My speech for son's Bar Mitzva Be a Dragon Rider

What a night, to be with all of you to celebrate our delightful Tuvia’s Bar Mitzvah.

King David told his 12-year-old son, Solomon, “I am going the way of all the land, to die, and you should be strong and be a man[i]”.

What kind of man should you be?

You should follow the example of the men you were named after.

Moshe Tuvia Stark, your great-grandfather who was so loved that every time his grandchildren mentioned his name, their whole faces lit up with pleasure.

My wife Shoshie and I, grandparents, and teachers all get great pleasure from you. This is no small matter, as we are taught: “Every person in whom people’s spirit find pleasure, God is pleased with, but anyone that people are not pleased with, God is also not pleased with[ii]”.

Mr. Stark was an example of the teaching that; “In a place where there are no men, step up and be a man[iii]”. He was ‘the man’ who took responsibility for the synagogue, two schools, meals for those in need, the mikveh, and the burial society.

You are also named after your great, great grandfather, Dr. Armin, Yirmiyahu Blau. A Torah scholar and a teacher. One of his students wrote about him. “His depth of knowledge of German culture and his artistic interests fascinated us and called on us to follow him.  “Nobody instructed us better in the noble art of being human.[iv]”

Great shoes to fill, but you are already on your way to living up to their examples, thanks to the balanced education you get at your school, Kesser Torah. But, as Reb Zushe said, it is not our task to be a copy of anyone else. Certainly, not strong, and brutal like Samson[v]. Instead, we must strive to be the best version of ourselves[vi].

So, I return to the question of what kind of man you will become?

I invite you to consider being the kind of man represented by a fictional, brave, young man, wise beyond his years.

I refer to the character called Hiccup, a young dragon rider[vii].

It is written: “who is strong, one who conquers his own inclination”[viii].

The kind of man you must be, is one who is able to tame the beast inside of you.

According to Hasidic teachings, the meaning of the sacrifices offered up in the temple, is to offer up the animals inside of us.

The ox represents the aggressive part of us[ix], that reacts harshly when provoked or irritated, when we feel that the other person is not being reasonable and deserves a harsh reaction.

It is ok to be assertive, but we must be calm and restrained.

The wrong kind of ox is represented by many of the 1980s New York City cops I remember who were in the habit of yelling insults at people who made a traffic mistake.

 On the other hand, the harnessed ox is exemplified by the detective who stopped at a traffic light, next to a car full of Yeshiva students including me on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. He flashed a badge and in a very calm, soft voice told the driver “I have been watching your driving”, he listed all the things the driver did wrong. Then he said: “I am not a cop, I am not going to give you a ticket. You keep driving like this and I will take you into the station”. The driving dramatically improved. 

But we also sacrifice sheep. This represents pleasure-seeking. A gentle sheep that does nothing but eat grass play on the computer and endlessly dribble a basketball.

Here is the odd thing about pleasure. In moderation, pleasure is good. All the sacrifices had to include salt[x] which adds flavour to food[xi]. I am proud of your basketball ability. 

But we must not be driven by seeking pleasure. We must be in control.

The Torah states that yeast or honey was generally not allowed to be part of the sacrifices[xii]. We must not be motivated by the drive for pleasure represented by honey[xiii], but do what is right, because it is right[xiv].

The animal soul we have inside is wild and loves his pleasure. It can be incredibly productive and delightful which is great. Its passion can help us fly high and accomplish things we might never have imagined possible, but this only works if we direct it.

Tuvia, welcome to the dragon riders, young man.

 

---

[i] Kings I 2:2

[ii] Pirkey Avot 3:10

[iii] Pirkey Avot 2:5

[iv] Wolfsberg, Dr. O, Armin Published in Zion, vol 9, no. 3, pp. 13-14. July 1937. Berlin. Translated from German to English by his daughter Rivka (Jenny) Marmorstein.http://www.geni.com/people/R-Dr-Armin-%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95-Blau/353035782440006443

[v] Lyrics to the 8^th Day song

[vi] https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/blogs/336309/a-moment-in-time-why-were-you-not-more-like-zusia/

