ty. The term [Hebrew: tzadee-dalet-kuf-hey; transliteration:
tzedakah] (Zedakah) meant originally righteousness, and the
righteousness which the prophets advocated was the substance of social
justice. It was incorporated into the fundamental law of the Jewish
state, which differed from that of other ancient states in the fact
that its intention was to secure freedom and "life" for each
individual man. Charity, as we now understand the word, had no place
in the social conceptions of the prophets and was not acknowledged in
the Law. The three codes which are preserved to us in the Bible from
the covenant in Exodus to the extraordinarily profound legislation of
Leviticus express an evolution of the social sense founded on a right
appreciation of social justice and democracy. "Life," and its
sustenance food, and shelter were regarded as the rights of each and
every man and not as gifts from one man to another. The law concerning
the tenure of land is particularly significant for its insight into
the economic basis of social justice, and the laws concerning
indebtedness and slavery only less so. Charity appears only when the
state disintegrates. It is coincident with the decay of the social
organization and the consequent failings of the sense of corporate
responsibility, and consists substantially of the conversion of a
right into a gift. This change is registered in the new meaning which
the word "Zedakah" receives. For a state in which social justice
prevails there is no room for charity, while a social order which
involves charity is not one which maintains justice. Thus it may be
said that the prophets, because they operated in terms of the
reorganization of the whole of society and not of the incidental
correction of piecemeal evils, were humanists. Their program was
constructive and aimed at the enfranchisement of manhood. The rabbis,
on the other hand, were (relatively only) philanthropists. Their
program was remedial, and they aimed rather at the relief of suffering
than the realization and perfection of human potentialities.

To-day the term "charity" has given way to a new equivalent, with a
somewhat different connotation. This new equivalent is "social
service." That it should be urged, as Mr. Lewis urges it, upon liberal
Judaism is simply another indication of the evanescing adherence of
that sect to the corporate life of the Jewish people. Although "social
service" carries with it more of the sense of justice t