58 LEE K. FRANKEL 



charitable provision for the latter class must of necessity be 

 arranged by the former. And the pity of it all was that the 

 charity of the Mosaic legislation was not narrow and sectarian. 

 It could and did include within its scope the stranger and the 

 non-Jew. It was broadly humanitarian, having regard for 

 the servant as well as the master. It was a world wide scheme 

 of philanthropy, the like of which is not to be found to-day, 

 since it was grounded not merely on the bases of love and 

 pity, but on justice. The gleanings of the field were not given 

 to the poor man as a gift, but as his due. Similarly the tithes 

 were exacted from all, rich and poor alike, in the nature of an 

 assessment to carry out the principles of justice and righteous- 

 ness on which the charity law was based. 



In our modern day, under more favorable conditions and 

 auspices, the Jew has, to some extent, reverted to the non- 

 sectarian idea, in his philanthropies. Hospitals, as a rule, 

 supported and endowed by Jews, throw open their doors to 

 sufferers irrespective of creed, color or nationality. Other in- 

 stances could be cited of charities not medical, organized along 

 similar lines. The free employment bureau of the United 

 Hebrew charities makes no distinction with its applicants. 

 The educational alliance offers its clubs and classes to Jew and 

 Gentile alike. Jewish agencies, giving material relief, or to 

 use a better term, those which care for the needy in their own 

 homes, in the main confine their work to the beneficiaries of 

 their faith, without, however, making any rigid distinction. 

 On the other hand, the trend of Jewish charity has been in the 

 direction of caring for the Jewish poor, solely through Jewish 

 agencies, and without the intervention or cooperation of other 

 sectarian or nonsectarian societies or institutions. Such a 

 condition of affairs is the resultant of the compulsion of the 

 centuries. The task which was at one time assumed of 

 necessity has to-day become a proud duty. What in Stuy- 

 vesant's day was obligatory and mandatory, is to-day accepted 

 as a voluntary responsibility. 



To what extent and for what length of time the care of 

 the Jewish poor may remain exclusively in Jewish hands, it 

 is impossible to say. The question is hardly a religious one. 

 Jewish poverty is due mainly to economic and industrial 



