Judaism Strives to Relieve and Mitigate Poverty, Not Eliminate It

Drawing on the Talmud, the Bible, and the works of Moses Maimonides, a writer using the pseudonym Elijah del Medigo outlines an understanding of economics rooted in the Jewish tradition:

Property rights are enshrined in the Hebrew Bible, yet they are contingent, subject to the strictures of Jewish law. God, according to the Torah, is. . . the ultimate creator and owner of the earth and everything it contains. Therefore, God retains the ultimate rights over property. For instance, Jewish law requires that a small percentage of harvested produce, . . . known as t’rumah, be given to the priests. This percentage is not a mere tax; it is a precondition for consumption: produce from which t’rumah has not been offered is off-limits and its consumption is forbidden. . . .

As Maimonides makes clear, property rights in Judaism belong ultimately to God and are bestowed contingently, on condition that property is used in a manner which benefits society at large.

Poverty, in Judaism, is not considered the result of individual choices nor of poor habits. A midrash, [citing Leviticus 25:25], states: “There is a wheel which turns in the world; therefore Moses admonishes the people of Israel: ‘if your brother be waxen poor, . . . [then thou shalt relieve him].’” Poverty is a matter of fate, of cycles, whether cosmic or economic, which are out of the control of individuals or even of society as a whole. The halakhah does not put its trust in cure-all solutions, and its laws are designed to mitigate and to relieve suffering, not to abolish it entirely. “For paupers will never fully cease from the land,” the Torah says in Deuteronomy 15:11; the complete abolition of poverty is only possible through divine blessings, not via utopian schemes.

Read more at Athwart

More about: Economics, Halakhah, Judaism, Moses Maimonides, Poverty

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF