institution which will care for their parents robbing them of the hard-earned savings of their parents in a short period of time. They feel that a disproportionate burden has been placed on their shoulders in the semi-socialist society in which we live.
The subterfuge is wrong; as the law is not functioning as intended, it needs to be changed. This is especially necessary in this case as the old system has broken down and has led to a | general disrespect for the law. However, until that change occurs we must deal with the morality of the present situation and reality as we find it.
We should discourage aged parents from committing genevat daat. If they nevertheless leave all assets to their children before placement, an increased financial responsibility falls upon the children, especially if major assets were involved. Although no
secular law may demand sizable contributions toward the care of their parents, Jewish law does make such demands.
Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg indicated that charity must begin with close relatives; parents are first, then brothers and sisters; other relatives follow, and the total stranger comes last(Responsa Vol II, p. 118 f; Yad Hil. Matnat Aniyim 1.13; Seder Elijahu Chap. 27, p. 135; Tur and Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 251). It was normal in medieval Europe to support family members from the tithe allocated to the poor(Meir of Rothenburg Responsa(ed) Bloch#75 p 10b; Isaac of Vienna OrZarua Tzedakah Sec 26). The community could go to considerable length to force a son in this direction. Solomon ben Aderet , for example, suggested that the synagogue be closed to such a son and he be publicly shamed until he supported his father, yet he should not be placed under a ban
147