charity and furthered by its exercise (Tur. 247). A second premise, running parallel with the first and often merging into it, is the assumption that all goods in the last analysis come from and belong to God, the Source of all things, their human posses- sors being merely custodians of this trust-fund who must share with those in want. ‘This idea, hover- ing in the background of practically all the writings on our theme, finds its clearest exposition perhaps in the Tur of Jacob ben Asher. ‘‘A man should not be influenced by the thought, ‘Why should I re- duce my possessions by giving to the poor?’ for he should know that his money is naught else but a deposit (or trust fund) to be used in accordance with the will of the depositor, and His will is that he distribute thereof to the poor and that is the best portion (i.e., the greatest benefit) He derives from ®Meil Zedakah § 230, commenting on Makkot 23 b and 24 a. °Yalkut Shimeoni on Ps. 37, quoted by Meil Zedakah § 326. * Meil Zedakah, § 1322. ~~ 78 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY it.11 It is this conviction of the divine ownership of all goods that prompts Maimonides to quote ap- provingly the declaration of a poor man, in the Tal. mudic narrative, despite its lack of the niceties of good manners: “Do I eat at the expense of the community? I eat what belongs to God.” ?” Starting with the two premises just described, rabbinical doctrine, drawing the germ of its inspira- tion from Biblical teaching, sets forth several basic principles and ideals which may be summarized as follows: I. Charity (Zedakah)—whether in gifts or loans —does not represent a favor that might be withheld but an imperative obligation springing from ele- mentary considerations of justice. From the stand- point of the giver, assistance is a sacred duty; from that of the receiver it is an inalienable right.1% “Gifts to the poor,’ maintains Maimonides, “‘are not benevolence but debts.’ 14 Accordingly, all people, except orphans, are morally obligated to give charity, even the poor who themselves are supported by charity. he latter must give a portion of what they “Tur 247. ™ Mat. An. 7:1, based on Jerush. Peah 8:8. Josephus explains the right of the poor to the corners, gleanings, etc., as the right of co-proprietors sprung from a common origin with the rich to the products of the land (Antig., Book IV, 8:21). This is the Biblical doctrine: “For to me belongs the entire earth” (Ex. 19:5 and Psalm 5:12), which according to Philo (De Humanitate § 11) is also at the basis of the Sabbatical and Jubilee year legislation. ““The right to assistance was solved by the Bible long ago— the right and duty.” Lehmann, of. cit., p. 14. “Mat. An. 1:1-6 and 7:10. RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 79 receive.> And whoever does not wish to give, or gives less than what is proper, should be compelled by the Bet Din (court) to give what the latter desig- nates; they may seize the reluctant person’s goods and take what is proper, and these goods may even be put to pledge on the eve of the Sabbath (when no other seizures were allowed).1® This refers to the minimum quotas designated for the community funds. There were, over and above these, voluntary amounts expected but not compelled, as additions to the community funds and, besides, sums left to be given as occasion arose in the way of personal char- ity. What is more, the duty to contribute was not confined to the individual, but extended to the com- munity as an organic whole. Maimonides, Jacob ben Asher and Joseph Caro elaborate on the oblig- atory nature of communal charity, laying down spe- cific rules for contribution to the primary and sec- ondary funds, based on the length of residence and proportioned to one’s means.?7 And so, while great leeway was given to everyone as to the amount spent in the way of private charity and a good deal of latitude was allowed in the matter of the quantity contributed to the public funds, a decent minimum was exacted from all for the com- munal treasury, as an elementary obligation, de- volving on all members of the body social towards * Gittin 7 b, Mat. An. 9:18. * Tur 248; Shulchan Aruk 248:2. ™ Mat. An. 9:1-18; Tur 248; Shul. Ar. 256:1. 80 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY the support of their weaker brothers. The unwilling were not permitted altogether to shelve the neighbor- hood’s burdens on the generous. ‘They could not escape their plain duty as responsible members of a coherent social unit. The universalization of charity contributions made for a wide distribution of interest in the problems of relief with consequent democrati- zation of management. Everyone being expected, virtually required, to be a patron, the class of pa- tronized was automatically reduced to the lowest proportions. Effort to earn was stimulated and pride in self-dependence promoted, indolence and im- position decreasing in proportion. ‘There was the healthy pride, practically universal, of belonging to the class of those who are benefactors, like the feel- ing of dignity had by those who pay an income tax in our times, only with this difference: that the large degree of option left made for the free play of gene- rosity, put an edge of keenness to the pride felt and invested labor with a zest not its own. Il. Righteousness finds its most practical expres- sion in the doing of charity, or, conversely, charity is the best medium of the righteous life. It is no acci- dent that the Biblical word for righteousness, Zeda- kah, was adopted in post-Biblical times as the word for charity. It was the result of the concepts and habits of daily living. And there were emotional aspects to this identification. Neither the righteous- ness nor the charity of the Hebrews represented the result of a logically developed plan of conduct RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 81 perfectly poised and esthetically alluring, or mo- tivated by the love of reputation and good will, i.c., external satisfactions, but rather the product of spontaneous impulses and aspirations. Charles Stewart Loch, in his masterly article on ‘‘Charity and Charities’ in the Encyclopedia Britannica, points out that the Jews brought into the work of charity the element of ethical fervor. This passion for justice and integrity—this burning zeal for the moral and spiritual, which they injected into all the directions of life and which, reaching beyond Hebrew boundaries, also permeated Christianity and Mo- hammedanism with its infectious warmth, elevated Jewish benevolence above the level of mere acts of expediency and kept it from sinking into the slough of cold routine. Charity and kindliness were felt to constitute so clearly the very stuff of rectitude that the good and the beneficent became inseparably iden- tified in thought, while the wicked could no longer be conceived as capable of the impulses of benevo- lence. And just as the extending of relief came to be considered a prerequisite of the righteous, so the accepting of it became the almost unfailing mark of integrity. Furthermore, as the basis of religiousness is righteousness, and as righteousness finds its chief vent through beneficence, charity becomes insepara- ble from true piety and holiness. So with the Biblical ideals of the befriending and support of the un- fortunate as the sine qua non of personal and social righteousness and religiousness to begin with, the 82 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY rabbis and lay leaders emphasized the urgent duty of rectifying the inequalities of wealth and comfort by the surrender—voluntary and exacted—of surplus by those who have it to those who suffer from de- ficiencies. The affectionate regard in which these Biblical ideals were held in the subsequent centuries may be judged from the fact that the book of Psalms with its unwearying compassion for the unfortunate was apportioned into sections for responsive read- ings by the night watch (Maamad) during the lat- ter years of the existence of the Temple, this custom being taken over in the popular houses of prayer after the destruction of the national shrine, and also from the circumstance that the famous passage from Isaiah beginning with the sentence, ‘‘Is this the fast I have chosen?” (58:6f.), and proceeding to define true religion as justice breaking forth into charity and kindness and liberation, was given the place of supreme honor in the liturgy adopted by the synagogue as the Haphtarah reading (Prophetic portion) for Atonement Day. So essentially did charity and with it personal service become the de- termining test of character that the Talmud, quot- ing the distinguished Babylonian master Rabba, lays down the dictum, ‘“‘Whoever has these three qualities is surely of the seed of Abraham—compas- sion, modesty and benevolence (npn Sy13 yu" yor) .”” 28 Maimonides was attracted by this dictum and in different phraseology incorporated it among his pre- * Kallah, Ch. ro. RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS — 83 cepts,'® and Jacob ben Asher rounded it out thus, ‘‘Hfe who shuts his eyes to the needs of the poor is called Belial (Deut. 15:9), while he who is con- scientious in this is by that very fact testified to as coming from the seed blessed by God.” 2° There is no religious lapse worse than uncharitableness, not even idolatry.24. Indeed, concentration on religious pursuits, noble as it is, is to no purpose; unless ac- companied by works of charity, it is no better than atheism.??. The author of the ‘‘Four Rows” carried out his own preachment in making his own testa- ment. In the ethical will left by him in conjunction with his brother Jehudah their father’s generosity is confirmed and expanded.8 eoiviat. Any 10 22. * Tur 247. = Mat. An. 10:3. * Abodah Zarah, 17 b. See p. 107 below. CHAPTER V MOTIVES AND SANCTIONS WE have stated before that it is always 2 mistake to account for an individual’s course of conduct by One motive only; even a single action, seemingly de- tached, almost invariably reflects a complex of mo- tives. This observation is still more true of large masses of people; they are swayed by many con- siderations operating simultaneously, some of the motives being consciously entertained and others hardly emerging from the vague realm of the unformulated. The most that may be said with truth, when en- deavoring to ferret out the motives that actuate people in their behavior, is that a certain motive appears to be uppermost in any given situation or that this or that consideration appears to recur oftener than any other during a given period and may therefore be designated as the abiding motive. Accordingly, the claim made by certain writers, like Gehrhard Uhlhorn } that Jewish charity was almost wholly evoked by a sense of duty grounded in the * Christian Charity in the Ancient Church, Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y., 1883, Chap. II, “Under the Law.” ‘This theory runs through the entire chapter. Sy MOTIVES AND SANCTIONS 85 religious law, whereas Christian charity in the early centuries was altogether motivated by love, is to be discounted as an exaggeration arising from a pre- dilection for generalization. This author allows himself to fall into the same error in appraising the nature of pagan charity, including the charity of the enlightened Greeks and Romans, which he charac- terizes as having been evoked by the spirit of self- interest.2 Even a cursory reading of Greek and Roman literature and history will convince the stu- dent that the motive of love of one’s fellowmen figured largely in the benefactions of those peoples, while a study of Jewish sources and life reveals the fact that the impulse of love held a position of no mean importance among the various driving forces that impelled to beneficence. What may be said in the way of a general observation, and this only with great reserve, is that in Jewish charity, the ideal of righteousness is invoked more as an impelling motive than in Christian charity, whereas the ideal of love is more appealed to in Christian benevolence than in Jewish. The ultimate sanction of Jewish philanthropy, as for all other meritorious deeds, was obedience to the will of God. On final analysis, all right conduct, according to Jewish thought, receives its authority from a higher than human power, and the exercise thereof is obligatory on man even when logical rea- sons are not sufficient to establish its value. But apn cit. to. 86 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY conformity to the will of God as the last sanction is not an arbitrary requirement; it is justified be- cause of God’s ethical nature. ‘“‘Not God, the mas- ter, but God, the ideal of all morality, is the foun- tain-head of man’s moral doctrine,’’ declares Prof. Moritz Lazarus to be the fundamental principle of Jewish ethics which he finds embodied in the Biblical verse from the Holiness Code so highly esteemed in Jewish doctrine at all times: “Holy shall ye be, be- cause I the Lord your God am holy.” (Lev. 19:2).8 Looked at from the standpoint of its ultimate re- ligious sanction, Jewish charity, like the rest of Jewish virtue, may be described as “‘Imitatio Dei.” But the direct motives within that enveloping general sanction, the motives that stirred the hearts of the individual men and women when they brought succor to their needy fellowmen, were many and various. They ranged from those that savored dis- tinctly of self-interest to those that ffathomed the deepest soundings of love and altruism. Many im- pulses, as a rule, worked together in the production of a given act. Often the predominant consideration stands out clearly. “The same observation is true with regard to the incentives that controlled mass action. [hese likewise constituted a complex but the ruling considerations are usually discernible. There were strong influences holding over from the Biblical period which exercised great potency in determining charitable action in conjunction with * Ethics of Judaism, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, Sec. 83. MOTIVES AND SANCTIONS 87 motives of newer origination. Under the general classification of motives of self-interest may be men- tioned the appeal of health, longevity and prosperity, and earthly happiness generally, the same appeal which in reference to the practice of another virtue, finds a place in the [en Commandments in the clause “that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” * This appeal to give, based on terrestrial rewards, is one frequently em- ployed by way of story and exhortation. It found its way into the old prayer book, in the liturgy for the New Year and the Day of Atonement, where it is invoked as a stimulus for virtuous living: “But repentance, prayer and charity avert the evil de- cree.” Effective use was made of this same appeal at funerals when the sexton, carrying a charity box, invited contributions, calling aloud, “Charity saveth from death.” When the doctrine of merit was extended, in post- Biblical days, to include the hereafter within its sphere of functioning, happiness in the world to come was added as a new and powerful incentive to the doing of charity. This new motive went hand in hand with the appeal to earthly rewards and was usually interwoven with it. We have already cited this motive as the principle which controlled King Monobaz’s action.> A few other instances will suf- fice. Deeds of loving-kindness, declares the Mish- * Ex.. 20:12. ’See p. 57 above. 88 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY nah, are among the specially meritorious acts to be rewarded in this world and in the next. Maimo- nides, who, as we shall presently see, ultimately ap- peals to the highest motives of love and service in human nature, does not hesitate to dwell upon re- ward in the hereafter as an incentive to benevolence. Rabbi Meir (c. 200) went so far as to say that if it were not for the poor who provided them with the opportunity of exercising benevolence, the well- to-do would be denied salvation in the world to come altogether.® The rewards of honor and praise from one’s fel- lowmen were not stressed; they were, indeed, in theory, at least, discouraged as out of accord with the general principles of giving which required pri- vacy and impersonal relations as much as possible. But in actuality, abundant praise and glory were ac- corded generous givers.® The higher motives, 7.e., the motives dissociated from personal advantage, operated as ever powerful springs of action alongside of the appeals based on self-interest. These motives ran the entire gamut of pity, sympathy and love for the unfortunate. *Peah 1:1, see p. 51 above. "Mat. An. 1:15. * Baba Batra, 10a. ° Cf. the laudation of the donors to the funds for redemption of captives cited by Jacob Mann, of. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 87-95, 204-205, 232, 244. Cf. also the lavish praise of R. Paltiel and his son Sam- uel for large donations for various purposes, given in Kahira, Egypt, in the eleventh century. A. Neubauer: Medieval Jewish Chronicles, Vol. Il, pp. 128, 130. MOTIVES AND SANCTIONS 89 All sentiments and acts falling in the category of Gemilut Chasadim, “loving-kindness,’’ were so mo- ) tivated. The ultimate sanction for all of these sprang from the love of God and the desire to imi- tate His nature. Bachyain His Duties of the Heart, emphasizes the superior value of the higher motives of conduct. His book carried great weight.1° Per- haps the most telling monition in behalf of the nobler incentives to virtue was written by Maimonides. We quote an extensive excerpt herewith: “Let no one say I will fulfill the precepts of the Torah and labor to acquire its wisdom in order that I may acquire all the blessings set forth therein or that I may deserve eternal life in the world to come; or I will keep myself far from the sins condemned in the Torah, in order that I may be delivered from the penalties enumerated therein, or that I may not be cut off from the life thereafter. It is not fitting to serve God in this way, for he who serves Him thus does so out of fear. Such service differs from the high kind of service of the prophets and the sages. Only ignorant people and women and children in the first stages of their development serve God out of fear. When their knowledge grows, they serve Him from motives of love. “He who serves God from love devotes himself to the Law and the observance of its commandments and walks in the paths of wisdom not because of any worldly con- sideration nor out of fear of the consequences of evil-doing nor even to inherit good in the hereafter; he does the right because it is right, though in the end good will be added thereto. A very high degree of moral worth is this; not every wise man attains unto it. Such was the distinction of our father Abraham whom the Holy One called his * See page 71 f above. 90 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY “lover” because he served Him from love alone; and this is the high practice which God commanded us through Moses in the words, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.’ Let but that true love of God fill the heart of man and he will presently perform every duty from motives of love.” 14 *Mishneh Torah, Sefer Hamadda, Laws of Repentance, Ch. 10, paras. 1 and 2. CHAPTER VI CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE IT has been seen that Jewish charity did not limit itself to the provision of the elementary necessities of food, raiment and shelter, but embraced a much broader area of service including the extension of loans, and the provision of work and household necessities. It is now to be made clear that even this broad field of assistance was regarded as in- complete, indeed as failing to reach the highest ex- pression of aid, unless it was amplified by personal ministrations imbued with the spirit of mercy and love. Tracing their sources to Biblical springs, two cur- rents of philanthropic service course through the field of Jewish thought and activity. They are the streams of Zedakah and Gemilut Chasadim. The first refers to the quantity and kind of aid to which the unfortunate have a claim, moral or legal; or, changing the viewpoint from the beneficiary to the benefactor, such aid, in amount or nature, as de- volves upon the giver as an obligation, be this obli- gation required by law and custom or be it only a matter of conscience. The second, Gemilut Chasa- OI 92 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY dim, refers to those modes of assistance which con- stitute what may be called the voluntary surplus of benefaction, including that margin of generosity which transcends any and all contributions evoked by a sense of duty, and also, and primarily, those personal services on the part of the benefactor which spring from emotions of compassion and human kinship. The nearest translation for Zedakah in English is “charity”; the root meaning of the word is “right” or “justice.” It is difficult to find a suit- able equivalent in English for the Hebrew phrase “Gemilut Chasadim.” ‘‘Chasadim”’ and its singular ‘‘chesed”’ are used in the Bible and in post-Biblical literature to convey the ideas of ‘love,’ “grace,” “compassion” and ‘kind deeds.” The closest ap- proach to its Hebrew meaning seems to be the rendering given it by the English Bible, namely, “loving-kindness.” The distinction here drawn between “‘charity” and “loving-kindness” is made very commonly either ex- plicitly or by implication throughout the literature of the post-Biblical period. It is already met with in the Talmud and Midrashic sources, where ‘‘Zeda- kah” and “‘Gemilut Chasadim” are frequently con- trasted,t and occurs often in the subsequent codes and ethical writings. Many of the authorities de- vote separate sections to these two phases of philan- thropy, as for instance, Isaac Aboab the Elder (13th * E.g. “Loving-kindness is much greater than charity,” Succah 49b. CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 93 century)” and Moses of Przemysl (16th century) ,? while the greater number content themselves with pointing out the essential differences without setting up formal divisions, as for example, Maimonides (1135-1204) * and Aaron ben Joseph Halevi of Bar- celona (13th century).> Occasionally, the two con- cepts are merged, but in the vast majority of cases they are kept distinct, forming two golden strands in the cord of philanthropy. Leaving aside the consideration of that aspect of “loving-kindness” which has to do with extraor- dinary generosity, and confining our attention in the present chapter to that phase of it which is identi- fied with Personal Service, we note at the outset *In his work, The Candelabra of Light (Menorat Ha-maor), sections 186-204 and 205-221. *“The Staff of Moses” (Matteh Mosheh), one chapter on “Charity” and seven on “Loving-kindness.” *“Guide for the Perplexed” (Moreh Nebukim), Part III, Ch. 53. “Tt (chesed) is used especially to denote extraordinary kindness. And it should be noted that loving-kindness expresses itself in two ways (literally, includes two types): first, showing kindness to one that has no claim upon you; and, second, to do good to those to whom it is due in a greater measure than is due them. .. . The term “zedakah” is derived from “zedek,” “righteousness,” and means the right thing to do, that is, giving every one who has a claim on you according to his claim and giving to every being what he deserves.” Freely rendered, following the interpretation of Creskas. See Gerald Friedlander, Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. 3, p. 297. This passage is quoted in Meil Zedakah, para. 732. ° Book of Education (Sefer Ha-Chinnuk), Sec. 479: “And thou, my son, do not think that the commandment concerning charity refers only to the poor who has no bread nor garment; nay, it also applies to the rich . . . for Scripture always prefers deeds of kind- ness (Gemilut Chasadim) and commands us to satisfy the desires of creatures, children of the covenant, as far as is in our power.” 94 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY that the ear-mark of “loving-kindness” is, to use the characterization given by Elijah of Smyrna, “that which a man does in his own person to aid his fel- lowmen.” ® It is this element of philanthropy that is extolled above all others; the gift of one’s self excels any financial contribution. This teaching runs through the literature of the entire Rabbinical era, from the Talmud to the eighteenth century authori- ties. Rabbi Eleazar II (ben Pedat, 3rd century) declared that loving-kindness transcends mere char- ity as reaping excels sowing.” On the same page of the Talmud a dictum of the Sages is cited, reading as follows: ‘‘Loving-kindness surpasses charity in three ways: Charity is done with one’s money, loving- kindness with one’s person or one’s money; charity is for the poor, loving-kindness for the poor or rich; charity is for the living, loving-kindness for the living or the dead.” Isaac Aboab the Elder, already quoted, interprets the expression ‘‘and clothed them,’ used of God in reference to Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:20), as conveying the meaning that God put on their garments of skin Himself, in order to teach humans the lesson that when one performs an act of loving-kindness, he should not do it through a proxy but with his own hands.8 Personal Service came to be particularly identified °Meil Zedakah, Sec. 311. "Sukkah 4gb. “Op. cit., Sec. 186. Cited in Meil Zedakah Sec. 839. Cf. also Or Zarua, by Isaac ben Moses of Vienna (c. 1200-1270) on the “Laws of Charity” (Hilkot Zedakah), Sec. 1. CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 95 with visiting the sick, ministering to the dying, bury- ing the dead, comforting the mourners, entertaining strangers, and providing poor maidens with dow- ries.° In the course of time, the expression, “Loving- kindness,’’ came also to be used to denote a free loan, and that signification has persisted up to this day; indeed, ‘‘Gemilut Chasadim” has become the designation by which free loan societies are com- monly known. Each of these types of Personal Service was ideal- ized and given a wide range of interpretation and application. With reference to visiting the sick— not the poor sick alone—Rabbi Huna said: ‘“‘Who- ever visits the sick takes away one-sixtieth from his sickness. Sixty people could cure him if they loved him as much as themselves.” 1° God Himself was represented as burying the dead and comforting the mourners and performing other acts of personal service.11 The patriarch Abraham, founder of the faith, was held up as the model for the care of strangers, his waiting at the table in an inconspic- uous manner on the three visitors being imitated by Gamaliel and other distinguished seers in later days.1* Again and again does the revered litera- °*Baba Kama 100a; Baba Mezia 30a; Sotah 14a; Pirke d’Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. 17; Moses of Przemysl, of. cit., Ch. 2; Isaac Aboab the Elder, of. cit., Sec. 205-221; Elijah of Smyrna, of. cit., Sec. 247. * Lev. Rabbah 34:1. Huna was a Babylonian of the 3d century. “ Sotah 14a and elsewhere. “Kiddushin 32b. Cf. also Gen. R. 60, Sec. 15: “Throughout Sarah’s life the doors of her tent were wide open to strangers.” 96 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY ture of the Jews laud the practice of making the path of poor brides, particularly of orphan girls, easier, by providing them with dowries, the example of Rabbi Eleazar of Birta who diverted the marriage portion of his own daughter to equip a poor orphan boy and girl about to wed being cited for extraor- dinary praise.4* As an instance of the many pre- cepts urging the rendering of personal service by the way of extending loans free, the following pas- sage from the Midrash1* may be quoted: “Come and see! All the creations of God borrow one from the other: the day borrows from the night and the night from the day . . . the moon from the stars and the stars from the moon. . . . Those who charge interest say, as it were, to God: Why dost Thou not take from Thy world which contains human beings remuneration for the earth which Thou waterest, for the vegetation Thou producest, for the lights Thou kindlest, for the soul Thou breathest in, for the body Thou watchest? God answers: See how much I have lent without taking any interest!” . While Personal Service was mainly identified with the types of helpfulness just described, it was by no means limited to these. It included all conceivable forms of giving one’s self to the performance of kindly acts. It included, among other things, the rearing of orphans in one’s own home,’ attendance * Taanit 24a. “Exodus Rabbah 31:16. * R. Samuel bar Nachmani, explaining the meaning of the Scrip- tural verse “He that doeth righteousness at all times,” (Ps. 106:3) CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 97 at weddings and other functions at homes of humble folk, and making garments for the poor.*® These teachings met with ready and widespread execution. The ‘‘Chaberim” or early Chasidic asso- ciations made the work of visiting the sick a special obligation on all their members,'* and in the Middle Ages the practice of cheering those confined to their homes through illness by the members of the con- gregation generally and by the lay officers in par- ticular was so common that, according to Israel Abrahams, pastoral visiting by the rabbis was super- fluous and therefore little done.1® There was much tenderness exercised in this work and likewise in personal ministrations to the dying. In the case of a death, in the smaller communities and, until the establishment of special burial socie- ties, in the larger centers, the entire Jewish popula- tion interrupted their work and attended the funeral. Affectionate and delicate attentions were accorded the bereaved; the first meal after the funeral (se‘udat habra’ah, ‘“‘meal of consolation”) was prepared and brought to them by their neighbors, and words of comfort were spoken to them by visitors.1® Taking said: “This refers to one who rears an orphan boy and girl in his home and marries them off.” Quoted by Moses Przemysl, of. cit., a jetael Abrahams treats the human side of our subject fully in his volume Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Ch. 17 and 18. “XK. Kohler, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Visiting the Sick.” * Op. cit., p. 3209f. “ Tbid.; Kohler, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Consolation” and J. D. Eisenstein, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Mourning.” 98 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY to heart the precept of R. Jose ben Jochanan of Jerusalem (2nd cent. B.c.), “Let thy house be open wide,” the generous and hospitable R. Huna threw open the doors of his home whenever he sat down to break bread, exclaiming, “‘Whoever wants, let him come and eat,’ 2° and numberless others acted in the same spirit throughout the era we are studying. Not without a touch of superstition, the presidents of the congregations (Parnasim) in Spain very commonly used the boards of the tables at which they had entertained poor people in their homes for their coffins.2! In fact, the entertainment of © strangers at private homes, especially at the Sab- bath meals (Haknasat Orchim), became well-nigh universal and continued to the present generation. People bestirred themselves to procure husbands for poor maidens and arranged for the details of the wedding and the equipment of the household. Spe- cial considerateness was exercised in extending loans to those in temporary distress, these being offered in the guise of business investments whenever neces- sary to save the pride of the person relieved, and all reminders, even unintentional ones, being scrupu- lously avoided. In the course of time societies and institutions arose to supplement or extend these various kinds of personal ministrations, but they never displaced *® Taanit 2ob. *On the authority of R. Bachya b. Asher (13th Cent. ?) as cited by Elijah Hakohen of Smyrna, of. cit. 308. CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 99 them. “While institutionalized charity is of Jewish origin,’ says Dr. Kohler in his excellent essay, The Historical Development of Jewish Charity,?* “‘per- sonal service, personal care for, and personal interest in, the poor, ever remained the ‘Leitmotif’ of Jewish charity, which was always a beautiful combination of tender compassion and wise provision and help- fulness.” ” Hebrew Union College and Other Addresses, p. 248. CHAPTER VII GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF AND ITS ADMINISTRATION Ir will be recalled that organized communal re- lief originated in connection with the early syna- gogues. In addition to the data already brought forth, attention is called to an instance recorded by Josephus,! of public administration of relief during emergencies in the first half of the first century A.D. At a time of national famine in Judea, Queen Helena of Adiabene, a convert to Judaism, sent a cargo of corn and dried figs from Alexandria and Cyprus to Jerusalem for free distribution among the sufferers. The measures then adopted included, among other things, the appointment of distinguished citizens to supervise the work.? Kohler ® considers this ‘‘the first historical evidence of the existence of a body of men at the head of the community having relief work in charge’ corresponding to the Gabbae Zedakah, the regular charity overseers. By the time of the composition of the Mishnah, * Antiquities XX, 2, Sec. 5. *Lehmann holds that stations or depots on the grounds of the ancient Temple for the reception and distribution of tithes existed at a time antedating Nehemiah, 7.¢., before 432 B.c. Op. cit., p. 22. * Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Charity and Charitable Institutions.” 100 GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF IOI as we have seen, the existence of a well organized system of relief is an established fact of old stand- ing, accepted as a matter of course. We proceed to describe how it was constituted and how it functioned then and in the later centuries of the period we are now treating. There were two public charity funds known as the Tamchui and the Kuppah, rules for the collec- tion and distribution of which are laid down by the Mishnah and elaborated with painstaking care by later authorities. The nature of these funds will be explained later. They became the standard com- munal relief funds during the Talmudic period and served as prototypes of all later communal relief treasuries. The supreme value attached to organ- ized relief, during the early centuries, is truly re- markable. Every community is enjoined to estab- lish and maintain at least one of these funds. There is every reason to believe that this enlightened re- quirement was universally fulfilled. We have the statement of Maimonides to this effect, as far as his own era was concerned. ‘‘We have never seen and never heard of a community in Israel which has not a Kuppah.” * Joseph Caro makes the very same observation for his time, adding that there are some places which do not have the Tamchui as a regular institution.® When in the course of the growth of a community the public funds reached *Mat. An. 9:3. “sLUurlaso? t: 102 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY an advanced stage of differentiation or, what amounts to the same thing, when separate collections had to be made for different purposes, the obligation to contribute was extended to apply to all of these, the duties of new settlers in this respect being closely defined on the basis of length of residence. In Maimonides’ time there were four funds in some communities: the Kuppah and Tamchui, both food funds; a clothing fund (mosS aps) and a burial fund (maps apty). Residence of thirty days in a community obligated one to contribute to the Kuppah; of ninety days to the Tamchui; of six months to the clothing fund and of nine months to the burial fund.® Simple or complex, according to the size and needs of the community, there were public funds in every Jewish settlement of any considerable size to which the unfortunate could turn for succor in the hour of need. As time advanced, the sense of communal responsibility in this direction deepened, resulting in the establishment of comprehensive safeguards for the custodianship of the poor funds and in the elab- oration of a code of conduct that insured generous and delicate treatment to all those whom misfortune cast on the public bounty. The general miscellaneous charity fund seems to have answered all the ordinary calls on the commu- nity in the early centuries of our period. This fund, °*Mat. An. 9:12, based on Baba Batra 8a; Tur 256. GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 103 known as the Kuppah (nap) (chest or coffer) ,? had its beginnings probably in pre-Christian days and was already a well entrenched institution in the second century of the common era. It continued an uninterrupted career until modern days. It drew its main source of income from periodical collections made among the members of the community accord- ing to their reputed means. Each individual was permitted to determine the amount contributed, pro- vided it did not fall below the standard minimum which was one-tenth of his income, the administra- tors of charity being required by rabbinical law and urged by rabbinical ideals to let each person fix the size of his own gift, and being specially admonished against direct solicitation among the overgenerous, particularly those known to stint themselves for the sake of making extra large contributions.’ Over- seers were, however, armed with power to enforce the minimum of decency, in case such action was found to be necessary. But the aim was to make the contributions a matter of voluntary action and to use compulsion only as a last resort. It was an *“Kuppah” was the name of the community exchequer generally; the charity fund was distinguished from the general fund by the designation ‘“Kuppah shel zedakah,” but is often referred to also as simply “Kuppah.” ‘The meaning may be told from the context. In the 18th century and perhaps earlier, the terms “Zedakah” and “Kuppat Zedakah” are sometimes used freely in the constitutions and by-laws of congregations to include all funds for synagogue purposes. ® Tur 248: “I will visit all who oppress him,” was interpreted by the rabbis to refer to those collectors who used rough methods with people naturally generous. 104 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY admirable combination of the best elements of free will offering and assessment, with emphasis on the former.® Left to their own honor, the greater num- ber gave much more and with better grace than if they had been taxed specific quotas.1° What is more, individuals were stimulated to make extra donations to the Kuppah when the spirit moved them. The periodical collections, supplemented by occasional free will offerings, remained the chief and very likely the sole, source of income in most communi- ties for a long time, but additional sources grad- ually sprang up. One fertile field of income was furnished by the practice of offering donations for the communal charity box, side by side with dona- tions to the congregation and religious school, in connection with the reading of the Law in the syna- gogue, to participate in which it was deemed an honor to be “called up.” The Law being read pub- licly three times a week—Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays—besides holydays, there was thus a steady inflow of donations *! accruing to the com- munal treasury of which the charity fund was a °“They (the collectors) take from each one whatever he sees fit to give and the amount levied on him.” Mat. An. 9:1. * The generosity of R. Eleazar of Birta ran to such extremes that the charity overseers felt constrained to avoid him for his own good. Taanit 24a. “These donations were voluntary, but the pressure of public opinion tended to render them in effect compulsory, and they were actually made so in very late times in certain communities, as in Amsterdam. Cf. Statutes of the German Congregation of Amster- dam, 1737, para. 61. GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 105 major beneficiary. Now and then donations of a princely character were made. An instance of such benevolence is the action of R. Paltiel of Kahira (Cairo) Egypt, in donating, when he was “called up to the Law,” on the Day of Atonement, 5000 gold dinars (drachmae) for various purposes, of which 2000 were to be devoted for poor relief.?” When Paltiel died, his son Samuel donated 20,000 drachmae for similar uses. The portions of these and similar donations destined for local uses were no doubt administered by the regular Overseers of the Poor. The charity fund also drew a portion of its in- come from donations made on occasions of personal or domestic joy or sorrow, such as weddings, cir- cumcisions and memorials.!2 In some communities, these voluntary gifts were later made mandatory.*4 Still another flow of revenue for the poor chest emanated from various forms of fines imposed for the violation of communal regulations (Takkanot mpn) which were often diverted from general pur- poses to those of public relief.15 And there were, of course, extra collections for exceptional purposes —in effect, emergency levies, whenever the need arose. “ rooo for the poor of Jerusalem and 1000 for general purposes of charity to be distributed by various congregations. Neubauer, Medieval Jewish Chronicles Il, p. 128. * See Israel Abrahams, of. cit., p. 317. “Statutes of the German Congregation of Amsterdam (1737), Sec. 62 and 8o. * Menachem Recanati, Piske Halakot, Sec. 54. 106 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY A companion fund to the Kuppah, with a history less unbroken and a vogue less universal, was the Tamchui (plate or basket ‘nnin). This fund con- sisted originally of contributions in kind, though donations in money were not infrequent. In time the cash contributions equaled the donations in arti- cles 1° and, in populous and well-circumstanced com- munities, very likely displaced the latter altogether. From the original ready-to-use character of the Tamchui, its purpose may easily be inferred. It was a collection designed to relieve urgent calls that brooked no delay. Such calls came chiefly from transients and only secondarily from special un- looked-for needs that arose among the permanent settlers of the town or its environs. The distinction between the Kuppah and Tamchui may accordingly be summarized as follows: The Kuppah was the permanent and basic fund of the community which supplied the revenue for the support of the regular pensioners of the city or locality, while the Tamchui was the secondary and casual fund—the ‘‘call”’ fund —supplying special and immediate needs, mainly those of non-residents.17 Collections for the Kup- pah, functioning as it did for a fairly constant num- ber of protégés, were accordingly made once a week * This was already the case when the Shulchan Aruk was written. Cf. 261:1. ‘Baba Batra 8b ym ways mErp ohiyn woyd ynon; Tur 256; Jerush. Peah 8:6. GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 107 or less often,® and distributed once a week, usually on the eve of the Sabbath, while the collections for the Tamchui were made every day and distributed every. day.” After the Talmudic period the Tamchui appears to have been merged with the Kuppah in some com- munities, the strict separation of the two funds hay- ing always been blurred by the permissibility of transference from one to the other.2° In Maimon- ides’ time, the Kuppah is already the only required public fund, while Caro specifically mentions the fact that in his days the Tamchui does not exist in many places. Israel Abrahams’ explanation of the decline and disappearance of the daily collection and distri- bution appears to be reasonable, namely, because of the rise of other agencies and methods that met more effectively the now greatly multiplied needs hitherto looked after by the T'amchui—the institution of communal inns or of lodging privileges at private inns at public expense, the formation of benevolent societies to care for and entertain resident and non- resident poor, and the reception of poor travelers in the homes of the well-to-do—these new and en- larged provisions being made necessary because of the vast increase of strangers and mendicants con- * The regulations of the German community of Amsterdam pro- vide for an annual tax assessed right before Passover and, if necessary, an extra tax later on. Statutes, Secs. 18 and 19. * Baba Batra 8b; Mat. An. 9:1; Tur 256; Shulchan Aruk 256:1; Jerush. Peah 8: 6. *® Baba Batra 8b; Tur 256; Shul. Ar. 256:14. 108 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY sequent upon the attacks and expulsions following in the wake of the Crusades.*! Shelter as well as food had now to be provided on a systematic basis, so old procedure had to make way for new methods assuring economy of effort and adequacy of provi- sion. The Tamchui thus dropped into disuse more and more and at last disappeared. In the congre- gational constitutions and by-laws of the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, it is no longer mentioned. The administration of the public funds formed an integral part of the general administration of the affairs of the community and was as a rule inti- mately connected with the management of the con- gregation 7? around which latter all communal affairs revolved. The directors or supervisors of the charity endeavors—the Overseers of the Poor, Gabbaim (n’xay literally, collectors or treasurers)—were al- most invariably also members of the Boards of the synagogue, to whom they were responsible and with the President of which, the Parnas (pmp Sustainer), they co-operated. This arrangement persisted until the need for separate associations to provide for special types of wards developed, which happened wherever the community population grew large and the problems confronting it became complex. For special reasons which will be described later, this differentiation did not take place among the Jews, with rare exceptions, until the 15th century, some * Ob. Ci, De SK ™Schiirer: Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes II, p. 441. GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 109g time after the corresponding development took place among their Christian neighbors. With the approach to modern conditions, the charity admin- istration is gradually detached from the congrega- tion and finally becomes altogether dissociated from ecclesiastical control. The calibre of the charity Overseers, whose num- ber in Talmudic times varied from time to time, with three as the standard—two of them acting as gath- erers of the fund and all three as apportioners and distributors ?3—-was of the very highest. The work of relief was regarded as of paramount importance and was never delegated to second-rate officials, nor were the Overseers of a type that required remu- neration. The Jewish population in any given city being limited and concentrated in certain streets or in a certain locality, the duties falling to the officers could be adequately discharged without paid help, while at the same time, the highest intelligence and greatest authority could be brought to bear both on the assembling and the disposition of the income. There is no evidence to show that the needy ever suffered from any neglect at the hands of the Over- seers, but on the contrary, we have abundant testi- mony to prove that the most scrupulous care was exercised in handling every case with tender and painstaking consideration. The Overseers, like the *This was the standardized number for the Kuppah; in the case of the Tamchui, three collected and three distributed. Bab. Bat. 8b, followed by all the codes, 110 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY Presidents of congregations, were chosen by elec- tion *4 or by general consensus of opinion (later on by prescribed methods of election) from amongst the most representative men of the community, men who usually combined wealth with learning and achievement, and a strict sense of justice.2> Until the time when written constitutions for communities became general—17th century—the administrators served for indefinite periods, that is to say, as long as there was mutual satisfaction between the com- munity and themselves; but they could be deposed for malfeasance in office.2° From the 15th century on, perhaps even from the 14th, in the highly organ- ized communities governed by carefully planned reg- ulations, the term for which the Overseers of charity were elected was limited to a year or two. No check was kept on the integrity or motives of the Overseers, and unless they proved themselves unworthy, they were left entirely to their own honor. But they were expected to keep themselves above suspicion,” going in twos when receiving moneys, sitting as a committee of three when making distri- butions, and otherwise avoiding all semblance of favoritism, particularly towards poor relatives. ** At a great synod, attended by 150 French and German rabbis towards the end of the 12th century, a regulation was passed re- quiring that presidents and provosts be elected in an open manner by the majority of the members of the congregation. Graetz: History of the Jews, Ill, p. 377 (Eng. Ed.). * Tur 256. * Shul. Ar. 257:6. * Baba Batra 8b, GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF III While it was not the custom to require audit of the Overseers °° until the eighteenth century, they were expected as early as the 14th century to present a financial statement voluntarily.2® The Administra- tors were expected to, and did, restore from their own pockets inadvertently lost moneys belonging to the charity fund.®° The beneficent activities of the Overseers were undefined in scope, but they embraced all manner of relief, from supplying the elementary necessities of food and clothing and shelter to the rearing of orphans, and the providing of marriage portions for poor brides.*! They included personal visitation of the sick, and the furnishing of free medical treat- ment as well as the rendering of comforts to the dying and the bereaved and the presentation of a burial plot and burial expenses free. They further embraced the education of poor children with spe- cial thought to training them for a useful occupa- tion. Inthe way of preventive measures, loans were extended and people were set up in business. The records show a rich and steady flow of private relief *Shul. Ar. 257:2. *” Tur 257. Israel Abrahams does not trace the habit of render- ing a voluntary financial statement back far enough—he names the 16th cent. Op. cit. p. 315. * Cf. Abodah Zarah 17b. R. Chanina b. Teradyon erroneously diverted money belonging to the general charity fund into the Purim fund and made it good from his own pocket. Cf. also Menachem Recanati, Piske Halakot, Sec. 60, 61, 69. * Cf. Taanit 24a, where the experience of the charity overseers in making a collection for the marriage portion of an orphan boy and an orphan girl is recounted. 112 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY in these same directions, particularly in the matter of tender solicitude for orphans and widows and in the field of prevention, but, above all, in alleviating the suffering and sorrow incident to sickness and bereavement. But the Overseers were there to ex- tend the organized aid of the community, amplify- ing personal ministrations and assuring intelligent continuity. Such was the high character of the Overseers and so did the committee method ** of transacting its work of collecting and distribution make for fair- ness and respect, that it was not felt necessary to set bounds to the amounts they might allot any given cases until towards the end of our period,*®* nor otherwise to put limitations upon their discretion. But there were well-established principles relating to the standards of donation and apportionment as well as to degrees of urgency, which had the effect of giving the right direction to the efforts of the Overseers, and what is more, Jewish law required the complete stoppage of charity through the Over- seers whenever these proved unworthy, and the sub- stitution of direct giving in its place until such time as the administration became acceptable to the community.*4 ** No levy on the community could be made by less than 2 per- sons, but if the collection had already been made, it was allowed to stand. Tur 256. * That is, until the era of written constitutions. *“One should not give to the public charity fund unless he knows that the one in charge of it is trustworthy, wise and understands GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 113 The great satisfactions, religious and ethical, which the Overseers derived from their tasks were somewhat tempered by the occasional mutterings and ingratitude of certain carping and captious ben- eficiaries. Generally speaking, the needy were to be taken at their word on the subject of their own wants, and their allotment fixed accordingly, as we shall see; and there seems to be no doubt of the contented and grateful reaction of the vast majority of those who received help. Nevertheless, there were not wanting unreasonable dependents, who, taking advantage of the inalienable right to assist- ance assured by Jewish law and practice to all, made matters hard for the distributors of the public bounty. But the Overseers schooled themselves to patience and serenity, under these provocations, making allowance for the faults of their protégés in consideration of the hard lot of the latter and never losing sight of the essential merit of their efforts in relieving misery. Indeed, they came to look upon the serene endurance of such criticism as an added merit. As an illustration of their disre- gard of criticism, as long as they were doing their work according to their best lights, we may cite the case of R. Liezer, chronicled in the Jerusalem Tal- how to administer it in a straightforward way.” ‘Tur 249. Also: “But if the Administrators are not wise and fit men, they are set aside and may not collect charity at all; and if it is impossible to set them aside, one is prohibited from giving charity through them, for thus said the Sages, ‘One should not give a farthing to the public fund unless a man of wisdom has charge of it.’” Tur 256. 114 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY mud. Upon returning home one day, this high- minded man, then acting in the dual capacity of President of the community and charity Overseer, asked what had happened during his absence. He was told that a group of people had been there, had feasted, and prayed for him. He said, “This will not procure me a good reward.” Some time later, again after an absence, he made a similar inquiry. He was informed that another company of poor had visited the house, eating and drinking and ending by abusing him. Whereupon he said, “In this case I will have a good reward.” Similarly, R. Akiba, advised by his family not to accept the position of Parnas (president-administrator) to save himself from abuse, declared he would accept for the very reason that it would expose him to abuse.®® Sum- ming up the spirit pervading the theory and prac- tice of the authorities that preceded him, Joseph Caro formulates this dictum: “Charity administra- tors should not mind being insulted by the poor; for their merit will be so much the greater.” °° The question may here be pertinently raised whether the universal recognition of the right of the poor to assistance of which the poor themselves were fully aware did not make for a certain amount of unreasonable captiousness and of inappreciation on the part of the latter. Very likely it did, although we know that even where such right is not conceded, ** Jerush. Peah 8:6. * Shul. Ar. 257:7. GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF I15 ingratitude often exists. But if a choice has to be made between announcing a great principle of jus- tice subject to a modicum of collateral abuse in its operation, on the one hand, and the adoption of an indefensible principle for social amelioration with a reduction of incidental abuses, on the other, can there be any question as to which should be pre- ferred? Broadly considered, the Jewish idea and its actual pragmatic results in this direction were the fundamentally correct ones. Better the eternal bed- rocks of equality and self-respect for all, with pau- perization for a few, than inequality and humilia- tion for whole classes and a smaller percentage of incidental abuses. At all events, such, we think, would be the choice of a modern sociologist. Once having set up as the administrators of the public relief fund men who measured up to the high qualifications of that ofice—‘‘trustworthy, wise, and full of understanding, who would give detailed at- tention to the case of each poor person according to his needs’ **—the procedure for the relief of dependents took the following general lines. The Commissioners of Charity met and on the basis of their knowledge of the situation, estimated roughly the total needed. The residents of the community were then assessed according to their reputed means, orphans *8 being exempted as a class, while women "Tur 256. * Orphans were, however, permitted to donate something for the sake of enjoying a good name. Bab. Bat. 8a; Tur 248; Shulchan Aruk 248:3. 116 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY and servants were given the option of contributing a small sum or nothing.®® Two of the Commission- ers—no less—then made the rounds of the com- munity once a week or at less frequent periods and collected the sums designated and such voluntary additions as people chose to make. Where the Tam- chui or Daily Distribution existed, a collection was made every day. ‘There were no amounts speci- fied for this fund—a cash and kind fund, presum- ably for outside poor—and so still greater counsel was needed for handling it; hence both its col- lection and its distribution had to be super- vised by no less than three.*®? Where there was no Tamchui, the Kuppah was called upon for urgent cases of want. If the regular collec- tions did not suffice, special emergency collections were made. The individual needs of those requiring aid were then taken up for consideration. The redemption of captives, a sad but common necessity in those troub- lous days when piracy and banditry were frequent occurrences and the Jews were the favorite play- things of abductors, respectable as well as disreputa- ble, had by law and custom the first claim on the public relief fund. Women had priority over men and, with the characteristic love and reverence for learning which was ingrained in the nature of the Jew, the relief of scholars preceded the relief of the "Tur 248. “ Bab. Bat. 8b; Mat. An. 9:2; Tur 256; Shulchan Aruk 256:13. GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 117 untutored.*! The stilling of hunger came before the satisfaction of any other want, next in order being the relief of those needing clothes. Then came the relief of extra-physical wants—the supplying of the wherewithal for poor brides and grooms to get mar- ried and establish a household, the furnishing of necessary equipment and capital for business pur- poses, and so forth. Gentiles were helped from the public benevolent fund with a view to friendly rela- tions.42, The rule was “‘to give to everyone who stretched out his hand,” 7.e., everyone in need.** In the case of personal relief, people were admon- ished to seek out those in want, lest suffering result in consequence of pride. The more preoccupied pub: lic dispensers of aid could not often permit them- selves this ideal method of detecting poverty, al- though all possible devices for sparing the poor embarrassment were employed, such, for instance, as the drawing of billets for meal tickets by the Admin- istrator and not by the poor themselves, ordained for the community of Treviso, Italy, in the 15th cen- tury, by Rabbi Juda Minz, in order to spare the feelings of the transient poor, notwithstanding the knowledge that this procedure encouraged begging.** “Horayot 13a. jm25 op oon Wwdn 7M); Shul. Ar. 251:9. “Tur 251; Shul. Ar. 251; both based on Gittin 61a. For a fuller discussion of aid to non-Jews, see chapter “Miscellaneous Topics,” under the heading, “Jewish Aid to Non-Jews,” p. 107. 95 pom Siord ye oenpn 52 Tur 2sr. “Responsa of Rabbi Juda Minz, Sec. 7, cited also by I. Abrahams, of. cit., p. 308. 118 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY As a rule, the wants of the poor had to be made known to the Overseers. In the case of an application for food, investiga- tion was dispensed with, in fact, forbidden, but in the case of a request for clothing or anything else that called for less urgency, an investigation had to be made, except in the event that the applicant was known to the Overseers to be worthy and honor- able, when a request for clothing was also granted without investigation.*® It appears, however, that the purpose of the investigation in any case was to establish the reliability of the applicant rather than the precise nature and amount of his needs. There happens to be little information recorded in the mat- ter of ‘follow-up’ work, but the fact that most of the resident poor received regular subsidies coupled with the ever-urged principle to make the dependent self-supporting, points to the use of enlightened and wide-awake measures of treatment, with rehabilita- tion as the constant goal in view. With respect to the nature and quantity of relief extended, or the quotas apportioned the various de- pendents, which subject constitutes a major theme in all the literature on Jewish charity, it is to be noted that the Biblical injunction to give to each person in want precisely what he needs (wx ony 4 % rom Deut. 15:8) was accepted and adopted as the general standard of action. Jacob ben Asher, * Baba Batra ga; Tur 251; Shul. Ar. 251:10; Matteh Mosheh, Ch. 4, GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 119 drawing his inspiration from older sources, frames the rule of action thus: “If he is hungry and needs food, he must be fed; if naked and in need of ap- parel, he must be clothed; if he lacks household utensils, these must be secured for him; and even if he has been used to ride a horse and to have a ser- vant wait upon him when he was well-to-do (having become impoverished), a horse and servant must be provided for him; and so on with every one, accord- ing to his needs.*® ‘This is a surprisingly high stand- ard of relief, measuring up to, if not exceeding, the most generous standards prevailing among advanced social workers today. It must remain an open ques- tion whether this standard was always or even gen- erally lived up to, or merely remained an ideal to be striven after. It is fairly certain, however, that this standard was well-nigh approximated through the combined efforts of public and private relief, the former, as a rule, encouraging the play of personal generosity but standing good for any deficiencies up to the point of adequacy as determined by the de- pendent’s habitual standards of living. The charity officials made it their business to co-ordinate the efforts of privates, as far as they could ascertain them, with the measures adopted by themselves as heads of the organized endeavors of the locality or city, in the treatment of every case, with a view to avoiding duplication and at the same time bring- ing about adequacy of relief in accordance with the “Tur 250. 120 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY principles enunciated above, 7.e., approximately to restore the family or individual in trouble to its accustomed social status. The bitterness of eating the bread of charity even under the most favorable circumstances among a people naturally given to industry and devoted to ideals of self-dependence was thought to be sufh- cient spur to drive the recipients of charity to ener- getic efforts to earn their own living, and no fears were entertained lest the satisfaction of their wants beyond the supply of dire necessities would lead them to be contented with remaining beneficiaries of the bounty of others all their lives. If this natural prod was not strong enough by itself to keep the poor self- reliant, the external pressure brought to bear on them to make themselves self-supporting served as a powerful auxiliary. At all events, the welfare of the poor was the uppermost concern; other consid- erations had to take their chance. The Overseers accordingly guided themselves in making their allot- ments from the community treasury by what was being done for the given family or individual by privates. They first waited to see what private gen- erosity would do. If enough to satisfy the minimum required by the case in question was forthcoming, i.e.. enough to answer the dependent’s needs accord- ing to his old standard of living, they took no fur- ther steps in the premises; but if not, they made an appropriation sufficient to meet his actual needs and, if the state of the treasury permitted, amplified this GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 121 appropriation with enough to bring him up to the level of his former social status (‘‘according to his dignity” ynas5). While the amounts allotted from the public treas- ury were thus flexible, varying with the particular need and the available resources, there are never- theless well-defined minimal quotas for certain spe- cific situations which are of interest to the student. The original norm laid down in the Mishnah,*? and cited approvingly by Maimonides,*® permitted any- one to accept charity for living expenses from pri- vates as long as his unentailed capital (exclusive of his house, z.e., his shelter and inexpensive eating uten- sils and bedding) consisted of less than 200 Zuz *° (about 50 shekels, or $25) which were non-produc- tive, or of 50 Zuz that were productive, i.e., bring- ing in profit. Jacob ben Asher,®*°® writing in the 14th century, while citing this measure as a desirable one, already calls attention to the newer public opinion which looked with favor upon more liberal minimal quotas in view of the increased expenditures—*'the high cost of living,’ as we would say—and which encouraged a man to take charity until he had enough capital to support himself from the profit. He there- “Peah 8:8-9. * Mat. An. 9:13. “ Isaac Luria explains fancifully why 200 was set as the standard —because the Hebrew word for charity (Mp3¥) is equal nu- merically to 199. Quoted in Meil Zedakah, Sec. 83. Of course, it is to be borne in mind that this sum had much greater com- parative value—perhaps five or ten times as much—in those days. * Tar 263: r22 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY fore concludes by laying down the rule that the def- inition of sufficiency all depends on the place and the time, i.e., on the standards of living prevailing and the special circumstances existing. Joseph Caro, in the 16th century, takes the same position as Jacob ben Asher—more explicitly, in fact—saying ‘“There are some who hold that these standards refer only to those (Talmudic) days, but that in these times, a man may take charity until he has enough capital to support himself and his household from the profit; and this appears reasonable.” °! Be it noted that although these standards apply in the first instance only to private charity, they also hold good in the field of public charity whenever private help is not to be had. While preceding authorities do not make this point clear, the Shulchan Aruk explicitly so directs. It is the duty of the community in its organ- ized capacity to provide for the poor to the point of sufficiency if and when relief from privates falls short. ‘he individual must call the attention of the constituted authorities to the poor person’s case and contribute his share. If there are no other Jewish *Shul. Ar. 253:2. Cf. also the following opinion quoted by Menachem Recanati, Piske Halakot, Sec. 59: “Rabbenu Jehudah ben Rabbenu Kallonymos, father of Rabbi Eliezer of Worms, asked Rabbenu Ephraim, ‘If one has 200 Zuz, has he a right to take charity or no? Does it resemble the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves and the corners of the field (in which case one that has 200 Zuz cannot take any)?’ He replied, ‘It all depends on his income and the income of his family and his habit of living. But if he is a single man he should not take any, since one that has food for two meals is not allowed to take from the Tamchui.’ ” (This refers only to charity from public funds.) GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 123 inhabitants, the entire obligation rests on the indi- vidual, if his means allow; if not, to the extent that his mean allow.®? Special wants—household utensils, burial ex- penses, and so forth—are likewise provided for, the initiative falling on private charity and the final guarantee resting on public bounty. No definite standards are set forth but generous assistance to meet the needs in question are ordained. There are, however, two needs for which allotments are spe- cifically fixed and which deserve special mention be- cause they reveal the high value set by Jewish people in all ages on married life as the indispensable me- dium of happiness and service. It is provided that all brides in straitened circumstances are entitled to a bounty of 50 Zuz from the public relief fund and, when the state of the treasury permits, to as much more as is becoming to their social station.6? We shall see how zealously this injunction was carried out from the fact that special societies for providing poor brides with money for a trousseau and a “‘nest- ego’’ were instituted and became common in the lat- ter part of our period. The other allotment stip- ulated is that for a male orphan who wishes to get married. It is ordained in the Talmud, on the basis of the Biblical passage (‘“‘to give one the measure of his need’ —Deut. 15:8) that the administrators of the public funds present him with a homestead, ® Shulchan Aruk 250:1. Tur 250; Shul. Ar. 250:2; Matteh Mosheh, Ch. 5. 124 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY bedding and utensils, and secure a wife for him.*4 The duty to give orphans a fair start in the struggle for existence led later on to the formation of special societies for this purpose. Orphan girls were pro- vided for like other poor brides and enjoyed other marks of consideration besides.®® Ket. 67a; Mat. An. 7:4; Matteh Mosheh, Ch. 5. Mat. An. 8:16. They were to receive 60 dinarii and if the state of the public treasury permitted, more, “according to their social station.” CHAPTER VIII SELF-SUPPORT AND PAUPERIZATION Tue laudation of work and industry by the Jew- ish religion in all stages of its long history ruled out the choice of voluntarily assumed poverty as an ideal. “Sweet is the sleep of the laboring man,”’ wrote Ecclesiastes (5:12). Sentiments of this kind abound in the book of Proverbs and in other parts of the Bible. Rabban Gamliel, the son of Rabbi Judah, taught, “All study of the Torah that is not accompanied by work must in the end be futile and become the cause of sin.” 1 [he Talmud repeats this admonition in different words again and again and lays it down as a duty for a father to teach his son some occupation. Poverty is classed as a mis- fortune, not a desirable, let alone an ideal status. More than that, the generous individual is warned against indulging in such self-sacrifice for the sake of charity as to impoverish himself and come to want. “If a poor man comes,” says Maimonides, “and asks for help ‘sufficient for his need’ (Deut. 15:7), and the giver cannot afford to give him all he asks, he should give whatever he can afford. And how *Mishnah Abot 2:2. 125 126 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY much is that? Up to a fifth of his possessions— that is the desirable interpretation of the command; or a tenth, which represents the medial standard. Less than that betokens an evil eye (a mean SDIrit} ve Accordingly, there never arose among Jews any class of persons who, like St. Francis of Assisi and his followers in the Christian Church, adopted a regimen of voluntary penury as a religious ideal and actual mode of existence. Judaism’s strong dis- approval of self-chosen destitution kept the number of dependents down to small proportions. Aside from bona fide dependents, only the indolent and the impostors sought assistance. Of the latter two classes there were always con- siderable numbers. They took advantage of the accepted principle of the claim of the poor to relief as a right, not a favor, proclaimed in the Bible and in the post-Biblical authorities. Begging from house to house and from city to city was not uncommon and there sprang up a class of professional beggars, unlike the mendicants in the Christian world, who pressed the generous for gifts as a matter of justice due to them. They did not regard themselves as paupers nor act as such, but as self-respecting people *Mat. An. 7:5. Cf. also Shul. Ar. 249:1, where Caro adds: “Now this fifth referred to here means the fifth of his capital during the first year; thereafter a fifth of his annual profits.” These rulings were based on the Talmud. They were promul- gated at the Synod of Usha, in Galilee, c. 140 Aw. Ket. 50a and 67b. In a legacy, one can give away as much as he wants, accord- ing to Moses Isserles, Note to Shul. Ar., loc. cit. SELF-SUPPORT AND PAUPERIZATION 127 entitled to the bounty of their benefactors. In later years they became known as ‘“‘Schnorrers.”’ They survived until recent times. Israel Zangwill de- scribes their habits, with the curious phases of com- ical impertinence that characterized their demands, in his charming book, The King of Schnorrers.® While begging did not constitute any grave prob- lem among the Jews and did not ever assume the serious proportions it reached in Christian commu- nities, such, for instance, as it attained in England; 4 while at times it impressed outsiders as virtually non- existent,® it was nevertheless a standing occurrence. The problem was handled by enlightened regulation. The beggars were always treated in a kindly manner. They were never publicly degraded as was, for in- stance, done in England by the Poor Law which at one period required the letter “P’’ to be branded on their bodies.* ‘They were always allowed some- thing save when exceptional local economic dis- tress prevailed.? hey were always accorded at least *For a fuller characterization, see Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Schnorrer.” *cCf. Sir George Nicholls: 4 History of the English Poor Law. 3 vols., London, 1898-99, and P. J. Aschrott: English Poor Law System, London, 1888. *Julian the Apostate declared the Jews had no beggars. Cf. Kohler, “Zum Kapitel,” etc., in Berliner’s Festschrift, Berlin, 1903, Pp. 202. * Cf. Nicholls, op. cit. See below, Chap. 12, Note 4. *In Posen, in 1672, because of hard times in the community non- resident poor were prohibited from begging and denied free trans- portation. A. Heppner and J. Herzberg: Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Juden und der jiid. Gemeinden in den Posener Landen (Koschmin-Bromberg, 1909), p. 79. 128 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY food for the day and lodging, but only small money gifts were recommended to private donors.’ In most communities certificates had to be obtained by transients to permit them to ask for assistance. Three instances of widely separated communities may be cited. The statutes of the Avignon commu- nity in 1558 fixed one sou and two meals as the allowance for non-resident poor not bearing cer- tificates, and three sous or more, up to six, for those bearing certificates.2 The Council of Four Lands (Poland-Lithuania), at a Synod in 1623, adopted the following regulations: In order to guard against imposition, itinerant beggars must not be provided with more traveling fare than is required to get from one place to the next. They are not permitted to stay more than twenty-four hours in any one place. ‘hey must not be allowed to preach in public unless provided with a letter of authorization from the head of the district rabbinical court (Bet Din). The people of the environs of Brest-Litovsk (Brisk) must require a letter from the head of the Bet Din of Grodno, etc. A list of large cities is here given and their dependent towns and neighborhoods are specifically named, showing a carefully worked out zoning system for the regulation of itinerant beg- ging. No injustice should be done to those transient poor who are actually seeking out relatives to help * Maimonides, Mat. An. 7:7. °R. deMaulde: “Les Juifs dans les Etats francais du Pape au Moyen Age,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 9, 1884, p. 120. SELF-SUPPORT AND PAUPERIZATION 129 them. But people are otherwise admonished not to allow themselves to yield to sentimental pity.1° And, finally, we have the testimony of Lancelot Addison (father of Joseph Addison), concerning the Jews of Barbary, based on personal observation and recorded in a book written in 1675. “They also have their Kibbuz or Letters of Collection, by which the Indi- gent has liberty to go from Synagogue to Syna- gogue, to receive the Benevolence of their country- men.’ ... These must be shown to the chief Mas- ter of the Synagogue. If he approves, he appoints a day, and a collection is usually made at the door of the Synagogue. ‘By these letters also the neces- sitous Father raiseth Portions for his Daughters.” 1 * Samuel P. Rabbinowitz, Extracts from Regulations of Council of Four Lands, Regulation No. 87. In Hebrew periodical Keneset Israel, Vol. II (1887), p. 30f. “The Present State of the Jews, London (1675), 3d. Ed., 1682, Ch. XXV, pp. 212-214. CHAPTER IX MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS WE shall discuss briefly in this chapter several unconnected topics which we found it inconvenient to treat elsewhere. The Tithe The tithe in Biblical times was a compulsory tax of one tenth of the produce of the soil and (in one case) also of the increase of cattle. There were two ecclesiastical tithes and one tithe for the poor (Maaser Ani). This latter came every third year. It is probable that a portion of the Second Tithe (Maaser Sheni), was also devoted to the poor. With the fall of the Temple the ecclesiastical tithes were automatically discontinued. The Chris- tian Church and state took over the institution of the Tithe. In England and elsewhere it became a source of abuse. The tithe for the poor appears to have lingered on in Palestine after the fall of the state. Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishnah (c.200 A.D.), in a typically hyperbolical oriental declaration, 130 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS 131 held that one who eats fruit of which the tithe for the poor has not been appropriated, is deserving of death. (Pesikta d Rab Kahana XI, 99 a, b; Jer. Kid. 2:9, Krotoshin edition.) The agricultural tithe for the poor led to the cus- tom of tithing earnings from other sources. Most authorities held this to be obligatory, but some con- sidered it optional.! According to Israel Abrahams, who has made the most thorough study of Jewish life in the Middle Ages,? the tithe, in practice, remained a voluntary undertaking and no congregation seems to have attempted to enforce its payment. Left to voluntary action, it must have been fairly common. As a personal and family institution, it was in vogue in Germany and Spain in the 14th century. Abra- hams cites several interesting instances of its observ- ance. Eleazar the Levite of Mayence (d. 1357), in his Ethical Will to his children charges them to “give in charity an exact tithe of their property.” The most striking case is the practice instituted in his family by the famous Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, father of Jacob ben Asher, author of the ‘Four Rows.”’ His example in voluntarily giving a tithe to the poor influenced his congregation in Germany to do likewise. Settling later in Toledo, he and his sons continued the practice. In 1346, they under- took to perpetuate the custom as a permanent fam- * Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Tithe.” * Op. cit., pp. 319-321. We borrow freely here from Israel Abrahams’ excellent description of the documents referred to in this section. 132 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY ily obligation. They entered into a formal agree- ment, as follows: “We, the undersigned, accept an ordinance which we have in the handwriting of our father R. Asher, and which he worded thus: Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and do not forget the law of thy mother. Seeing that in the land whence we are come hither to Spain, our fathers and our fathers’ fathers were wont to set aside for charitable purposes a tithe of all their business profits, in accordance with our sages’ prescription, we hereby undertake to follow in their footsteps, and have received upon our- selves the obligation to devote to the poor one-tenth of our profits earned in business, derived from the loan of capital or from commercial undertakings. ‘Three-fourths of this tithe we will hand over to a kuppah (or general fund), which shall be administered by two treasurers. “This duty we undertake for ourselves and our children.” It is expressly stated further on in this agreement that this tithe is to include property and income from every source. The signatures of the next genera- tion were later appended. The practice had become a tradition in the family.® Defectives Defectives, particularly the blind, were treated like other dependents, with consideration and sym- pathy. The deaf and the simple-minded are usually classed with minors as to legal status and general treatment. There was considerable understanding of *The Ethical Will of R. Jehudah ben Asher and his brother Jacob. Ed. by S. Schechter, Pressburg, 1885. MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS 133 the influence of heredity. The insane were looked upon as normal persons suffering from temporary aberrations. No special provisions were made for them.* Delinquents Criminals and immoral persons called forth little sympathy. As a rule they were treated sternly. There are signs of a softening attitude in the 18th century. A ruling as to which city was obligated to take care of an unmarried mother reveals an absence of harshness.° One authority allowed people to extend kindnesses to excommunicated persons. Jewish Aid to Non-Jews The Talmud laid down the following rule (Git- tin 61a) concerning the treatment of poor non- Jews: ‘Poor Gentiles should be supported along with poor Jews; the Gentile sick should be visited along with the Jewish sick; and their dead should be buried along with the Jewish dead, in order to fur- ther peaceful relations (mipne darke shalom.)” This rule is cited by the codes and became the stand- ard for all subsequent rabbinical legislation. The point has been frequently raised as to what *Joel Blau: “The Defective in Jewish Law and Literature,” in Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays, Bloch Pub. Co., New York, 1915. *Ishmael Ha-Kohen of Modena, Responsa (NOX yut nw) Part Il, Séc.+117. 134 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY precisely is meant by the Hebrew phrase ‘“mipne darke shalom” (which we have translated “‘in order to further peaceful relations’). It has been inter- preted by unfriendly critics to mean “with a view to avoiding the enmity of the non-Jewish popula- tion.” Even if the intended meaning of this precept, that is, even if the motive animating Jewish aid to non-Jews were based on considerations of expediency, the standard on the Jewish side would have been much higher than the reciprocal treatment of Jews at the hands of Gentiles warranted. Except possibly now and then during an epidemic,® the Christian world during the Middle Ages excluded Jews from their area of neighborly help and good will. Their sick were not admitted to Christian hospitals,* and their poor gave their non-Jewish neighbors no concern. But Jacob Z. Lauterbach, in his exhaustive study on “The Attitude of the Jew towards the Non- Jew,” ® effectually shatters this grosser interpreta- tion of the signification of the phrase in question and the purport of the Talmudic precept. He demon- °During an epidemic which invaded the ghetto in Rome in the year 1556, two Cardinals established a lazaret in the ghetto and stationed a Christian physician there, the Jewish physicians having been brought low by disease. This work of mercy is one of the very few pleasant inter-religious episodes of that era. A. Berliner: Geschichte der Juden in Rom, Frankfort a. Main, 1893, Vol. 2, Pp. 58-59. "See below, “Hospitals and Free Medical Care,” p. 155. *“In Year Book, Central Conference of Amer. Rabbis, XXXI (1921), pp. 201-204. MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS U5 strates conclusively that the phrase ‘‘mipne darke shalom,” as used in various places in the Talmud, “is a positive ideal and a definite tendency to pro- mote good will among men.” He cites examples of its use in connection with laws and regulations ex- clusively pertaining to relations between Jew and Jew, where it certainly cannot have the sinister meaning read into it by some. He cites many other services of kindness towards Gentiles enjoined by the Talmud on Jews, and quotes the broad appli- cation of these injunctions by Maimonides and others. If any evidence be needed to add to that which is offered by Prof. Lauterbach on this point, we may point first of all to the many general admonitions bespeaking love and good will to all men, such as the precept of the famous Rabbi Hillel (c. 30 B.c.), included in the popular collection of sayings ‘“‘The Ethics of the Fathers”: “Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving thy fellow creatures, and drawing them near to the law.” ® And among the precepts of later sages, the following charge—not open to any other interpre- tation—of Hayim Vital, a Jewish saint of the 16th century, embodies the high ground that Judaism at its best advised its votaries to take in relation to their non-Jewish neighbors: ‘Let man love all crea- tures, including Gentiles, and let him envy none.” Schechter, commenting on this passage, remarks *Mishnah Abot 1:12. 136 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY that he knows of no Christian saint of the same period who made the love of the Jew a condition of saintliness.1° But it is not necessary to rely on precepts alone. We have abundant evidence that the charity aid which Jews were enjoined to extend to non-Jews was given in even fuller measure than commanded. The leading Jewish physicians, including Maimonides, the Ibn Tibbons and Saul Astruc Cohen, treated the Gentile poor without charge and with the same so- licitude as the Jewish poor. Writing of conditions in Italy in the 16th and 17th centuries, Vogelstein and Rieger 14 record that it was considered specially noble and pious to aid non-Jewish poor in the local- ity of one’s residence place. In view of their expe- riences at the hands of the general population, the high ground taken by Jews in this direction is truly remarkable. * Samuel S. Cohon: “Love, Human and Divine, in Post-Biblical Literature.” Year Book, Central Conference of Amer. Rabbis, XXVII (1917), p. 291. “ Geschichte der Juden in Rom, 2 Vols. Berlin, 1896, Vol. 2, Pp. 315. CHAPTER X THE RISE OF SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS LoncG before the conditions were ripe for the establishment of specialized agencies to function for particular wants, the need for them was felt. The general relief funds did not always prove large enough nor sufficiently flexible to meet certain im- perative special needs, like those of orphans, of wayfarers, of indigent brides, of those suffering from sudden bereavement and the like; nor could the administration of the general funds always give the minute attention to these special groups of de- pendents which they deserved. The problem was met at first and for a long time by special collections for designated purposes. The codes go into elaborate details over the question of the segregation of such funds and the extent to which they may be used for purposes not originally des- ignated. A further step in the solution of this prob- lem was taken with the apportionment of the general charity fund towards specific uses and the delegation of the specialized work to a particular administrator or set of administrators. The interests of widows and orphans were thus in many places entrusted into 137 138 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY the hands of the court (Bet-Din) and special priv- ileges in buying and selling were often accorded them. Other classes of dependents received sepa- rate and distinct attention in like manner. For in- stance, in Lithuania in the early part of the 17th century, it was the duty of the three main courts to gather funds for dowries for poor girls and to supervise their distribution.? his arrangement rep- resents an intermediate step in the process of differ- entiation. The service is distinct and specialized, but the contributors are not. The next step in the evolution of social service in the direction of min- istrations to special classes is the founding of special societies and institutions to handle the particular needs of these classes. The societies and institutions have their own officers, and their membership is not identical with the membership of the community. At this juncture it is again necessary to make clear that the evolution in the problems and ma- chinery of Jewish charity did not follow a uniform order in the various localities nor did it take place simultaneously in the different communities. Some places given to unprogressive ideas contented them- selves with the one miscellaneous public fund for *Cf. Aaron Halevi of Barcelona: Sefer Ha-Chinnuk, Sec. 65. Based on Maimonides: Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Deot 6:10. * Brisk (Brest-Litovsk) was entitled to 12 dowries, Grodno, to 10, and Pinsk, to 8. Cf. Regulations (M\JPN) of the Council of the Four Lands for 1623 by Samuel Pinchas Rabinowitz in periodi- cal Keneset Israel (DN1¥W" NDID), Vol. II (1887), p. 33; also reproduced in Hebrew appendix to periodical Evreiskaya, Starina, Vol. I (1899), p. 55. SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 139 all purposes, ultimately making the transition to spe- cialized organizations rather precipitately, under the pressure of some new necessity, without passing through the intermediate stages described above. In certain centers, societies or institutions, to serve particular ends, originated at a date much earlier than that which witnessed the general rise and spread of such organizations, there being exceptional causes —advanced ease and culture and a large settled pop- ulation—that superinduced their comparatively early formation in these places. The processes of evolu- tion we are tracing in the history of Jewish philan- thropic thought and endeavor hold true to the same extent as the rules of development in the general fields of industry and religion and political life— to that extent and no more. A combination of needs and resources of a certain kind gave birth, as a rule, to new instruments to function for the task in hand, but this consummation was not necessarily contemporaneous nor precisely uniform everywhere. The conditions of Jewish political and social life differed so materially with time and locality that no definite law of development following a chronolog- ical order can be postulated. Nevertheless, the dif- ferentiation did follow roughly the same broad lines and it is entirely proper to make generalizations on the basis of resemblances. We now come to a consideration of the causes that were responsible for the rise of separate organi- zations to care for special wants, i.e., for cases other 140 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY than plain relief. The data at our disposal are not complete. We have to piece together the scattered fragments of evidence and to supply the deficiencies from our general knowledge of the situation. The shattering of the unified body of Jewry into a multitude of broken fragments, begun as a volun- tary matter by way of emigration soon after Alex- ander the Great’s days and precipitated on a vast scale under the pressure of ruthless compulsion after the overthrow of the Jewish state by Rome, and further intensified by the successive measures of unrelenting persecutions and restrictions extending over the entire long period of their political disa- bility, 7.e., up to the era of emancipation, profoundly affected the emergence, development and continuity of new instruments of social service. Eking out a precarious existence in most places, driven to a panicky state of mind by incessant assaults, cast out of their moorings by edicts and mobs before they had a fair chance to anchor themselves, as often as they thought they discovered a haven of refuge, the Jews found it wasted energy and foolish purpose to set up institutions, the original outlay for which called for a heavy investment and the maintenance of which required steady and uninterrupted support. The same circumstances that kept the Jewish com- munities forever disturbed and impoverished also kept them small in point of population. These set- tlements, with but few exceptions, were accordingly not confronted with the problems arising out of the SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 141 concentration of large numbers of dependents re- quiring particular treatment and did not labor under the necessity of setting up special institutions.? It is this interference with their normal life and growth that accounts for the comparatively tardy founding of specialized charity institutions among the Jews during the period we are surveying. In- deed, it is a tribute to their inexhaustible benevolence of spirit and their insuppressible optimism that they established any institutions at all before the 17th century, when the age-long cloud of oppression first began to lift in western and central Europe. Where they did organize such agencies before the 17th cen- tury, they almost always took advantage of a breath- ing-spell between persecutions, hoping that they would be let alone thereafter, a hope not always realized. Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish merchant-traveler of the 12th century, who wrote a narrative of his travels in Asia, Europe and Egypt, where he vis- ited the chief centers of Jewish population, does not mention seeing any Jewish charitable institutions at all, although he does note the existence of Christian hospices at Jerusalem and Moslem hospitals and an insane asylum at Bagdad. Hiuis journal is some- what fragmentary in its observations and the copy extant may even be an abridgment of the original * Charitable institutions seldom arise before population is con- centrated. The first hospital in the United States—the Pennsyl- vania Hospital—was founded in Philadelphia in 1750. New Inter- national Encyclopedia, s.v. “Hospital.” 142 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY work.‘ Yet this testimony of silence is significant. We may assume with a fair amount of certainty that, with the exception of shelters and almshouses and perhaps also of hospitals, there were no spe- cialized charitable institutions among Jews in the 12th century. ‘The records thus far available of communal activities and properties in the 13th and 14th centuries, such as the description of the Jewish quarters of Madrid and Valence in Spain of the year 1391 (including a chart of the city of Valence), make no allusions as a rule to any institutions other than synagogue, school and cemetery.® Some of the records do make reference to the three types of institution already noted as excep- tions, the first mention we have found being of an almshouse in Regensburg, Germany, in 1210, and many others occurring in the 14th century and later. Other types of institutions, like orphan asylums, free schools for the indigent, and so forth, do not appear to have arisen until the latter part of the 17th century. “Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela. Translated into English and edited by A. Asher, 2 vols., London and Berlin 1840. The narrative covers a period of about 14 years, from 1159 or 1160 to 1173. * Isidore Loeb: “Le Sac des Juiveries de Valence et de Madrid en 1391,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 13 (July, 1886), p. 239; and his “Notes sur l’Histoire des Juifs en Espagne,” in the same periodical, Vol. 14, p. 257. SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 143 A. EARLIER INSTITUTIONS SHELTERS Of the few institutions that originated in very early times, either antedating the medieval period or arising during the first half of that epoch, the Shelter or Inn for wayfarers has the oldest pedigree and the most continuous record. We have seen that the synagogue of Theodotos, reconstructed from an older foundation at about 10 B.c., had such a Shelter connected with it. Shelters of this kind appear to have been provided in all the early synagogues either within the edifice or in a separate building on the grounds. The Talmud mentions a synagogue where poor strangers ate and slept.® In the course of time the Shelter developed as a separate institution. It is referred to frequently in the Talmud where it is called Pundok or Pandok (pins, Greek savéoxeior ) or Achsanya (wsp2x, Greek gos, guest). The Greek name suggests a possible Greek origin. The Hellenes are indeed known to have given much thought to the matter of hospitality and to have developed Shelters or _ resting-places for that purpose several centuries before the Christian era. But “nomen atque omen” may be a misleading guide in this instance, as it is in the case *Pesachim rora. “Indeed, up till the ninth or tenth centuries, Asiatic synagogues were homes for travellers, who lodged in the synagogues and took their meals there.” I. Abrahams, of. cit., P. 34. 144. JEWISH PHILANTHROPY of the Jewish supreme legislative and judicial body, the Sanhedrin, likewise Greek in its etymology, which, as far as we know, was not at all constituted after any Hellenic model. Nor does the fact that the Greeks possessed such inns in the very early cen- turies preclude the possibility of the Jews’ having developed corresponding institutions at approxi- mately the same time and independent of foreign influence. Certain it is that Jewish tradition, re- corded in the Talmud and the Midrash, places the founding of these institutions far back in remote times, as far back as Abraham. ‘Lhe terebinth tree or grove (>wx) which Abraham planted in Beer- sheba (Gen. 21:33) is interpreted by Rabbi Simeon b. Lakish and his contemporary R. Jehudah (II) ben Gamaliel (c. 250 A.D.) as meaning a garden for wayfarers, and by R. Nehemiah (c. 150 A.D.) as meaning an inn(ptyp) for them.” St. Jerome was ac- quainted with this rabbinical tradition, as is evident from his praising the Roman lady Fabiola, when she founded a house for the sick in Rome and a shelter for strangers in Ostia, for “planting the shoot of the terebinth of Abraham on the Ausonian coast.” § The claims of tradition with respect to things and persons chronologically remote must, however, as a rule be discounted when unsupported by historical evidence and in the present instance reveal an ideal- "Sota 10a; Yalkut Shimeoni to Ps. 37, cited in Meil Zedakah § 326. For further Tal. references, cf. Levy, Tal. Dict., s.v. DUND. *“K. Kohler: “Zum Kapitel der jiidischen Wohlthatigkeitspflege,” in Festschrift zum 70 Geburtstage A. Berliner’s, p. 201. SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 145 ization of Abraham’s virtue of hospitality rather than a historical fact. Besides, the Inn so accredited to him, if it existed at all, was a privately supported establishment, not a community institution. We are justified in saying that in the time of the Talmudic scholars who trace the Pandok or Achsanya back to Abraham, there were such institutions among Jews, i.¢., about 150 A.D. and that their origin goes back further. Very likely, the widespread oriental prac- tice of hospitality to an extent hardly realizable to occidentals, a practice in which the Jews shared in a preéminent way and which, as we shall presently see, carried on an uninterrupted tradition down to our own days in Russia and other lands where oriental ideas still linger, looked with disfavor upon the transference of strangers from the domestic hearth to the colder environment of an institution.° Never- theless, with the best intentions to provide for itin- erants in private homes exclusively, situations arose in the large centers of population which necessitated the establishment of community shelters such as are so often alluded to in the Talmud.*° ° See article “Hospitality” in Jewish Encyclopedia. “Let thy house be open wide; let the poor be members of thy household” is the precept expounded by Jose ben Jochanan, one of the most revered sages, a contemporary of the Maccabees (150 B.c.), which received universal promulgation through its inclusion in the Pirke Abot 1:5. Probably the first departure from home hospitality was the putting to use of the premises of the synagogues for lodging pur- poses, a practice not uncommon in Eastern European lands today. Only a few people could have been accommodated in the syna- gogues and obviously only men. 146 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY There is little heard of the communal inns after Talmudic days until after the Crusades when the need for them became urgent in consequence of the many Jews rendered homeless by the misdirected zeal of the knights, the priests and their followers. Public hostelries then arose in many cities, particu- larly in Germany, Italy and Spain. From this time under the newer Hebrew name of Hekdesh (wpm ) and the Latin designations “‘hospitale,” ‘“hospita- lium” and “hospes,” they served both as shelters for strangers and as almshouses and at times even as hospitals for the sick. In some places the community entertainment hall (Tanzhaus) was used for that purpose. In several places the community paid private families of moderate means a fee for quartering strangers in their homes. Side by side with the public provisions instituted, went a generous extension of shelter in private homes free of charge, with a great deal of tender sympathy added. In many communities the transients were distributed among the residents by a system of meal and lodging tickets (Billetten), particularly for the Sabbath, the head of each family, even the poorest, taking one wayfarer or more with him from the synagogue services on Friday evening, a custom that has survived in Russia and Poland up to the present time. In Paris the “Jews’ Inn” (Auberge Juive) supported by communal funds, continued until deep SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 147 in the eighteenth century.11_ Haknasat Orchim (Re- ception of Wayfarers) Societies were found in vir- tually all Jewish communities until the movement for amalgamation of agencies in recent times set in, when they lost their identity in many places, being merged with the other charitable societies into one compre- hensive organization. ALMSHOUSES The Shelters were no doubt also used for the re- ception and maintenance of indigent people and superannuated persons who had no relatives to look after them, and so served also in the subsidiary ca- pacity of almshouses. ‘The two uses seem in time to have been differentiated, and separate institutions were established in the more populous communities. Nevertheless, the line was not sharply drawn and the two classes of inmates often occupied the same build- ing. It is dificult to determine from the records whether the Hekdesh,!” so often referred to in both the Hebrew and Latin documents of the Middle Ages, is in any given instance a shelter or an alms- “ Abrahams, of. cit., pp. 74-75, 311, 314. Joseph Jacobs, s.v. “Inn,” Jewish Encyclopedia, enumerates a few inns. A “domus sive hospitium judaicum” is referred to in the archives of the city of Coblenz, Germany, of the year 1356. K. Baas, who cites this reference in his article, “Jiidische Hospitaler in Mittelalter (Mozat- schrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1913, Pp. 452-460) understands this to mean a hospital, but the use of “hospitium” instead of “hospitale” seems to indicate a hostelry. “It is not clear how the name Hekdesh originated. The word in its earlier rabbinical use means property consecrated for holy purposes. Perhaps it is an abbreviation for D™IY wWIpn. 148 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY house or both. As indicated above, it frequently appears to combine both functions. As the need for a home for the indigent was in general more constant than that for transients, the most common uses of the Hekdesh probably were those of almshouses and in- firmary. It will be seen that it also did duty as a hospital. There are earlier records of the Hekdesh than the one extant in Munich in 1381, characterized by Berliner 1° as the first to receive mention in docu- ments of the time. In an intensive study of the in- stitutions called Hekdesh, “‘hospitalis,” “‘hospitium,”’ etc., Dr. K. Baas quotes a deed of the year 1210 in which an agreement is made concerning a house de- scribed as ‘“‘domus hospitalis Judeorum.”’ 14 There was a Hekdesh used as a home for resident and transient poor and as an infirmary (or hospital) in Cologne which Brisch, without, however, offering suficient evidence, declares to have been established in the 11th century. ‘This institution was founded by a rich family. The passage recording its estab- lishment reads: “Master Eliakim and his mother Mistress Bela, Master Mordecai and his wife, Mistress Hannah, who built the Hekdesh at Cologne.” 15 ‘This is no doubt the same Hekdesh * Aus der Leben der deutschen Juden in Mittelalter (Berlin, 1900), p. 120. * “Jidische Spitaler in Mittelalter.”” Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1911, p. 746. % paw man MD Ine aT WD NSA My IN) Dds I sondipsa eapan Carl Brisch: Geschichte der Juden in Céln und Umgebung, Mil- heim am Rhein, 7879, p. 20. SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 149 referred to as the “‘hospitale Judeorum”’ in a record of sale dated 1247.1° A decision by the distinguished Rabbi Solomon ben Adret (b. 1235, Barcelona; d. 1310) involving the disposition of a legacy proves that there was a public Hekdesh in Tortosa, Spain, at that time.1” At the end of the 13th century or the beginning of the 14th there was an almshouse or hospital at Nar- bonne which, with its three outhouses, was valued at too livres.1® An interesting entry is found in the martyrological chronicles of the community of Nurn- berg, dated 1278-1299, containing a reference to a Hekdesh in that city. The following is a translation: ‘And these are to be commemorated here at Nirn- berg. May God remember the soul of R. Samuel, the son of the martyr, R. Nathan Halevi, with the souls of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because he left 200 litres for the cemetery, 50 for the Hekdesh, to- gether with a prayer shawl and death robe, and 50 litres for the education of children.” 1° Almshouses were found practically everywhere from this period on. Prof. Baas, in the study quoted (see note II) enumerates many in German cities in the 14th century, including institutions in Coblenz * Robert Hoeniger: Das Judenschreinbuch der Laurenzpfarre zu Koln, Berlin, 1888. Document No. 36. *Responsa, 656 xe» Sy wipnd. * Jean Régné: “Etude sur la Condition des Juifs de Narbonne,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 46 (1903), p. 84. * Ad. Neubauer: “Le Memorbuch de Mayence,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 3 (1882), pp. 7-8. 150 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY (1356), Vienna (1381), Munich (1381). ‘There were others in evistence at Lauingen (1347), Worms (15th century) ,?° in the larger communities of Castille (1432),?1 in Marseilles (1492), where there were two,2” in Avignon (1558),?° and else- where. ‘The almshouse continued as the most com- mon local institution until modern times. HOSPITALS AND FREE MEDICAL CARE Hospitals in the sense of institutions for the care and treatment of the sick, i.e., as distinguished from infirmaries and almshouses, make their appearance among the Jews later than among the Christians, who have them as early as the 4th century, and among the Mohammedans who possess them in great numbers in the time of Haroun-Al-Raschid in the late 8th century, both of the latter having been preceded -in the establishment of them by the Greeks, and Romans and Buddhists, and still farther back by the Egyptians.** It may be that the deeply rooted do- mestic attachments and the universally practised and *Dr. L. Lowenstein: “Zur Gesch. der Juden in Friedberg,” in Blaetter fiir jiid. Gesch. und Litteratur, Vol. III (Feb., 1902), pp. 69, 120. “Isidor Loeb: “Réglement de Juifs de Castille en 1432,” Réwue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 13, pp. 37, 40. *” Ad. Cremieux: “Les Juifs de Marseille au Moyen Age,” Réwue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 46, p. 32. *'R. de Maulde: “Les Juifs dans les Etats francais du Pape au Moyen Age,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 7, p. 237. “Cf. Sir Henry Burdett in Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “Charity and Charities.” SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 151 sacredly conceived duty of hospitality, characteristic not of Jews alone, but of the Orient as a whole, mili- tated against the placing of relatives or strangers in any place other than a home in ‘Talmudic days, al- though one would have expected the same inhibition to have operated in the case of the Arabs. A more potent reason probably was the smallness and the precarious nature of Jewish settlements, already dwelt on above. ‘The history of the world shows,” says Sir Henry Burdett,” “that whereas a few of the larger towns in most countries contained hospitals of sorts up to and including the Middle Ages, it was not until the commencement of the 18th century that inhabitants of important but relatively small towns of from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants began to provide themselves with a hospital for the care of the sick.”” After the disruption of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt, in the second cen- tury, A.D., there were no Jewish communities num- bering as many as 50,000 souls anywhere in the world,”® until the modern period, and there could have been very few regions covering a circumference of say a hundred miles with a population of that size. So, although hospitals were known to the Jews—a Jewish king, Uzziah, suffering from lep- * Thid. **Hamadan and Samarkand are said to have had a population of 50,000 each in the latter part of the 12th cent. (Graetz: History of the Jews, Eng. Ed., Vol. III, Ch. XIII, p. 434f.) but these esti- mates appear exaggerations. The Babylonian centers and their vicinities in the 12th cent. and Toledo, Spain, in the 13th, alone seem to have approximated 50,000. 152 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY rosy, had segregated himself in what amounted to a private hospital in the 9th century, B.c.?7—they did without them for a long period when these were already extant elsewhere, contenting themselves with substitutions, such as making use of the communal hostelries or almshouses in cases of emergency, or paying physicians out of communal funds for the free treatment of the sick poor in their own homes.?® Studies of these latter means of providing medical care for the sick outside of hospitals are not yet far enough advanced to supply us with data for the earlier part of the period covered by our inquiry, but we are in possession of indisputable evidence showing that some communities engaged physicians at stated remuneration to render medical treatment to the poor free, in the later centuries of our period. The Frankfurt community is an instance in point. It had a Jewish physician in 1394 charged with the duty of treating the poor free.?® Ferrara is another in- stance. [hat community established a stipend in 1629 and gave it to Guiseppe Kamis, the physician- rabbi, on the condition that he should render medical service to the poor without charge.®® Another in- stance is that of the Cracow community, which, from 1624 to 1655 paid David Calahorra, the Jewish "TI K. 15:5 and II Chr. 26:21. * Cf. Abrahams, of. cit., p. 329. *® Baas, Monatschrift, 1913, p. 456. “Isaac Ascoli: Cenni Storici sull’ origine e sugli avvenimenti Risguardanti La Universita Israelitica Ferrarese (Ferrara, 1857), Bi,” 49, SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 153 pharmacist of the Ghetto, an annual sum varying be- tween 90 and 150 florins for furnishing medicine free to the poor, upon the order of the charity ad- ministrator, and after his death engaged in a similar agreement with his son Matatia.*t. In 1673 the Posen community engaged Dr. Jacob Winkler as community physician, exempting him from a por- tion of his taxes in return for his services. His duties included free medical services to the poor and the supplying of inexpensive medicines to the destitute.®? When research makes further headway, it will be found that such provision was likewise made in the earlier part of our period, that is, whenever the phy- sicians themselves did not or could not volunteer free services. It was no unusual thing for Jewish physi- cians, who abounded throughout the Middle Ages and who were in such demand among the highest personages that even the prohibitions of Church au- thorities did not in most cases stop Christians from seeking treatment from them, to give their services gratis to their poor co-religionists (and for that mat- ter to non-Jews likewise) when they could afford it. The cases of Moses Maimonides in the 12th century in Cairo, Egypt, of his contemporary Judah Ibn Tib- bon of Liinel, France, and of Saul Astruc Cohen of Algiers in the 14th century—all three eminent physi- *M. Balaban: “Jewish Physicians in Cracow and the Tragedies of the Ghetto—1s5th to 17th centuries” (In Russian), Evereiskayd Starina, Vol. 4 (1912), pp. 38-53. * A. Heppner and J. Herzberg, o/. cit., p. 162. 154 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY cians and scholars—cited by Israel Abrahams ** are good examples. Maimonides conducted a free clinic for the poor in his own home in connection with his regular practice and well-nigh collapsed from sheer exhaustion late at night after his hard day’s work, as he tells Ibn Tibbon in a letter describing how over- worked he is.*4 We see a curious merging of paid and free will services in the case of Samuel Ha-Kohen, physician of the ghetto in Cracow in the first part of the 17th century. He gave his ser- vices free; the community in appreciation put so florins at his disposal annually, from 1630 on, to distribute among the poor. He died in 1646: In the section on Almshouses we pointed out that the Hekdesh also served as a hospital. The Hebrew word, which may cover either meaning, and the Latin equivalents which may likewise signify either, leave it in doubt as to which is meant in most instances. Baas, after carefully examining all the evidence, comes to the conclusion that the ‘‘Hospital’’ men- tioned in the Latin references signifies essentially a ‘“‘hospice,” 7.e., a shelter or inn as distinguished from “Infirmarium” (infirmary) ; that this and the Hekdesh are identical; that they were primarily de- signed for out-of-town guests having no local rela- *° Op. cit., p. 330 f. “ Ibid., pp. 235-6. *M. Balaban, Joc. cit. SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 155 tives; that there were sometimes sick among these strangers who were given medical treatment; and that in certain places, centers of trade, as in Frank- furt and Nurnberg, the large number of sick strangers present led to a separation of the original institution into two distinct structures, the name Hekdesh being retained for the Shelter and the de- signation Hospital being adopted for the sick house. This development, Baas says, took place at the end of the Middle Ages, Frankfurt having been the first to establish a separate hospital. ‘There, in 1394, the community physician, Solomon Pletsch, had to attend sick Jews in the hospital. This must have been a Jewish hospital, as the reception of Jews in Christian hospitals then is inconceivable. There is, in any case, a clear reference to a hospital as distinct from a Shelter in Frankfurt in 1473.36 There was one at Marseilles mentioned in a protocol of a notary in 1426, but which was no doubt older in origin.*7 A hospital was projected at Ferrara during an epi- demic in 1630.° In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries hospitals sprang up in all the populous centers. OTHER INSTITUTIONS Other institutions for specialized services do not appear to have arisen before the 17th century. The oldest orphan asylum is one for boys in Amsterdam, *° Baas, loc. cit. 7 Ad. Cremieux., loc. cit. * Isaac Ascoli, op. cit., p. 22. 156 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY founded in 1648.°® A school for orphan boys (‘Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Orphan School’’) was established in London in 1703, and one for poor girls, The Villareal Charity School, in 1730.*° B. EARLIER SOCIETIES BURIAL SOCIETIES The formation of voluntary societies preceded the establishment of institutions in nearly every phase of specialized service. ‘The societies could cope with the situation without the outlay of large sums for property and maintenance. ‘These societies with one exception, or at most two, did not originate before the end of the 16th century. “The one exception was the Burial Society. The Hebrew name is usually Chebrah Kaddishah (Holy League). Its origin goes far back, very likely to Talmudic times.*! The distinguished scholar Asher ben Yechiel (b. Ger- many 1250, d. Toledo, 1328), in a responsum, dis- cusses the question of a son succeeding his deceased father as a member of such a society. In this con- nection he defines the objects of these societies thus: To be with the mourner the night of the death; to accompany the funeral cortége; to participate in the burial; to furnish consolation meals to the mourners; *® Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Amsterdam.” “E. H. Lindo: A Jewish Calendar for Sixty-four years, London, 1838, p. 1or. “I, Abrahams, op. cit., p. 333. SOCIETIES AND INSTTIUTIONS 157 and to pray with them.*2 The Vienna Chebrah Kaddishah can be traced back to 1320, the Wilna society to 1486 and the Prague association to 1564.48 These societies added sick benefits later. We have come across an instance of one other type of society that antedated by more than two cen- turies the voluntary associations of the 16th and subsequent centuries. It is that of a trade guild mutual benefit association, the fraternity (confra- dia) of Jewish shoemakers, in Saragossa, Spain. This society was called into being by a statute, con- firmed May 6, 1336, by King Pedro III. As Jews were excluded from the trade guilds of the general population, it is an interesting question whether they had guilds of their own in many places or whether such guilds were the exception. ‘There could not have been enough workmen of the same craft in many places to warrant the organization of a guild. The rules governing the Saragossa fraternity re- quired of each member: (1) To attend wedding and circumcision celebrations in families of members, failure to do so entailing a fine of one dinero; (2) To visit sick fellow-members every Sabbath, on pain of a fine of one dinero. Officers of the fraternity must visit sick members twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays and, if aid is needed, give the patient two dineros a day from the treasury of the frater- ”Responsa, Caption 13, Sec. 12, 13. “Heinrich Haase: “Die Wohlfartspflege bei den Juden,” in M. Grunwald, Die Hygiene der Juden, Dresden, 1911, Appendix, p. xii, 158 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY nity; (3) In case of death, members must escort the body to the grave and join in prayers at the home of the deceased during the days of mourning. Fine, two and one dineros.** There were guilds of butchers, tailors, shoemakers and musicians in Prague at this time or soon after. Special sections of the cemetery were reserved for the several guilds.*® C. LATER SOCIETIES By the 16th century societies were springing up in most of the larger communities, and in the 17th cen- tury there was a veritable crop of them everywhere, the populous communities having each many associa- tions to care for every kind of need then felt. The 17th century may indeed be called the age of the Jewish voluntary charitable organization. Rome was especially rich in these societies. They are de- scribed in detail in the exhaustive studies of that community made by Vogelstein and Rieger,*® by A. Berliner *7 and Israel Abrahams.*® ‘‘The more than twenty societies there offer an exalted picture of the communal conscience and of practical philan- thropy,’’ comment the first mentioned pair of au- “M. Kayserling, in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, Vol. 56, p. 438. Cf. also Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Saragossa.” © Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Prague.” * Geschichte der Juden in Rom, Vol. 2, pp. 314-317. “" Geschichte der Juden in Rom, Vol. 2, pp. 33-63. “Op. cit., pp. 326-329. SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 159 thors.*2 The societies of Rome included associations for the relief of the poor, for the care of the aged, for the provision of clothing, shoes and bedding, for the aid of widows and other poor women, for the provision of trousseaus and dowries for poor brides, for visiting the sick and comforting mourners, for the education and maintenance of orphans, for the extension of free loans, and for the collecting of alms for the Holy Land. In Leghorn a society for providing dowries for poor brides for the relief of impoverished members was founded by prominent Spanish Jewish families in 1644; another for clothing the poor, in 1654; and a third, ‘“‘Beneficenza Israelitica,” for the relief of communal poor and the ransoming of prisoners, in 1683. [he community of London, then barely twenty years old, established two voluntary societies, representing offshoots of the new Portuguese con- gregation—a society for the education and clothing of boys in 1664, and another for rendering relief to the sick, in 1665. At least twelve other organ- izations designed to answer various charitable needs were created in London during the following century.°° Amsterdam, Venice, Mantua, Rotterdam, Frank- fort a. Main, and other centers established societies during the 17th or 18th centuries to take care of ne the hae ® Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Leghorn;” E. H. Lindo: A Jewish Calendar for Sixty-four Years, London, 1838, p. 1o1. 160 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY particular classes. The Jews of Spanish and Portu- guese extraction, being the wealthiest, led in these movements. Those of Germanic origin followed quickly in their wake. Societies for the dowering of poor brides appear to have made the chief appeal to the founders. The constitutions and regulations of all these organizations disclose a fairly comprehen- sive understanding of the problems grappled with, and the employment of systematic measures of treatment.*? DOWRIES It will be observed that several of these societies specialized in services that might be called character- istically Jewish. ‘Those devoted to the provision of dowries and trousseaus belong to that class. ‘The * Cf. the published statutes of these societies, as follows: Ascha- moth da Companhia de Dotar Donzellos Pobres (Amsterdam Com- munity), Amsterdam, 1726 (This is a revision of the statutes of 1658; this society was organized in 1615) ; Statutes of the Chebrah Kaddishah Society of the German Congregation of Amsterdam, 1776; Rules of the Great Holy Society for Dowering Brides (Amsterdam German Community), Amsterdam, 1794; Regulations of the Society of the Congregation of Levantines in Venice to Provide Dowries for Maidens (in Hebrew, 1653; in Italian, 1689) ; Regulations of the Society of Mazzal Bethula (Dowries for Maidens) of Mantua (in Hebrew and Italian), 1678; Mantua Society to provide children of poor with means for circumcision (in Hebrew), 1743 (founded 1716) ; Statutes of the Holy Society for the Study of the Law, of Rotterdam, 1787. (This society provided education and supplied clothing free to children of members. Reference is made to two older societies); Statutes of the Society Rodefe Zedakah (Pursuers of Charity), of Frankfort a. Main, 1786 (in Hebrew. Mutual benefit and charitable). The statutes of the Amsterdam and Rotterdam communities here listed are in Hebrew and Yiddish-Deutsch. SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 161 high esteem placed by Jewish teachings on marriage and domestic life led to the extension of financial aid to poor people desiring to get married, from Tal- mudic days on. REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES Societies for the redemption of captives likewise have a special Jewish character. As already ex- plained, the capture of Jews by pirates, or their forcible imprisonment by the official authorities for the purpose of extorting a ransom for their release, was a matter of constant occurrence. [heir redemp- tion became a tragic standing necessity. Jewish law and Jewish fraternal feeling gave the ransoming of captives the first claim on any charity fund. Jacob Mann cites several letters written in the 11th and 12th centuries by the Jewish congregations in Alex- andria to sister congregations in Northern Egypt and one to a congregation in Byzantium request- ing financial assistance in completing funds for the redemption of captives taken by Moslem pirates from Greek ships. The demands made on Egyptian Jews of those days to redeem brother Jews so cap- tured were frequent and onerous. They answered these calls generously and feelingly, often strug- gling under the heavy burden, and seeking outside assistance only when their own means failed. ‘There was a fixed ransom price per captive. It was 33-1/3 dinars, about £16 in gold, equivalent in the currency of our day to nearly £50. It was no uncommon ex- 162 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY perience for the Alexandrian and neighboring com- munities to be saddled with the burden of redeeming groups of prisoners in close succession. Women and children were now and then among the captives. They were sometimes cruelly treated by the pirates. The prominent men of the Jewish congregations rendered distinguished service in this work of mercy by means of generous contributions and personal aid. Maimonides was one of the many who thus served their co-religionists. As a rule, the Moslem pirates adhered to the fixed ransom rates. Only rarely did they accept smaller amounts. Occasionally they de- manded larger sums.°? Pirates and abductors likewise troubled European regions. hey took frequent advantages of the ten- der solicitude of the Jews for their brethren and exacted enormous sums for the release of the pris- oners. In order to check this practice, the eminent Rabbi, Meir of Rothenberg, whom Count Meinhard had incarcerated for the purpose of mulcting the Jewish communities of Germany, refused to have himself redeemed and remained in prison. He died there after eight years of confinement, in 1293.°8 The abuse did not abate, however, and the need of funds for ransoming prisoners continued throughout the Middle Ages. To mention but one other in- stance, this one on a larger scale: In 1492 one hun- * The Jews in Egpyt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs, 2 vols., Oxford University Press, 1920-1922, Vol. 1, pp. 87-95, 204-205, 232, 244. °° Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Meir of Rothenberg.” SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 163 dred and eighteen Jews, driven out of Aragon by the edict of Ferdinand and Isabella, were brought by a bandit captain of a galley to Marseilles and kept prisoner in the harbor. The Jews of Mar- seilles, then in straitened circumstances, borrowed 1500 écus from Charles Forbin, a Christian of Mar- seilles, which the refugees undertook to repay within four months. The Jews of Marseilles and Aix stood surety for them with their property and their lives and fed and sheltered them in addition, during the four months.*4 COLLECTIONS FOR THE HOLY LAND Associations for the collection of funds for the poor in the Holy Land developed as a natural se- quence of the uninterrupted support from privates and communities beginning before the fall of the Jewish state. This Palestinian fund, called later on the Chalukkah (Division), appealed to the sentiment of all the pious in the Diaspora and reached con- siderable proportions. While many old people and scholars who came to spend their last years at Jeru- salem were legitimate subjects for pensions, there were others who took advantage of the prevailing sentiment and allowed themselves to become pauper- ized. However, the comparative smallness of the Jewish population in the Holy Land in medieval *Tsidor Loeb: “Un Convoi d’Exilés d’Espagne a Marseille en 1492,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 9, p. 66 f. 164 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY times prevented this subsidy from becoming a burden on the supporters.°*® The growth in the number and influence of the voluntary benevolent organizations in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries gradually removed the charities from the control of the official communal authorities and so stimulated the decline of rabbinical guidance, leading ultimately to complete detachment from ecclesiastical direction, the condition which charac- terizes modern Jewish philanthropy. © Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Halukkah.” CHAPTER XI CHANGING CONDITIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS WE shall now attempt to trace the tendencies which made themselves manifest in the 17th and 18th centuries and which resulted in the reorganiza- tion of communal philanthropic activities along mod- ern principles and methods. Side by side with the rise and spread of voluntary societies engaged in ministering to particular classes, described in the preceding chapter, the congregations continued functioning as dispensers of aid, notably in the field of general relief. In cities where there was but one Jewish congregation, this arrangement prob- ably worked out more or less satisfactorily. But in places where there were several congregations and particularly in centers where there were mixed Jew- ish populations representing different nationalities and dissimilar stocks (Spanish-Portuguese, German, etc.), considerable chaos necessarily resulted. ‘The need was therefore felt urgently to combine the char- itable endeavors of the separate congregations. This need, in fact, led to an amalgamation of the congre- gations, either of those composed of the same social elements or of two or more congregations of diverse 165 166 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY stock. Thus, in Hamburg, in 1652, the three Portu- guese congregations consolidated. One of the chief objects stated in the minutes of that amalgamation was to achieve better management of relief.t In Ferrara, nearly a century earlier, the Italian and (serman congregations had united for similar rea- sons.” In the majority of the communities, however, separatism continued, at least as between the congre- gations of diverse stocks. So it was in London where the Spanish congregation, organized in 1701, admin- istered relief>to its own impoverished members and other Spanish co-religionists, and in [The Hague, where the German community took care of the wants of its adherents and their kindred. The constitution and minutes of the former ° and the statutes of the latter * indicate that careful attention was given to individual cases. This London congregation con- tinued to dispense general relief alongside of the several voluntary organizations that sprang up among its membership for the care of special wants. *“Aus dem 4ltesten Protokollbuch der portugiesisch-jiidischen Gemeinde in Hamburg.” Translated from the Spanish by J. C. Jahrbuch der jiid. lit. Gesellschaft, Vol. VI, p. 7. * Regolamento (Constitution) of that community, 1573. See Isaac Ascoli, op. cit., p. 14. *Ascamot para o Governo da Congrega da Saar-Ashamaim de Londres 5545 (1765), sections 36-37; Moses Gaster: History of the Ancient Synagogue of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (1701- 1901), section “Offerings and Collections in the Synagogue,” pp. 54-60. In the first year £252 were spent on foreign poor and £230 for local poor; in the second year £311 and £185, re- spectively, and in the third year, £225 and £312. *Statutes and By-Laws, published in Amsterdam, 1800. CHANGING CONDITIONS 167 These latter included an orphans’ home, free loan activities, a hospital and a burial society.® It is evident that the use of the congregation as the chief instrument of the benevolence of any given city had its limitations and weaknesses whenever and wherever the community became populous and com- plex. The benevolent activities could at best consti- tute one aspect of its program while they demanded sustained and undivided attention from officers who could bring abundant time and strength to the task. Even where voluntary societies doing specialized work had arisen alongside of the congregation, the miscellaneous relief itself was too exacting to be handled well by the busy officers of the congregation, nor could these latter as a rule be qualified to deal adequately with the work. Furthermore, the congre- gations and the voluntary societies of the time were constituted largely on the mutual benefit plan and the charitable aid extended by them was designed primarily to reach impoverished fellow-members, a fact which must have operated admirably in favor of prevention of poverty, but which must have drawn attention somewhat away from those poor who could not afford membership. Where the community con- sisted of elements of diverse stock and grouped off in separate congregations corresponding to these na- tional and social differences, there were, in addition, the problems of duplication and divided responsi- °E. H. Lindo: A Jewish Calendar for Sixty-four Years, pp. IOI-102. 