50 Daniel Schiff

represented a watershed in the history of human societies in one form or another, they embraced fundamental notions that Jewish communities had always deemed essential.

It has become apparent, however, that though they share many congruent goals, there is a key philosophical difference between the welfare-oriented societies of the contemporary West and a society that would cleave to the Jewish model of tzedakah. Examining welfare nations first, it is readily apparent that, across the range of different models,” these states do not focus programmatically on helping the needy as a matter of priority. While alleviating economic vulnerability may once have stimulated the creation of the assistance structures that are offered, welfare nations ultimately made many benefits universally available to all those within certain categories: thus, benefits are made available to the unemployed, or to those over sixty-five years of age, or to those with two or more children, to cite just a few examples. Indeed, a well-known definition describes the welfare state as a “model of provision, where the state accepts responsibility for the provision of comprehensive and universal welfare for its citizens.”® As a result, in the welfare state, benefits are frequently made available to recipients without regard to means. It is, therefore, a widely accepted fallacy that welfare states concern themselves mainly with the disadvantaged, it is a fallacy that is further countered by the reality that welfare programs are often focused on addressing matters such as education, retirement, and health care, without regard to vulnerability:

A classic myth about social or welfare policy is that

they concern only the poor. Public education,

unemployment and pension benefits are frequently perceived as something entirely different. In fact, the lion’s share of public expenditures in western nations is spent on welfare policies....[Yet] despite the complexity and extensiveness of many modern welfare