[vii] the main protagonist of the DreamWorks’ animated How to Train Your Dragon

[viii] Pirkey Avot 4:1

[ix] Likutei Torah, Vayikra

[x] Leviticus 2:13

[xi] Baal Shem Tov on the Torah

[xii] Leviticus 2:11

[xiii] Sefer Hachinuch 117, referred to as “self-oriented satisfaction a person feels in his divine service – based on Ohr Hatorah and Yahel Or in The Siddur Illuminated with Chassidus, p. 39, Kehot publications

[xiv] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of repentance 1:3

Letting the guard down? On fears and policing

Part of my mind acts as a policeman watching me. Did I do this right? Am I good enough? This self-vigilance and fear is draining.  This week, while I was walking on a nature trail in Ryde, I noticed a sign for walkers that reminded them to “control your dog”. I creatively interpreted it as the need for people to control the ”barking” in the form of repetitive and harsh self-criticism.

I deliberately suggest we “control” the critical voice in our minds, rather than eliminate it, because I think it plays a role in protecting us from wrongdoing. I have been confronted this week with some of the darker sides of humans. I was disturbed to hear about cruelty to men, women and their children who have escaped horrific oppression, because they dared to seek a better life and perhaps because of cultural differences that are seen as a threat (1). In this case, fear of people who are seen as different, is the motivator for cruelty. However, here the critical voice expressing fear of wrongdoing could have motivated these people to do the right thing. Every weekday morning during the current Hebrew month of Elul, Jews sound a ram’s horn called a Shofar, to instil “a sense of trepidation and fear” (2), even “trembling” (3), in order to lead us to repentance and introspection.

Some religious people fear the physical world - its sensual pleasures and material offerings. In a crowded Sydney Mosque, I heard a very young Imam warn against the evils of the “dunya”, the physical world, with great intensity. This week’s Torah reading tells us to appoint police officers at “all our gates” (4). In a metaphoric sense, this is interpreted to mean that we must appoint an internal ”policeman” to monitor our contact with the world that comes through our five senses (5). Societies look eagerly to police to protect them from the vices of their fellow citizens. In the US, this approach has not worked out well, in recent months, for some African Americans. 

Instead of allowing fear to justify excessive policing, we must embrace a healthier kind of fear - not of the common man but of the corruption of those in positions of power. The Torah warns of the bias that can arise from judges accepting bribes (6), which can ultimately cause even an initially righteous judge to lose his mind (7). The Torah insists that a king must be vigilant to ensure that “his heart does not become elevated above his brothers and that he does not stray from God’s commandments” (8). 

One scholar expresses deep distrust of those in power. He suggests that it would be better for those with power to be appointed for fixed terms of three years or less so that their successors could hold them to account and “investigate them to see whether they breached their trusted role”, in the way that Australian Governments often do with their predecessors.  He also insists that, when there is a dispute between one (a ruler) and many (the citizens), we should follow the view of the many. He argues that the risk of “an individual doing wrong out of foolishness, desire or anger, is greater than that happening with the many” (9). Similar sentiments were expressed last week by an eleven-year-old student from a migrant family in Western Sydney. She thought ”the Australian way was right”, because of our system of government that requires, at least in its design, that the will of the people be implemented rather than that of one despotic ruler.

In terms of the sensual temptations themselves, the Torah does not see them as simply bad. On the contrary, we are cautioned against rejecting the pleasures of this world. A person who vows not to drink wine temporarily (10), is seen as having sinned in a sense. Sheikh Soner Coruhlu has a different view of the material/physical world from the one expressed by the young Imam above. He wrote that “The ’Dunya', from my understanding of our tradition, is an opportunity…to draw nearer unto to the Creator by proving one's self worthy of drawing near. The manner in which one draws near to their Lord is … moral excellence while believing in the Most High. The “Dunya” therefore is an opportunity when one is morally and ethically inclined but a threat if one is miserly, oppressive, immoral, unethical etc.” (11).

Fear of our own human vulnerability to do wrong is a necessity and a blessing when it is used wisely and proportionately. Fear of people who appear different from us, is simply bigotry. Being wary of those in positions of power or even of our own internal policeman getting out of control, is vital. 

