[Avodah] I am calling for ...

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

> The point is, "Why should anyone expect local residents of
> a community that has needy people to support needy people
> anywhere else?"

Many times I have seen halachos which point out certain priorities in tzedakah, descriptions of which tzedakos should get preference of which other tzedakos. But I don't recall ever seeing that one tzedaka should get *all* of one's support to the *exclusion* of other tzedakos.

For example, RYL wrote:

> A friend of mine who lives in Washington Heights has complained
> to me that he regularly receives requests from yeshivas in
> Lakewood (not BMG which he considers a national Mosad and hence
> worthy of nationwide support) ) asking for donations.  "Why
> should I donate to a yeshiva in Lakewood when Washington Heights
> has so many needs?" he asks.

It seems to me that this friend gives first priority to the needy of Washington Heights. But he also donates to national mosdos which are worthy of nationwide support.

I suppose the friend's logic is something like, "I give primarily to Washington Heights because that is my neighborhood. My second preference is America, because I live in America." It seems to me that it would be very consistent to continue that logic with: "And I also give to Jews, because I am a Jew."

> I am not implying that Hatzala in EY is not a worthy cause.
> However, shouldn't my support be focused on organizations
> where I live?

Focused? Fine! But are the others still in your peripheral view, or are you shutting your wallet to them entirely?

I am **NOT** saying that everyone has to give to everything. And those with more limited means will of course give to fewer tzedakos than those of greater means. All I'm saying is that "priorities" are not intended to be "exclusions".

For example, Aruch Hashulchan YD 251:4 writes:

"If we take this simply, that 'these come before those, and those before others', that it means that one does not have to give at all to the level after this one, - well, then, it is common knowledge that every wealthy person has many poor relatives, and all the more so for a balabos whose tzedaka is limited. And if so, then those poor people who have no wealthy relatives will die of hunger. How is it possible to say such a thing??? And so, in my humble opinion the explanation is like this: Certainly, every balabos or wealthy person is obligated to give a portion to the distant paupers, but he must give more to those who are close than to those who are not close, and so too to all of them, like those on this level."

(Translation note: One should read the above in the original. I'm rather fuzzy on what he meant each time he used the words "kerovim" and "rechokim". "Kerovim" can refer either to family relatives, or nearby residents. Perhaps he intended for one meaning, or the other, or perhaps he was even deliberately ambiguous. But I really don't think it matters, because the logic applies across the board, to ALL of the levels of preference specified.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f6bd7a59482f2509a5cst04vuc