When It Comes to the Poor, Jewish Law Aims Not at Equality but at Brotherhood

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.

Read more at Ancient Jew Review

More about: Hebrew Bible, Judaism, Poverty, Talmud, Tzedakah

Expand Gaza into Sinai

Feb. 11 2025

Calling the proposal to depopulate Gaza completely (if temporarily) “unworkable,” Peter Berkowitz makes the case for a similar, but more feasible, plan:

The United States along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should persuade Egypt by means of generous financial inducements to open the sparsely populated ten-to-fifteen miles of Sinai adjacent to Gaza to Palestinians seeking a fresh start and better life. Egypt would not absorb Gazans and make them citizens but rather move Gaza’s border . . . westward into Sinai. Fences would be erected along the new border. The Israel Defense Force would maintain border security on the Gaza-extension side, Egyptian forces on the other. Egypt might lease the land to the Palestinians for 75 years.

The Sinai option does not involve forced transfer of civilian populations, which the international laws of war bar. As the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other partners build temporary dwellings and then apartment buildings and towns, they would provide bus service to the Gaza-extension. Palestinian families that choose to make the short trip would receive a key to a new residence and, say, $10,000.

The Sinai option is flawed. . . . Then again, all conventional options for rehabilitating and governing Gaza are terrible.

Read more at RealClear Politics

More about: Donald Trump, Egypt, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula