In his book Justice for the Poor, recently published in Hebrew, Benjamin Porat analyzes and compares the underlying ideas that animate the biblical and talmudic prescriptions for caring for the indigent. He provides a summary of his main points in English:

To a great extent the Bible bequeathed the obligation of poverty relief to the world, as neither ancient Near Eastern cultures nor the early Greco-Roman world recognized the existence of a legal obligation to ensure the welfare of the poor and the needy. Later, in the period of the Mishnah [ca. 200 CE] and subsequently in talmudic times [ca. 200–600 CE], the laws of charity became [a bedrock] legal obligation upon the Jewish community to support the poor who lived in the vicinity. The institution of charity became an identifying mark of Jewish life.

[Despite some salient differences], it should be recalled that there are . . . many similarities between the conception of welfare in the Bible and that which developed in the study houses of the sages. For example, following biblical law, the rabbis advocated the idea that responsibility for the wellbeing of the poor is imposed on property owners as a legal matter and is not dependent on their compassion. According to the rabbis, this legal responsibility is imposed not only on communal institutions, but also as a personal duty of each single individual, similar to the personal duty imposed by the Pentateuch on the landowner toward his needy neighbor.

Moreover, following a philosophical study of both welfare systems—that of biblical law and that of the rabbis—it seems clear that their fundamental concern, their basic value, is not equality but rather brotherhood; their main struggle is not to reduce social inequalities but rather to provide the needy with the necessary means for their wellbeing.

Yesterday, President Biden reportedly met with his advisers to discuss how to achieve a breakthrough in hostage negotiations. Meir Ben Shabbat takes a closer look at what the terrorists themselves are saying:

Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’s deputy chief in Gaza, reiterated that this issue is merely one of several demands his group has put forward as conditions for a deal. “We stress that any agreement must encompass a full cessation of hostilities, complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, including the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing [which allow Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies from Egypt], unimpeded return of displaced persons to their homes, aid and relief for Palestinians, Gaza’s reconstruction, and a prisoner exchange,” al-Hayya stated.

This stance isn’t new. What stood out in its presentation was the self-assurance displayed by the senior Hamas official, during a week when he and his associates were expected to be on edge, fearing repercussions for the killing of six hostages. However, the reaction to this in Israel and the United States prompted an opposite response from them. From their perspective, not only did they avoid consequences for the heinous act, but through it, they managed to escalate tensions and internal disagreements in Israel, while also prompting Washington to consider presenting a framework defined as a “final offer, without room for negotiation.

Hamas assumes that a final American proposal will inevitably come at Israel’s expense. The primary pressure to reach an agreement is already being applied to Israeli leadership. Hamas faces no consequences for prolonging the process, and so long as it holds hostages, it can always resume negotiations from where they left off.