1)    http://hotline.org.il/en/main/
2)    Sadia Gaon, cited in http://www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template_cdo/aid/4392/jewish/Sounding-of-the-Shofar.htm
3)    Amos 3:6 “If the shofar is sounded in the city, will people not tremble?”
4)    Deuteronomy 16:18
5)    Attributed to Rav Chaim Vital on http://www.shortvort.com/shoftim-parasha/11901-parashas-shoftim-guard-your-senses
6)    Deuteronomy 16:19
7)    Talmud Ketubot, 105a, referring to the taking of bribes
8)    Deuteronomy 17:20
9)    Abarbanel on Shoftim. On the other hand, the commentator Klei Yakar, seems more concerned about the independence of judges. He emphasises the need to protect judges from the potentially corrupting influences of those who install the judges, if they were to retain an influence after they complete the task of installing someone as a judge. The change in form from the beginning to the end of the verse in the Torah that calls for the appointment of judges, is instructive. “Judges and police officers shall you put in all your gates...and they shall judge the people a just justice”. We start with an imperative instruction to the people to תתן appoint judges. This refers to people who are in a position of influence who can help select and appoint the judges. Then the language shifts to talk about what will happen: “they will judge justly”, as if by themselves, with the ‘appointers’ out of the picture. This hints at the need for complete independence of the judiciary from those who appoint them because, if they remain dependent on those people, there will never be justice. There is no naïve assumption of religious leaders retaining purity just by virtue of their office and past righteousness. The political influences on secular judges in Australia and Israel, as it relates to asylum seeker judgements, can also be considered in this light.
10)    A Nazirite who vows not to drink wine among other vows, must bring a sacrifice to atone for rejecting some of God’s gifts, even temporarily
11)    Facebook post, 18.08.2015, https://www.facebook.com/zalman.kastel/posts/10153457332070470?comment_id=10153457499415470&notif_t=like his post continues with the following. “The human being is distinct from the rest of Creation in that it has the capacity to morally judge the outcome of any action or statement it may partake in. Where most of creation will simply follow the whims of their desires, the human being will first analyse what the consequence of following one's desires may be. Will this act harm another person, another animal, the environment, me and so forth. Those who do not use this God given capacity to make such judgements and simply follow their base desires, even when it harms others, behaves in a way that is not unlike the animals”.

“Pelting the Rebellious Son” The Individual, Indulgence, & Submission

Labelled for resuse
From David Westerfield blog

The individual, our rights, needs and even desires are regarded as highly important in the modern western approach. Follow your heart, is a catch cry. There are societies that put much more emphasis on the communal interest, with the individual coming second. I live in both worlds. I sometimes feel indulgent, slack and “soft” in comparison with my mother, for whom the question seems almost never to be “what do I want?” but instead “what is my duty?” I wonder about the merit of sacrificing the needs/wants of the individual for the greater good and the merit of submission to a higher authority. Yet I also worry about the harshness some might employ in controlling the indulgent “inner child”. This is starkly symbolised by the proposition of an execution of the “rebellious son” by his parents handing him over to the community to kill him by pelting him with stones.  

Rebellion, a Capital Offence?

Let us start with the Torah’s text about the “execution of a rebellious son”. The Torah states:
“If a man has a wayward and rebellious son, who does not obey his father or his mother, and they chasten him, and [he still] does not listen to them, his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place.

And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not obey us; [he is] a glutton and a (wine) guzzler."

And all the men of his city shall pelt him to death with stones, and he shall die. So shall you clear out the evil from among you, and all Israel will listen and fear” [i] .

This law is generally assumed to be a theoretical one that has never been implemented and will never be acted on[ii]. Even in its theoretical form it is completely at the parents’ discretion, which is one more argument for its impracticability[iii]. Still this law exists on the books as a moral teaching, which I find difficult to live with.  What might this teaching be?

More important than love?

Several possibilities are suggested. One our love of God overriding the “strongest love in the world, that between a father and son, or that of a mother to her son, in spite of this when the parents see their son straying to a bad way, it is forbidden for them to have mercy for him and they must restrain their love (for their son) out of love of God and to bring their son to the house of stoning, their love should be like the love of our father Abraham (Upon him be peace) who held back his love and tied up his son on the altar[iv]”. 

This interpretation is disturbing in how far it suggests this should be taken. I wonder about a more general message about transcending our own inner world and “what feels right” to us to, not necessarily to act against our own conscience, but simply to do things that don’t resonate for us out of compliance with “the will of God”, or fall in behind the agendas and priorities of others in our communities. It is frustrating to watch people fixate on their personal vision who are unwilling to “take their eye of the ball” for long enough to give anyone else any assistance.  