168 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY bility or neglect. These circumstances called for changes in philanthropic organization and procedure. On the other hand, there were forces at work, both within Jewish communal life and from the out- side, which tended to bring the Jews into close rela- tions with the general population under the influences of the modern spirit and of modern methods of pro- cedure. he adoption of the languages of the coun- tries where they were residents, to which impetus was given by Moses Mendelssohn’s translation of the Bible for the use of Jews, into German, preceded their achieving citizenship. ‘The ghettos were being discontinued; at least, residence therein was not strictly enforced. ‘The industrial revolution originat- ing in England and spreading to other countries relaxed the dead hand of the past from thought and action, and affected the Jews together mi the rest of the population. But the most epochal event leading to the ultimate disintegration of the old Jewish social order, and carrying with it in time the complete rehabilitation of Jewish charitable organization and processes, was their political and economic emancipation. The year 1791, when they were accorded complete equality in France, constitutes a new point of departure in Jew- ish life, marking the end of the long centuries of political disability, and ushering in the era of their free commingling with their Christian fellows. Asa matter of fact, their liberation was not simultaneous everywhere. Even legally they had been given equal- CHANGING CONDITIONS 169 ity in at least one country before that (America, 1776), whereas their emancipation was delayed in the other European lands until long after their liberation in France. Moreover, in the more toler- ant countries they enjoyed opportunities unoficially, which substantially approximated equality, while in certain unenlightened states, actual economic and social equality lagged far behind legal removal of restrictions. The example of France, however, carried tremendous weight, and may therefore serve as the determining point of departure. The newer conceptions which spread quickly among the Jews and the closer contacts which they sustained with the peoples in whose midst they dwelt, following rapidly in the wake of their political and economic emancipation, acted as a solvent upon the structure of custom and opinion that had been slowly built up during the many centuries of the rabbinical era, and which had remained intact as long as a program of isolation was forced upon them from the outside. The scope and character of their charity, along with their other norms, now gradually underwent modification. The growing permanence of the Jewish communities—an indirect consequence of the new equality of citizenship and opportunity— reduced the number of transient poor and focused attention on the problems of home dependents. Hand in hand with the feeling of permanence and security came the growth of the Jewish population in the large centers, in numbers and in prosperity. 170 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY These circumstances made for the rapid spread of new societies to care both for the special needs of local dependents and for the wants of the transients. Even under the pre-emancipation status, the more progressive of the larger communities were not satis- fied with the nature and workings of their machinery of charity. Now, under the newer conditions, the inadequacy of the old methods became still more patent. More comprehensive measures for the handling of all the charitable wants in each commun- ity were needed. Codérdination and codperation be- tween various efforts—individual and organized— were an urgent necessity. New activities had to be started to grapple with newly risen problems. It was not enough to relieve poverty; it was imperative to initiate measures of prevention. It was a time of keen responsiveness to fresh ideas and fresh methods of approach. All that was needed in the Jewish cen- ters which had been most affected by the new polit- ical and social changes and which were now released from the age-old political and economic restraints imposed from without—all that was needed to set in motion movements of philanthropic reconstruction on a large scale, was an occasion, an event, that would arouse the consciousness of the people to the importance of the problem. The Jewish communities of London and Paris at the beginning of the 19th century offer excellent illus- trations alike of the unsatisfactory state of the Jew- ish charities of the time and of the transformation CHANGING CONDITIONS U7t which these underwent under the influences of the newer life. At the beginning of the 19th century, there was widespread poverty among the Jews in London, par- ticularly among the predominant Germanic element. They suffered with the rest of the population from the prevailing unemployment, but, in addition, also because there were few skilled artisans among them and because there were in their number so many recent immigrants. Patrick Colquhoun, a Metro- politan Police Magistrate, who was deeply interested in ameliorating the condition of the masses, called attention to the unfortunate state of the Jewish poor in his discussion of the general population in two pamphlets which he published in 1797 and 1799, re- spectively. Joshua Van Oven, a Jewish physician and communal worker, thereupon set to work to remedy conditions. In a pamphlet addressed to Colquhoun, entitled ‘Letters on the Present State of the Jewish Poor in the Metropolis,” etc., published in 1802, Van Oven pictures the situation as it then obtained in the large German Jewish community, to which poor strangers, besides local poor, then at- tached themselves. There was no cooperation be- tween the three synagogues in alleviating distress. The manner of dispensing charity was “‘vague.”’ No attempt was made to help the poor become self- supporting. Van Oven accordingly advocated the establishment of ‘‘a House of industry which should take in the helpless, poor and children, and have an L72 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY attached hospital for the sick . . . and which at the same time should comprehend assisting the out-poor with occasional relief.” In a pamphlet written the same year by L. Alex- ander in answer to Van Oven’s pamphlet we are told that the Boards of Management of the Synagogues had no proper conception of what constituted ade- quate relief and were not free from harshness to- wards the poor. Van Oven’s labors led to the establishment of the Jews’ Hospital in Mile End (which grew subse- quently into the Jews’ Hospital and Orphan Asylum) and started a general reformation in the Jewish phi- lanthropic activities in London. ‘The movement progressed rather slowly. Lack of codperation be- tween congregations and indiscriminate, uninvesti- gated giving continued as glaring faults, until in 1859, the year following the political emancipation of the Jews in England—and one of the fruits of that event—the Jewish Board of Guardians was formed. This organization established the London Jewish charities on a sound modern footing. Among the first measures the Board took was the institution of industrial and loan departments.’ In Paris the Jewish community at the time of the *Rey. A. Cohen: “Metropolitan Jewry at the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century’—London Jewish Chronicle (Supplement), Dec. rapper Magnus: The Jewish Board of Guardians and the Men Who Made It, pp. 9-57. The Jewish Board of Guardians, London, 1909. CHANGING CONDITIONS 173 French Revolution was in a state of chaos resembling that of London at the same period. With some notable exceptions, the community, numbering 2700 in 1806, was a poor one. There were seven Chebrot or Mutual Benefit Societies. “Those who could not afford to pay dues, and strangers, did not receive help from these societies. ‘The first attempt to co- ordinate these societies and to regulate the Jewish charity dates from November 24, 1809. Under the impulse of the Consistory conferences were called, resulting in the founding of the ‘‘Comité consistorial de secours et d’encouragement.”’ Note the connec- tion here, as in England, between political emanci- pation and philanthropic advance. The members of the ‘‘Comité de secours” were charged with duties which were by no means novel in Jewish charitable endeavor, namely, with caring for the sick poor, and with extending comfort and aid in time of death. In these respects its objects were vir- tually the same as those of the traditional Chebrah Kaddishah societies. But it represented a real ad- vance, a new departure, in fact, in two directions, namely in that it was to act as the coordinating and authoritative agency for the entire community and to stand ready to handle all cases of poverty. Besides its defined objects, the ‘“‘Comité de se- cours” presented every year to the Consistory ten children, between thirteen and fifteen years old, to be apprenticed in arts and handicrafts. Prevention is thus seen to receive greater attention than it did 174 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY before. In 1828, the Committee attempted to grapple with the problem of mendicancy, but without success. In 1852 this Committee became the “Comité de bienfaisance’”’ and proceeded to the crea- tion of establishments where all kinds of suffering and feebleness could be assuaged.® The communities of London and Paris have been cited as instructive examples of the changing char- acter of Jewish charities in the large centers of popu- lation in the early years of the 19th century. De- velopment in other large communities followed a course similar in general outlines, local conditions and events coloring and modifying the changes in — each instance. We have surveyed the broad aspects of Jewish philantrophic thought and effort up to the point where initial steps were taken in the more advanced communities to reorganize the resources and facili- ties with a view to adapting them to the newer con- ditions and opportunities and demands which the Jewish people faced in modern times. It is not within the scope of this study to trace the rapid and varied development which has followed since then. The nineteenth century witnessed a remarkably rich expansion in resources, effort and machinery. It and the first quarter of the 20th century have been an *Léon Kahn: Le Comité de Bienfaisance, pp. 5-27, A. Durlacher, Paris, 1886; Maxime du Camp: Paris Bienfaisant, pp. 291-301. Librairie Hachette et Cie, Paris, 1888. CHANGING CONDITIONS iy era of superb creativeness in Jewish philanthropic endeavor and of high intelligence in its practical application. Jewish philanthropy has demonstrated a capacity for coping with all the grave problems that arose, including the care of the vast tide of immigration which came to America in consequence of political and economic disabilities suffered by Jews in backward countries of the Old World. Communal philanthropic organization has ad- vanced in the larger cities, particularly in America, to a stage where not only all relief agencies function under one centralized direction with trained social workers; but where all philanthropic organizations and activities of consequence are federated and work under one intelligent guidance. Considerable head- way has been made in reducing the number of perma- nent dependents and increasing the proportion of the self-supporting. All types and varieties of relief, correctional, educational and recreational agencies, have been created and developed and the best ideas and standards introduced in their operation. Co- operation has been established between the various communities, particularly in the United States. The National Conference of Jewish Social Service, organ- ized in 1899, was largely instrumental in promoting this codperation. Through measures adopted by it, Jewish vagrancy has been reduced to negligible pro- portions. The problem of desertion has been at- tacked with success by the newly created National Desertion Bureau. Trade schools and other agen- 176 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY cies which prepare for industrial life have been insti- tuted. Special attention has been devoted to the needs and care of immigrants. All of these agencies are conducted along the most modern scientific lines, while at the same time retaining the humane and sympathetic character of traditional Jewish aid in the treatment of their beneficiaries. In the United States alone there are over two thousand organiza- tions, with an annual budget exceeding $10,000,000, the whole forming a complete structure offering every conceivable kind of assistance. National institutions and organizations, including agencies for aiding immigrants and for the promo- tion of the physical and social welfare of young people, and a school for instruction in agricultural pursuits (The National Farm School), have been brought into being and are functioning well in their respective spheres. In the chief European countries national organiza- tions engaged in founding and maintaining trade and general schools among their Jewish co-religionists in backward countries, particularly in the Orient, were created during the last decades of the nineteenth century. [heir work has been far-reaching. ‘The Alliance Israélite Universelle of Paris, the Anglo- Jewish Association of London and the Hilfsverein der Deutschen Juden of Berlin have been the leaders in this important direction. The Jewish Coloniza- tion Association, founded and heavily endowed by Baron de Hirsch of France in 1891, possessing a CHANGING CONDITIONS 177 capital of £8,000,000, in 1896, with headquarters in Paris and offices in London and other large centers, has made it its special business to look after the welfare of the vast streams of emigrants who have left lands where they were persecuted or denied eco- nomic opportunities. It has encouraged and subsi- dized agricultural colonies in the United States and in the Argentine, provided funds and agencies for the distribution of immigrants into uncongested lo- calities and established schools and welfare agencies for working people. Emergency relief of an international character was organized at the time of the Russian pogroms in 1907 and attained vast proportions and a high de- gree of organization during the Great War and the post-war years. Over $50,000,000 were collected by the Jews of America alone during this period, and administered by a large staff of trained workers in relief measures and in the institution of the elements of self-support among the millions of stricken people. Non-Jews were included among the beneficiaries in many of the regions affected. This brief sketch of the development of Jewish philanthropy during the contemporary period is out- side the domain of our study. It is presented here, nevertheless, in order to round off the story of Jew- ish benevolence. The reader will find it comparatively easy to inform himself on the modern period through the many sources available.® *See Bibliography under caption, “Modern Times.” CHAPTER XII CONCLUSION WE have traced the broad outlines of the stream of Jewish philanthropy from ancient times to the beginnings of the period of emancipation. No at- tempt at completeness has been made or claimed. The expanse is too vast and the contacts too numer-_ ous to render the task an easy one. It is now in place to make a few general observa- tions based on the survey of the entire movement as it has proceeded through the ages. At the outset it must be stated that philanthropy is not a uniquely Jewish manifestation. With Kohler, we are far from claiming charity to be an exclusive Jewish virtue. ‘The passion to help the poor and distressed is planted deep in the hearts of all men and its effectual expression in sentiment and action is found among all. But it may be said with- out exaggeration and without reflection on any other class of men, that this passion has worked with special warmth and glow among Jews and that they, as a group, have shown an extraordinary leaning for works of beneficence. *“The Historical Development of Jewish Charity,” Hebrew Union College and Other Addresses, Cincinnati, 1915, p. 230. 178 CONCLUSION 179 Jewish philanthropy, as seen in retrospect, em- braced a much wider field of service than the giving of alms. In theory and in practice alike it tran- scended mere relief of the elementary physical wants. In the first place, it emphasized the charity of love as well as the charity of alms. In the Biblical period, under the influence of the prophets and kindred spir- its, poverty was recognized and treated as an integral phase of the problem of social justice. During the Talmudic and later rabbinical epoch, the economic bearings of want and dependency, while not alto- gether lost sight of, receded from the Jewish con- sciousness, owing to the all-important circumstance of Jewish political disability and lack of ultimate self- determination. In the modern era, the relation of social righteousness to poverty has again found articulation. While poverty has been looked upon in Jewish life as possessing disciplinary values and in no sense as a disgrace, it was virtually always classed as a misfortune. It was never idealized as a mode of life to be voluntarily chosen. With the possible excep- tion of the Essenes ? in ancient times, no class or groups of men and women arose, as in Christian, Moslem and Buddhist life, that adopted destitution as the divinely-desired way of existence. No sacred orders of cloistered or mendicant monks, opposed *“The Essenes were despisers of riches, but they were not wor- shippers of poverty.” Israel Abrahams: Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, Cambridge University Press, 1917, p. 8. 180 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY on principle to earning a livelihood, corresponding to the Franciscans or the Buddhist orders of mon- astic beggars, sprang up. The spirit of the Jewish religion worked against such excesses. It made for sanity of action. Pauperization, of which Lecky ? complains as a grave blemish associated with ascetic life, in the otherwise distinguished history of Chris- tian charity, never found a congenial soil in Jewish benevolence. This very sanity of Judaism, however, prevented Jewish charity from engaging in one type of service in which Christian charity did useful work. There was little of that complete self-effacement, that eager © and mystic self-abandon which expressed itself among Christians in loving ministrations to the out- casts of society. On the other hand, Jewish charity was at no time in its long history blemished by harsh treatment of the poor and friendless. One may search in vain for severe handling even of impostors. Cruelties of branding or public degradation in the stocks or im- prisonment, such as mar the administration of the English Poor Laws, so severely denounced by Nicholls,* are altogether unknown among Jews. Kindly and sympathetic treatment was the invariable rule and practice. There is marked fixity and rigidity in the processes “History of European Morals, New York and London, Appleton & Co., 1919, Vol. 2, p. 85 f. *Sir George Nicholls: 4 History of the English Poor Law, 2 Vols. Putnam’s, N. Y., 1898, Vol. 1, pp. 67, 97, 104, 116, 211, 235. CONCLUSION (81 of charity during the Talmudic and medieval era. But this was more so in the theory than in the appli- cation. In ancient times and again in modern, plia- bility is the prevailing note. The springs of action that moved people to give aid were various and always complex. They ranged from the crudest motives of self-interest to the noblest impulses of altruism. Justice and humani- tarian considerations appear early in Biblical days, side by side with personal and social utilitarian aims. In the rabbinical era the motive of salvation in the hereafter plays a prominent, perhaps the dominant role, as it does in Christian life in the corresponding age, although the penitential appeal does not appear to have sunk quite so deep nor spread so far in Jewish existence as in Christian, Moslem or Buddhist. In the modern era, pity and unselfishness again forge to the front as the controlling, virtually the exclusive considerations. The scope of Jewish philanthropic endeavor was broad in its inclusiveness. Every type of ministra- tion within the purview of human aid appreciated at the time received formulation and met with attention. The range of possible beneficiaries covered all classes, except (until the modern era) delinquents. Non-Jews were included among those aided, unlike the prevailing practice among Christians in relation to Jews. Looked at by and large, the history of Jewish philanthropy is an honorable one, distinguished for 182 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY achievement and duration and crowned with noble service. It is a telling factor in humanity’s chain of endeavor to lift the fallen and to bring man nearer | to his brother. BIBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL New York Public Library. List of Works Relating to the History and Condition of the Jews in the Various Countries. Subdivision Charities. (In the Bulletin of the N. Y. Public Library, Oct. 1913.) The “List” also printed separately, N. Y. 1914. Systematic Index to the Literature about the Jews in the Russian Language, 1708-1889. (In Russian.) St. Petersburg, A. E. Landau, 1893. Charity, Nos. 2053-2266. Cf. also Index of Subjects, s. v. “Charity,: p. 551. Bogen, Boris. Jewish Philanthropy, New York, Mac- millan, 1917. Chap. 3, ‘Charity among the Jews,” pp. 16-26. Goodman, Paul. Die Liebestatigkeit im Judenthum. Frankfurt a. M., 1913. Also in Volkschriften uber die jtdische Religion, edited by I. Ziegler, Vol. 1, Part 6, Frankfurt a. M., 1913. Kohler, Kaufman. “The Historical Development of Jew- ish Charity,” in Hebrew Union College and Other Addresses. Ark. Pub. Co., Cincinnati, 1915. —— “Charity and Charitable Institutions,” in Jewish Encyclopedia. “Zum Kapitel der jiidischen Wohlthatigkeitspflege,” in Festschrift zum Geburtstage A. Berliner’s, Berlin, 1903, Pp. 195-203. Lewis, Harry S. Liberal Judaism and Social Service, New York, Bloch Pub. Co., 1915. Loch, Charles Stuart. ‘Charity and Charities.’ Ency- clopedia Britannica. 