[Avodah] Tzedakah: Giving to an organization vs. giving privately

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 06:36:55PM -0400, T613K at aol.com wrote:
: I understood RMB to be saying, or at least implying, that he was thinking  
: about the general obligation to be "like Hashem" -- mah Hu rachum, af atah  
: rachum and so on.  This is not the same kind of "obligation" as the  
: requirement to eat a certain amount of matza at the seder.  By its nature  it is 
: hashkafic more than halachic, and one aspect of this issue is the question  of 
: what will, in fact, induce or motivate a Jew to be more "G-d-like"  or 
: "G-dly" in his daily behavior?

ALthough no less obligatory. The difference is, as the Ramban comments
on "ve'asisa hayashar vehatov", that there are obligations that aren't
amenable to simple codification or legal lay-out. What "vehalkhat
biderakhav" means in practice depends on the individual's abilities,
proclivities and circumstances.

:> Since when do 'fuzzy warm' feelings have any weight in  Yiddishkeit?

: Since Hashem gave us a Torah that is chock full of poetry comparing the
: relationship between Hashem and Klal Yisrael to the warm and loving
: relationship between a chassan and his kallah, or between a father
: and his children.

Still, this doesn't mean that we hold of glurge.

(I like Barbara Michelson of Snope.com's definition of "glurge":
    What is glurge? Think of it as chicken soup with several cups of sugar
    mixed in: It's supposed to be a method of delivering a remedy for
    what ails you by adding sweetening to make the cure more appealing,
    but the result is more often a sickly-sweet concoction that induces
    hyperglycemic fits.

    In ordinary language, glurge is the sending of inspirational (and
    supposedly "true") tales, ones that often conceal much darker meanings
    than the uplifting moral lessons they purport to offer or undermine
    their messages by fabricating and distorting historical fact in the
    guise of offering a "true story.")

RSRH discusses the metaphor of poetry, of nevu'ah, and as is well known,
the central role he gives symbology in explaining the mitzvos. Leshitaso
(as per the introductory essay in CW vol III), the power of the symbol
is that it's where intellect and emotion meet. Through a good symbol one
can get emotionally involved in what would otherwise be an abstrat idea.
But it also allows analogy and further analysis, giving a more detailed
understanding of something only superficially glimpsed on an emotional
level.

What I'm trying to say is that while we believe in utilizing the emotional
level (otherwise, why would HQBH have created it?), that doesn't mean
pursuit of the "warm fuzzies".

Such as the point at which I began... Contemplation of Adon Olam, what
the basic dialectic between immanence and trancendence says about derekh
Hashem is of value in and of itself. However, if one is hislameid from
it another level of understanding that enriches the qiyum hamitzvah of
tzedaqah, isn't that of value? Isn't the ability for Adon Olam to be both
Adon Olam and a call to share with others as He does with us better than
the usual morning slur through the word?) (Assuming I didn't arrive at shul
to late to say AO at all without sacrificing catching up to the minyan...)


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
micha at aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507