During testimony before a Congressional hearing on the federal food-stamp program, a representative of a Jewish “social-justice” organization asserted, citing Leviticus, that “the Jewish tradition” mandates the distribution of charity without regard for whether the recipients are able to earn money themselves. While Mark Tooley has responded to this claim from a Christian perspective, Gil Student explains that the Jewish view is in fact far more nuanced than the witness at the hearing suggested:

The most famous source [on this topic] is the gloss found in Kli Yakar—the biblical commentary of Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz (ca. 1550-1619)—to the verse (Exodus 23:5), “If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would refrain from setting it free, you shall surely set it free with him.” The Talmud, noting the phrase “with him,” explains that the obligation to help only applies if the ass’s owner also participates. So too, writes Luntschitz, you only have to help someone by giving him charity if he also will help himself by working. If he is physically unable to work, then he is exempt from doing so. However, the non-working poor cannot demand help without exerting any effort to help themselves. . . .

[By contrast], the late Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, quoting the medieval talmudic commentator Menaḥem Meiri—who is unsure about the rule in such a case—concludes that [in principle] we must give charity to everyone regardless of whether they contribute to their own survival. [Nonetheless, even in Lichtenstein’s opinion], context matters. For example, it is necessary to look at the reason why the person is not working. Is it because he “sneers as society and expects it to support him” or because he cannot find a job that matches his training and background? These details matter in determining whether to offer charity to someone who chooses not to support himself. Lichtenstein concludes that “the effort to encourage sensitivity on the one hand and [individual] responsibility on the other . . . reflects halakhah’s values.”

It is a shame that Jewish advocacy groups project a limited vision of the Jewish tradition.

In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump put forth ambitious goals for his first days in office. An additional item that should be on the agenda of his administration, and also that of the 119th Congress, should be defunding, and ideally dismantling, UNRWA. The UN Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees—to give its full name—is deeply enmeshed with Hamas in Gaza, has inculcated generations of young Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and exists primarily to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Robert Satloff explains what must be done.

[T]here is an inherent contradiction in support for UNRWA (given its anti-resettlement posture) and support for a two-state solution (or any negotiated resolution) to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Providing relief to millions of Palestinians based on the argument that their legitimate, rightful home lies inside Israel is deeply counterproductive to the search for peace.

Last October, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass two laws that will come into effect January 30: a ban on UNRWA operations in Israeli sovereign territory and the severing of all Israeli ties with the agency. This includes cancellation of a post-1967 agreement that allowed UNRWA to operate freely in what was then newly occupied territory.

A more ambitious U.S. approach could score a win-win achievement that advances American interests in Middle East peace while saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Namely, Washington could take advantage of Israel’s new laws to create an alternative support mechanism that eases UNRWA out of Gaza. This would entail raising the stakes with other specialized UN agencies operating in the area. Instead of politely asking them if they can assume UNRWA’s job in Gaza, the Trump administration should put them on notice that continued U.S. funding of their own global operations is contingent on their taking over those tasks. Only such a dramatic step is likely to produce results.