183 184 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY BIBLICAL ‘TIMES Cros-Mayrevielle, G. ‘“L’Assistance chez les Hébreux,” La Révue philanthropique, Vol. 44 (1923), pp. 61-67. Fluegel, M. The Benevolence and Humanity Laws of the Bible. Baltimore, 1911. Lallemand, Léon. Histoire de la Charité, 3 vols., Paris, 1902-1906, Vol. 1, pp. I-23. Levinger, Lee J. ‘The Development of Charity in Biblical Times,” Hebrew Union College Monthly, Jan., 1915. EARLY SYNAGOGUE CHARITY ORGANIZATION Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. “Découverte a Jérusalem d’une Synagogue de l’Epoque Hérodienne,” in Syria, Vol. I (1921), pp. 190-197. Cook, Stanley A. ‘The Synagogue of Theodotos at Jeru- salem,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly State- ment, Jan., 1921. Krauss, Samuel. Synagogale Altertiimer, Berlin und Wien, Benjamin Harz, 1922, pp. 52-267. Lehmann, Joseph. ‘Assistance Publique et Privée d’aprés Antique Législation Juive,’ Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 35 (1897), Appendix, pp. i-xxxviil. Marmorstein, A. “The Inscription of ‘Theodotos,” Pales- tine Exploration Fund, Jan., 1921, pp. 23-28. Schiirer, Emil. Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, 3 Vols., Leipzig, 1901 (4th edit.), Vol. 2, pp. 499-536. TALMUD AND RABBINIC WorKS Mishnah. ‘Treatise Peah 8:7-9. Tosephta. Peah 4:8-21 (Zuckermandel edition, pp. 23-25). Jerusalem Talmud. Peah 8:6-8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 Babylonian Talmud. Chief passages: Taanit 20a-21a; Ketubot 67a-68a; Baba Batra 8a-11a. Midrash Rabbah. Passim. Pirke d’ Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. 17. ‘Translated and annotated with introduction and indices by Gerald Friedlander, London, Kegan Paul, 1916, Bachya ben Joseph Ibn Pakuda (11th cent.), Chobot ha- Lebabot. Many editions. ‘The original Arabic text entitled, d/-Hidaja Ila Farad id Al Qulub, was edited by A. 5S. Yahuda, Leyden, 1912. The Duties of the Heart. Translated by Edwin Collins, London, 1905, pp. 26-30. Moses Maimonides (1135-1204 A.D.), Mishneh Torah, Sections Matnot Aniyyim; Hilkot Teshubah, Ch. 10, par. 1 and 2; Hilkot Megillah, Ch. 2, par. 15-17. Judah he-Chasid. Sefer Chasidim (c. 1200). Bologna edition, 1538. Sections 125, 327, 519, 544, 595, 720, 874, 1033, 1035, 1038-1042, 1044. The Berlin edition (1903) has no section corresponding to section 125 in the Bologna edition. The other sections correspond successively as follows: 901, 1913, 1967, 21, 311, 675, 1678, 1683, 1691, 884, 1696, 862, 861, 865. Aaron ben Joseph Halevi (13th cent.) Sefer ha-Chinnuk, sections 63-66, 84, 216, 330, 479. Isaac Aboab the Elder (13th cent.) Menorat ha-Maor, Sections 186-221. Jacob ben Asher (14th cent.) Tur, Yoreh Deah. Hilkot Zedakah. Joseph Caro (1488-1575). Shulchan Aruk, Yoreh Deah. Hilkot Zedakah. Section on Charity from the Shulchan Arukh. Translated by Louis Feinberg, “Studies in Social Work,” No. 6, N. Y. School of Philanthropy, Nov., 1915. 186 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY Moses of Przemysl (16th cent.) Matteh Mosheh, Chap. 2-7, on Zedakah and Gemilut Chasadim. Manasseh ben Israel. Jhesauro Dos Dinim, Amsterdam, 1655. Elijah ben Solomon Abraham ha-Kohen. Meil Zedakah (1704). Isaac Lampronti (18th cent.) Pachad Yizchak, s.v. Zedakah. MopEernN Works RELATING TO THE TALMUDIC PERIOD Blau, Joel. ‘“The Defective in Jewish Law and Literature,” in Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays, N. Y., Bloch Pub. Co., 1975: Goldschmidt, $. Die soziale Fiirsorge in der jiidischen Re- ligion, Kattowitz, 1913. Hamburger, J. Real-Encyclopadie, s.v. Armenversorge, Armenpflege, Vol. I, p. 107. Iterson, Aart Van. Armenzorg bij de Joden in Palestina van 100 v. Chr.—z200 n. Chr. Leiden, 1911. Montefiore, Claude G. ‘Hebrew Charity,” in Jewish Chronicle (London), May 9, 16 and 23, 1884. Peppercorne, James W. The Laws of the Hebrews Re- lating to the Poor, London, 1840. Reichler, Max. ‘Jewish Eugenics,” in Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays, N. Y., Bloch Pub. Co., 1915. Mippie AGEs Abrahams, Israel. Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1911, Chap. 17 and 18. Addison, Lancelot. The Present State of the Jews (in Barbary). 3d edition, London, 1682. Baas, K. ‘“Judische Spitaler in Mittelalter. Monatschrift fur Gesch, und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1911, p. 745, and 1913, p. 452. BIBLIOGRAPHY 187 Badinet, Léon. | “Antiquité et Organisation des Juiveries du Comtat Venaissin.” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. I (1880), pp. 262-292. Berliner, A. Geschichte der Juden in Rom. Frankfurt a. M., J. Kaufman, 1893. ‘Two volumes in one. De Maulde, R. “Les Juifs des Etats francais du Pape au Moyen Age,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 7, p. aan Vor Os pent 1a; Les Juifs dans les Etats francais du Saint-Siége au Moyen Age, Paris, H. Champion, 1886. Haase, Heinrich. ‘Die Wohlfahrtspflege bei den Juden,” in M. Grunwald’s Die Hygiene der Juden, Dres- den, 1911. Appendix, pp. i-xliv. Kayserling, M. Die Juden in Navarra, den Baskenlaendern und auf den Balearen, Berlin, 1861. “Ein Verein der jiidischen Schuhmacher in Sara- gossa,” in Allegemeine Zeitung des. Judenthums, Vol. 56, Sept. 9, 1892. Loeb, Isidor. ‘“‘Réglement des Juives de Castille en 1432,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 13, pp. 187-216. Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs, 2 Vols. Oxford University Press, 1920-1922. Vol. 1, pp. 87-95, 204-205, 232, 244. Neubauer, Ad. “Le Memorbuch de Mayence,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 4, p. 14. Medieval Jewish Chronicles, Oxford, 1887, Vol. ou.veetao f. Sonnenschein, $8. H. Hebrew Charities during the Middle Ages. Paper read before National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 1883. Vogelstein und Rieger. Geschichte der Juden in Rom. 2 Vols. Berlin, 1896. IopERN ‘TIMES Bogen, Boris. Jewish Philanthropy, Macmillan Co., N. Y., 1917. 188 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY Cohen, Israel. Jewish Life in Modern Times, Dodd, Mead & Co., N. Y., 1914, Chap. 5, “Philanthropy.” Du Camp, Maxime. Paris Bienfaisant, Hachette, Paris, 1888, Chap. 4, “La Charité d’Israel,” pp. 291-440. Feuerlicht, M. and A. Hirschberg. ‘“The Jews,” in Charles Richmond Henderson’s Modern Methods of Charity, Macmillan Co., N. Y., 1904. Frankel, Lee K. “Charity and Charities” (last section), Jewish Encyclopedia. Kahn, Léon. La Comité de Bienfaisance, A. Durlacher, Paris, 1886. Les Sociétés de Secours Mutuels Philanthropique et de Prévoyance, A. Durlacher, Paris, 1887. Lindo, E. H. dA Jewish Calendar for Sixty-four Years, L. Thompson, London, 1838. Section, ‘Religious and Charitable Institutions of the Jews, in London,” pp. IOI-104. Magnus, Laurie. The Jewish Board of Guardians and the Men Who Made It, The Jewish Board of Guar- dians, London, 1909. . National Conference of Jewish Charities. Proceedings, 1902-1918. Rosenberg, Leo. ‘‘Armenwesen und soziale Fiirsorge im Ostjudentum,” in Der Jude, Herausgeber M. Buber, Vol. I, pp. 737-750, Vol. 2, pp. 321-339, Berlin, IQI7. Statutes of Congregations and Societies of Various Com- munities. See Chap. 10, Note 51, and Chap. 11, Notes 1, 2, 3 and 4. INDEX Aaron, 135 Aaron ben Joseph Halevi, 70, 93, 138, note 1 Abraham, 18, 76, 82, 95, 144 Abrahams, Israel, 97, 105, note oy iO7,. tit; note 29; 131, 143,. note 6; 147, note 11; 152, note 28; 154, 158, 179 Academies, 43, 45 Achillion, 33 Achsanya, 143 ff. Adam, 76, 94 Addison, Launcelot, 128 Adiabene, 100 Administration. See “Public Relief and ministration” Administrators of Charity, 39, AO; A0,a10%, 100, “105, 108 ff., 132 Africa, 34 Agadta, 69 Aged, 159 Agricultural provisions for poor in Biblical times, 10- 14 Aheb, 4 Aix, 163 Alexander, L., 172 Alexandria, 33, 36, 162 Algiers, 153 Alienation of homestead, 10 Almsgiving, 28-30 Almshouses, 142 Amalgamation, 165 ff. America, 169, 175, 177 Ammon, 66 Chapter, its Ad- 100, 151, Amos, 5, 6 Amount of giving, 56, 118 f. Amsterdam, 104, note 113 105, note 14; 107, note 18; 159, 164, note 4 Apocrypha, 25-30 Arabs, 151 Arbaah Turim, 64-67 Arragon, 163 Asceticism, 179 Ascoli, Isaac, 152, note 30; 166, note 2 Asher ben Yechiel, 131, 156 Asia Minor, 34 Assi, 55 Atonement, Day of, 7, 30, 56, 82, 37, 105 Auberge Juive, 146 Avignon, 128, 150 Baas, K., 147, note 113 148, 149, 154-155 Babylonian Academies, 45 Babylonian Talmud, 53 Bachya ben Asher, 98, note 21 Bachya Ibn Pakuda, 71, 89 Balaban, M., 153, note 154, note 35 Bagdad, 141 Barbary, 128 Basilica, 35 Beggars and begging, 52, 107, 117, 126-129, 180 Benjamin of Tudela, 141-142 Ben Sira, 25-28 Berliner, A., 134, note 6; 158 Bet Din, 79, 128, 138 Bethel, 5 31; 189 190 Bethsur, 14 Biblical episodes, 17-18 Biblical influence on later char- ity, 46 Billetten, 146 Blau, Joel, 133, note 4 Board of Guardians, 172 Boaz, 18 “Book of Pedagogy” (or Edu- cation), 70, 93, note 5 “Book of the Pious,” 70 Brest-Litovsk, 128, 138, note 2 Brisch, Carl, 148 Brotherhood of man, 10, 12 “Brother, thy,.the needy,” 8 Buddhist charity, 51, 150, 179, 181 Burdett, Sir Henry, 150, note 245 98% Burial fund and burial ex- penses, 101, III, 123 Burial societies, 97, 167 Byzantium, 161 156-157, Calahorra, David, 152 Cairo, 153. See also “Kahira” “Candelabra of Light,” 70, 93, note 2 Captives, 161 ff. Caro, Joseph, 45, 67, 68, 79, 101, 107, 114, 122, 126, note 2 Castille, 150 Cemeteries, 142 Certificates, 128, 129 Chaberim, 97 Chalukkah, 163 Chamber of Whispers or Si- lence or Unostentation, 35, 37, 63 Chananiah ben Teradyon, 63, 76, note 6; 111, note 30 Charity box, 87 Charity commanded not _ re- quested, 9; importance of do- ng, 55 Chasidim, 97 redemption of, 116, INDEX Chebrah Kaddishah, 156, 173 Chebrot, 173 Chesed, 77 Children, claims of, 59 Chobot Ha-Lebabot, 71 Christianity and Christians, 22, 81, 85, 127, 134, 136, 153, 163, 179-184 Church, Christian, 37, 40, 126, 130, 153 Cleopatra, 33 Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, 34, 38 Clinic, free, 154 Clothing fund, 101, 117, 159 Coblenz, 150 Codes, 61, 68, note 6; 69 Cohen, Rev. A., 172, note 6 Cohen, Saul Astruc, 136, 153 Cohon, Samuel S., 136 Collections, public, 101-108, 137 Collectors of charity, 53. See also “Administrators of Char- ity” Collins, Edwin, 73 Cologne, 148 Colquhoun, Peter, 171 Comité de bienfaissance, Comité de secours, 173, Communal centers, 33-40 Communal obligation, 79, 1o1 Congregation, the medium of organized charity, 38-40 Consideration, 75, 117, 127, 180 Consistory, 173 Consolation, meal of, 97 Constitutions and by-laws of congregations and _ societies, 108, 167. See also “Statutes” Cook, Stanley A., 34, note 4; 38 Coérdination and consolidation, 170 ff., 175 Corners of field, 11, 49, 78 Councils, 45 Council of Four hands, 138, note 2 Cracow, 154, 152 174 174 128, INDEX Crafts, 36 Crémieux, Ad., 150, ‘note 22 Crusades, 108, 145 Cyprus, 100 David, 76 Debts, 11, 19, 49 Defectives, 132 Degrees of charity, eight, 62 Delta region, 33 De Maulde, R., 128, note 9 Democracy, 80 Dependent classes, 11, 75, 175 Desertion Bureau, National, 176 Deuteronomy, 8, 9, 12, 21, 22 Dowries. See “Marriage dow- ers” Duplication, 119 “Duties of the Heart,” 71, 89 Ecclesiastes, 16, 125 Ecclesiasticus, 25-28 Economic conditions — relation to poverty, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 23 Education, 111, 149 Egypt, 32, 33, 34, 88, note 9; 105, 161 Egyptian charity, 150 Egyptian experiences—influence on charity and humanity, 12, 17 Eleazar ben Porta, 76, note 6 Eleazar of Birta, 96, 104, note 10 Eleazar II (ben Pedat), 94 Eleazar the Levite, 131 Elijah, 4 Elijah ben Solomon Abraham Hakohen, 70, 94 Emancipation, 43 f., 140, 168 ff. Embarrassment, sparing the poor, 56, 60, 62-63, 117, 127 England, 128, 171-174, 180 Ephraim, R., 122, note 5 Equality of all men, 10, 115 Essenes, 179 IgI Ethical Will, 131, 132, note 3 Ethical works, 61, 69, 71 Ethics of the Fathers, 48 Euergetes Ptolemy, 33 Eve, 94 Exploitation, 5, 15, 16, 17, 25, 26 Ezekiel, 7, note 5; 13 Fabiola, 144 Federation movement, 175 ff, Feinberg, Louis, 68, note 5 Ferdinand, King, 163 Ferrara, 155 First fruits, 11, 14 Fitz-Gerald, M., 34, 38 “Follow-up” work, 118 Food fund, rox Forgotten sheaves, 11, 49 Four Lands, Council of, 138, note 2 “Four Rows,” 64-67, 83 France, 153, 169, 173-174 Francis, St., of Assisi, 126 Franciscans, 180 Frankfurt, 155, 159 Fraternities, 157-158 Free will offerings, 103 ff., 167, note 3 French Revolution, 168-169 Friedlander, Gerald, 93, note 4 Friendly visiting, 111, 159 Funerals, 76, 95 note 4; 128, Gabbai Zedakah, 39, 40, 100 Gad, 13 Gamaliel, 95 Gamliel ben Judah, 125 Gemara, 53 Gemilut Chasadim, 91-99. Generosity, 56 Germany, 131, 146, 162, 167 Ghetto, 134, note 6; 153, 168 Ginzberg, Louis, 61, 68, note 6 Gleanings, 11, 13, 49, 78, note 12 69, 77; 89; 192 God as exemplar, 76; source and proprietor of all goods, 77, 78, 94 Governments, influence of, 44 Graetz, Herman, 108, note 24 Greece, 34, 85 Greek charity, 85, 143, 150 Grodno, 128, 138, note 2 “Guide for (or to) the Per- plexed,” 93, note 4 Guilds, 36, 157-158 Haase, Heinrich, 158, note 43 Habakkuk, 77 Haggadah, 69 Haknasat Orchim, 98, 147 Halakah, 69, 82 Hamadan, 151 Hamburg, 167 Haphtarah for Day of Atone- ment, 7 Hekdesh, 146, 147 ff. Helena, Queen, of Adriabene, 100 Hepner, A., and Herzberg, J., 127, note 7; 153 Herodian period, 34 Hilkot Zedakah, 64, 68 Hillel, 135 Holy Land. See “Palestine” Holy League, 156 Homiletical literature, 69 Hospitality, 143, 146, 151 Hospitals, 133, 141, 144, 155, 167 Huna, 56, 95, 98 150- Immigrants, 176 Imposition and 126, 128, 180 Indolence, 80, 126 Industry. See “Labor” Inns, 107 Inspirational sources other than codes, 69 Isaac, 76 Isaac Aboab the Elder, 70, 92, 94 impostors, 80, INDEX Isaac ben Moses, 94, note 8 Isaac, Rabbi, 56 Isabella, Queen, 163 Isaiah of Jerusalem, 6, 7, 76 Isaiah (II) of Babylon, 7, 82 Ishmael Ha-Kohen, 133, note 5 Isserles, Moses, 126, note 2 Italy, 34, 117, 136, 146, 167 Jacob ben Asher, 45, 64, 68, note 6; 77, 79, 83, 121-122, 131 Jacobs, Joseph, 147, note 11 Jehudah ben Asher, 82 Jehudah (II) ben Gamliel, 144 Jehudah ben Kallonymos, 122, note 51 Jehudah Ha-Nasi, 48, 52, 130 Jeremiah, 8 Jeroboam II, 18, 25 Jerome, St., 144 Jerusalem Talmud, 53 Jerushalmi, 53 Jerusalem, 4, 5, 32, 34, 100, 105, note 12 Jesus, 30 Jewish and non-Jewish philan- thropy compared, 22, 39 Jezebel, 4, note 1 Job 16, 18, 21, 29 Jochanan, 57, 59 Jonah, Rabbi, 75 Jose ben Jochanan, 145 Josephus, 14, note 9; note 12}; 100 Josiah, 8 Jubilee, law of, 10, 13, 19 Judah, 5 Judan, 58 Judea, 100 Julian the Apostate, 127, note 5 Justice as a motive and mode of charity, 6-8, 20, 82, 92, 179, 181. 34, 78, Kahana, 59 Kahira, 88, note 9; 105 Kahn, Leon, 174, note 8 Kamis, Guiseppe, 152 INDEX Kayserling, M., 158 Kibbuz, 129 Kiddush, 36 Kohler, Kaufman, 22, 99, 100, 127, note .§ 571738 Krauss, Samuel, 33, 34, note 5 Kuppah, 49, 50, 101 ff. Labor, 59, 80, 125 Landlords, 5 Lauterbach, Jacob Z., 134-135 Lauingen, 150 Lazarus, Moritz, 85 Lecky, 22, 180 Leghorn, 159 Lehmann, Joseph, 9, note 6; 37, note 10; 78, note 13}; 100, note 2 Leontopolis, 32 Letters of Collection, 129 Liezer, 113 Lindo, E. H., 159, note 50; 167, note 5 Lishkat Chasaim, 35, 37, 63 Lithuania, 728 Loans, 52, 59, 91, 95, 98, 114, 159, 167 Loch, Charles Stuart, 22, 81 Lodging, 49, 146 Loeb, Isidor, 150, note 213; 163, note 54 London, 159, 167, 171-172 Love and loving-kindness as motives and modes of charity, 22, 53, 55, 57, 76, 77, 82, 85, 88-90, 92-99, 179 Lowenstein, Dr. L., 20 Liinel, 153 Luria, Isaac, 121, note 49 150, note Maamad, 82 Maaser Ani, 130 Maaser Sheni, 130 Maccabees; Maccabean, 14, 29, 31 Madrid, 142 Magnus, Laurie, 172, note 7 193 Maimonides, Moses, 45, 52, 61- 64, 67, 68, note 6; 77, 78, 79, $2,058, (89, -93,. 101, 102,/\107; 12%, 135, 136, 153, 154, 162 Malachi 6, note 2 Manasseh, 13 Mann, Jacob, 39, 88, note 9; 161 Mantua, 159 Marriage dowers, 49, 96, 98, III, 117, 123, 129, 138, 159, 121-124, 128, 160 Marseilles, 150, 155, 163 Martyrs, 149 Matatia, 153 Matnot Aniyyim, 64 Matteh Mosheh, 70, 93, note 3 Matthew, 30 Meal tickets, 117 Medical treatment, 151-155 Meil Zedakah, 70 Meir of Rothenberg, 162 Meir, Rabbi, 48, 58, 88 Mendelssohn, Moses, 46, 168 Menorat Ha-Maor, 70 Merit, doctrine of, 29, 87 Micah, 6, 7, 76 Midrash, 69, 70, 75, 92, 144 “Mighty Hand,” 61, 64 Minimum of Allowances, 51, 121-124, 128, 160; of contri- TET, 136; butions, 56, 79, 103, 118f., 124 Minz, Judah, 117 Mishnah, 48, 51, 52, 87, 100, 121, 130 Mishneh Torah, 61 Moab, 66 Modernization of Jewish phi- lanthropy, 165 ff. Mohammedanism, 81, 141, 150, 179, 181 Monasticism, 179 Monobaz, 53, 57, 87 Montefiore, Claude G., 64 Moses of Przemysl, 70, 93, 97; note 15 194 Motives of Jewish philanthropy —in Biblical times, 20, 21; in Apocrypha] literature, 25-30; in Mishnaic and ‘Talmudic literature, 51, 56-58, 80-81; in Bachya, 71-73; survey of, in Jewish literature, 84-90, 133; in Maimonides, 89-90; survey of, 179, 181 Mount Ophel, 34 Mourners, 76, 95, 156, 158, 159 Munich, 148, 150 Mutual benefit organizations, 167, 173 Naboth, 2, note 1 Narbonne, 149 National Conference of Jewish Social Work, 175 National Desertion Bureau, 176 National institutions and _ or- ganizations, 176-177 Neglect of family, 59 Nehemiah and economic recon- struction, 19 Nehemiah, R., 144 Neubauer, A., 89, note 93; 105, note 12; 149, note 19 New Testament, 34 New Year, 30, 87 Nicholls, Sir George, 127, notes 4 and 6 Non-Jews, aid to, 9, 24, 117, 133- 136, 153, 177, 180; treatment at hands of, 155 Niirnberg, 149, 155 Obligatory phases of charity, 9, XI, 23}. 78, 122;/123 Offord, Joseph, 33 Ophel, 34, 38 Orphan Asylums, 142, 155 Orphans, 11, 18, 78, 96, 112, 115, 124, 137 Orphans’ school, 156 Or Zarua, 94, note 8 Ostentation, 6, 30, 35, 37, 63 ¥ er INDEX Ostia, 144. Overseers of 108 ff. Charity, 105, Pagan charity, 85 Palestine, 4, 32, 34, 40, 45, 53, 130, 159, 163 Paltiel, 89, 105 Pandok or Pundok, 143 ff. Paris, 170, 171-174 Parnas, 39, 40, 98, 108, 114 Parsimony, 56 Pastoral visiting, 97 Pauperization, 51, 115, 163 Peah, 48, 51 Pedro III, King, 157 Penitential motive, 21 Pentateuch charity and admonitions, key passage, 8, 9 Personal service, 53, 91 ff. Philo, 23, 24 Pilgrimage festivals, 11 Pirates, 161-163 Pirke Abot, 48 Pledged commodities, 14, 49 Pletz, Solomon, 55 Poland, 128, 146 “Portions of the Poor,” 64 Posekim, 68 Posen, 127, note 7; 153 Poverty—as a discipline, 58, 179; as an ideal, 125-126 Prague, 157 Prevention, 11, 23, 59, 62, II, 167, 173 Pride, false, 59 Primitive charity, 3 Profiteering, 19 Prophets the first to show con- nection between economic op- pression and want, 6; denun- ciation of industrial wrongs and exploitation by, 5, 6, 7, 23; motives emphasized by the, 21 Proverbs, 16, 18, 21, 29, 125 Psalms, the, 15, 16, 23, 82 legislation 7-14, 233 INDEX Ptolemy III (Euergetes), 33; Physcon, 33 Public charity funds, ro1-108 Publicity and secrecy in charity, 30 Public relief—general, 55, 100 Pundyon, 49 Purim, 18, 64 Rabba, 82 Rabbinical law, 42f. 68, 74, 94 Rabbinowitz, Samuel P., 129, note 10; 138, note 2 Rav, 59 Recanati, Manahem, 105, note 15; 111, note 30; 122, note 51 Regensburg, 142 Régné, Jean, 149, note 18 Regulation, 127-129 Rehoboam, 18 Residence, length of residence as determining obligation, 52, 56, 57-58, 101 Response literature, 69 Reuben, Gad and Manassah, deportation of, 13 Rewards, types of—emphasized in various Biblical books. See “Motives” Rieger, 39, note 143 136, 158 Right of poor to assistance, 9, note 6; 114, 126 Roman charity, 85, 144, 150 Rome, 34, 134, note 6; 158-159 Rosh Ha-Keneset, 39 Rotterdam, 159 Russia, 146 Ruth, book of, 14 Saadia, 67 Sabbath, special charity provi- sions for, 49 Sabbatical year, law of the, 11, 13, 14, 19 Saduccees, 16 Samarkand, 151 195 Samuel bar Nachmani, 96, note 15 Samuel ben Paltiel, 89, note 9; 195 Samuel Ha-Kohen, 154 Sanctions. See “Motives” Sanhedrin, 44 Saragossa, 157 Schechter, S., 132, note 3; 135 Schedia, synagogue of, 33 Schnorrers, 127 Scholars, 116, 163 Schiirer, 34, 39, note 13 Secrecy and publicity in charity, 30, 60 Sefer note Self-dependence and _ self-sup- port, 80, 118, 120, 125 ff. Sermon on the Mount, 58 Servants, 115 “Set Table,” 67 Se’udat habraah, 97 Sheélot, 69 Sick, 76, 94, 95, 97, TI, 157, 159 Shelter’s, 36, 38, 107, 142, 143 ff. Shulchan Aruch, 67-68, 122 Simeon ben Lakesh, 59, 144 Simlai, 76 Simon ben Yochai, 56 Simon the Just, 56 Simonides, 38 Simulation of bodily defects, 50 Social Service, National Confer- ence of Jewish, 175 Social status of needy, consid- eration of, 52, 57, 118 f., 121, 123, 124 Societies, 137 ff. Solomon, 18 Solomon ben Adret, 149 Spain, 131, 146 Spirit of giving, 56, 62-63 Spontaneous growths of field, oa Standards of giving, 56-57, 132 Standards of living, 118 ff. Ha-Chinnuk, 70, 93, 196 Statutes of congregations and societies. See p. 160, note 51 Strangers, 11, 36, 95, 98, 107 Subsistence, 56 Survey of contemporary Jewish philanthropy, 174-177; of en- tire history, 178-182 Sympathy, 59 Synods, 110, note 24; 126, note 2; 128, 138, note’ 2 Synagogues—early centers of organized relief, 33-39; char- ity administrators of, 39 Takkanot, 105 Talmud, 47, 48f.; excerpts from, 55f., 61; compilations and codifications, 61 f. Tamchui, 49, 1o1 ff. Tanzhaus, 146 ‘Teshubot, 45, 69 The Hague, 166 Theodorus, 33 Theodotos, Synagogue of, 38, 143 “Thy needy brother,” 8, 9 Tibbon, Samuel ibn, 136, Judah, 136, 153 Tithes, 11, 13, 14, 49, 130-132 Titus, 12 Tobit, 25, 28-30 Toledo, 131, 151 Tortossa, 149 Tosephta, 36, note, 73 37, 5% 52 Trade schools, 176 Trajan, 36 Transients, 36, 51, 107, 128, 143 ff., 147, 169, 170 Treviso, 117 Trust-fund, wealth, a, 77 Tur, 64-67, 75 Turnus Rufus, 58 1545 117, INDEX Uhlhorn, Gehrhard, 22, 84 Ukba, Mar, 56 United States. See “America” Usha, Synod of, 126, note 2 Uzziah, 5, 151 Vagrancy, 175 Valence, 142 Van Oven, Joshua, 171 Venice, 159 Vespasian, 12 Vetenos, 38 Vienna, 150, 157 Villareal Charity School, 156 Vital, Hayim, 135 Vogelstein, 39, note 14; 158 War relief, 177 Wayfarers. See “Transients” Wealth comes from and belongs to God, 77, 78 Widows, 11, 112, 137, 159 Wilna, 157 Winkler, Dr. Jacob, 153 Wisdom literature and charity, 16, 197; 16. a1 Women, 115 Worms, 150 136, Xenipheris, synagogue of, 33 Yad Ha-Hazakah, 61 Zangwill, Israel, 127 Zedakah, change in meaning from justice to almsgiving, 29- 30, 80-81; in the codes, 64-69; in ethical and _ homilectical works, 69-70; as a basic prin- ciple and ideal, 75-83; its re- lation to Gemilut Chasadim, 91-93 Zerephat, woman of, 66 LO At ra pea ee Be Wires ee ie } y nies. , bt cia: Wang’) a, iy : rane ‘4 ; yy i) ti a ‘ t H Ae of ‘ i i Ro / ‘ My i LNG Yee J i el { ' vi | iv » wi. { ¥ i ‘ f ' 7 e 4 ‘ * { (iy Y a f iz j t « 4 ie] J * "i i i ) wi \ ih ayy = in ni ie: al ra ® : 5 HIGHSMITH #4511 HV17 .F91 = Bs. = iF) “~* vas ° > © > = = ” An historica ry cal Seminary—Speer Libra Princeton Theologi