Discipline not Indulgence

Other interpretations focus on various aspects of the rebellious son. The word “Moreh” which means rebellious is the same word for teach or show. “He wants to teach his father and mother knowledge, that his way is the right way, and this is the way of youth to imagine that they are the wise ones and they know how to conduct themselves…the son wants to educate his father[v]”. Gluttony is defined as involved theft of money[vi], which is then used to buy wine and meat eaten half raw[vii] in bad company outside the family home. The concern here is with excessive indulgence which is seen as corrupting. It is contrasted with a custom that when one hosts guests one should leave some space empty of plates[viii].  Of course this can be taken too far, we must remember that “stoning the indulgent” child is a threat that is never to be carried out!” There are so many delightful things in the world that God has created for our enjoyment as long as we partake of it in moderation.

There is also the danger that in being overly harsh toward ourselves we become hardened and cruel. A lovely story involves a Rabbi disapproving of a rich man eating very simply, hard bread etc. The Rabbi told him to eat steak and drink fine wine. This way he will recognise that the poor at least deserve bread and other basics, if he only gives himself stale bread, what crumbs will he offer the needy?

Submission to “The Official Position”

In contrast to the “out of control rebellious youth”, there is the case of the rebellious elder[ix]. This is a top level scholar who having arrived at a different conclusion to the majority of the highest religious court called the Sanhedrin, dares to defy the official ruling and guides people to behave in accordance with his own view. This is so that there not be “many Torah’s”, and serves to unify the Jews in their observance of the Torah.

The requirement to submit to the official position played out in the poignant story of Rabbi Joshua who believed that the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, was on a different day to the one decided on by the majority and the president of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Gamliel. Rabbi Gamliel demanded the Rabbi Joshua publicly demonstrate his acceptance of the ruling by appearing before him with his staff and money bag. This would be violation of the holy day according to Rabbi Joshua’s opinion[x]. This must have been very hard for Rabbi Joshua. This incident and the disrespect to Rabbi Joshua later contributed to Rabbi Gamliel being deposed as president. There is a balance one must find here.

Judging texts and Individual Dignity

This material is also useful when we are tempted to judge the sacred texts of other faiths, not to simply read a text without considering the traditional interpretations. It is also important to consider seemingly unrelated teachings to gain a broader perspective. Reading the examples above could create the impression that the Torah is concerned only with the “greater good” and not with the rights of the individual, or even the obligations we have toward others. This is not true, of course. I am struck by the symbolism of the Torah’s command to a creditor seeking an object as surety for a loan from a poor person, “In the outside, you will stand[xi]”! The creditor has a right to demand an object from the borrower, but he dare not violate the sanctity of the vulnerable man’s home. According to one traditional translation, the lender is actually instructed to stand in the marketplace where the borrower will meet him with an object of surety of his choosing[xii]. Even a court officer is forbidden to enter the home of the borrower[xiii]!

Conclusion

There are several pathways to virtue. One relates to prioritising God and this has led many to do beautiful things. At the same time, there are many atheists who are highly ethical decent people. Another valuable path involves moderation, and still there are highly disciplined, dieting exercising self-centred even cruel people. In contrast there are some “go with the flow”, sensual ice cream eating people who are generous and loving. Jews are now in the month of reflection, Elul, leading up to the Day of Atonement. There is a lot to think about, including how gentle to be or not be with our indulgent inner child.

---

[i] Deuteronomy 21:19-21

[ii] Talmud Sanhedrin 71a, there is a dissenting view that this law was meant to be implemented

[iii] Maharsha on Sanhedrin, cited in Nachshoni

[iv] Rabbenu Bchaya

[v] Abarbenel (1437-1508)

[vi] Talmud Sanhedrin

[vii] Meam Loez

[viii] Shulchan Aruch 151

[ix] Deuteronomy 17:10-11

[x] Talmud Rosh Hashana 24b-25a

[xi] Deuteronomy 24:11

[xii] Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel

[xiii] Talmud Bava Metziah 113b, this is one opinion, the other opinion is that a court officer is allowed to enter the home.