instant doom for anybody who is foolhardy enough to attempt such an approach. While such bleak predictions will probably prove exaggerated, the strategists will have a point. This will be all the more true if an isolated fund-raising effort attempts to go down this path while competing for dollars with surrounding campaigns that offer inducements; presumably the lure of the incentives will cause more than a few to simply gravitate toward projects with something to offer them in return. If, then, tzedakah is to be given in a lifnim mishural hadin spirit that truly hopes to suppress inherent injustices and promote communal well-being, it will be important to garner broad local support

However, even if such broad support proves difficult to muster, there are two points to be made in response to the fund-raisers’ concerns. The first is that it is possible that their worries represent an overly cynical reaction to the inherent strength of the commitment to Jewish giving at all echelons. Is it not credible that, given effective leadership and educational guidance, Jews might well sense the virtue inherent in such an ethic and might indeed heed the call with classic Jewish dedication when challenged to aspire to the highest? Is it not conceivable that, after an initial dip in giving, as the shock of the new approach is absorbed, the dollar figures— though, admittedly, harder to obtain— might, before very long, approach previous levels?

The second response to the fund-raisers must be that, naive a it may sound, Jewish priorities have always placed seeking justice ahead of dollar amounts. Let us imagine a Jewish Community Centel (JCC.) that decides it would like to add a one million dollar extension. The fund-raisers advise that if the full range of incentives are offered to the“big givers,” the million—dollar target should be reached. If these incentives are not provided, their estimate falls to eight hundred thousand dollars. What should the JCC do? Is aspiring to a hight! ethic really worth the potential loss of two—hundred-thousand dollars and the scaled-back plans and fewer resources that would result?