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

Prominence of animal sacrifices in Torah - Tzav

At the end of the Passover Seder last week, a former student asked me why the Torah includes so much detail about animal sacrifices. I haven't found a satisfactory answer yet. This aspect of my tradition “doesn’t work for me”, yet it is talked about endlessly in the Torah. Animal sacrifice has not been practiced in Judaism for two millennia, and is barely a “thing” for modern Jews. However, the vast number of chapters dedicated to instructions about sacrifices in the Torah is evidence that this aspect of my tradition is highly significant (1). A shocking story I read on Saturday makes it clear that traditional Judaism has little tolerance for avoidance of this confronting practice.

Modern Jews are not the first to have reservations about animal sacrifice. At first glance it seems that the ancient Hebrew prophets already thundered against the practice. “Hear the word of the Lord, O rulers of Sodom; give ear to the law of our God, O people of Gomorrah! Of what use are your many sacrifices to Me? says the Lord. I am sated with the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle; the blood of bulls and sheep and he-goats I do not want” (2).

However, the critique of sacrifices by the prophets is not what it might seem. The verse preceding the one about the unwanted goats blood, sets the context by referring to Sodom. Sodom primarily represents cruelty to strangers and the poor, and theft in Jewish tradition (3), rather than homosexuality. Later in the chapter the prophet calls on the Jews to “learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow”. He call their leaders “…companions of thieves” (4). So the critique is not of sacrifice itself, which if done properly should remind people about God and lead them away from sin and therefore be pleasing to God, but a complaint about sacrifices that have not fulfilled their purpose (5).  

The Talmud (6) tells a gruesome story about a priest who was less than thrilled with the honor of offering sacrifices. “the Temple courtyard cried four cries...Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecrates the items consecrated to Heaven. He would wrap his hands in silk and perform the service.

What ultimately happened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? ...the king and the queen were sitting. The king said that goat meat is better, and the queen said lamb meat is better. They said: Who can prove which one of us is correct? The High Priest can, as he offers sacrifices all day. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai came, and when they asked him this question, he signaled with his hand (in a mocking/humorous way) (7) and said: If goat is better, let it be sacrificed as the daily offering.The king said: Since he has no reverence for the monarchy, sever his right hand. He gave a bribe and the official severed his left hand. The king heard and had the official sever his right hand as well.” (8).

The story is clearly linked to the symbolic and potent spiritual meanings of the sacrifices. Yissachar, in his covering his hands exhibited the opposite of the spirit of humility required in seeking closeness to God which is at the heart of these rituals (9). In fact, the Torah’s word to describe animal sacrifices is קרבן, which means “to bring or come close”. The verse “the burnt offering which burns on the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn it” (10),  is interpreted symbolically as describing processes of the soul and the heart. “All the evil and dark thoughts (represented by) the night, and unsavoury lusts..need to be burnt...consumed by love of God...” (11).

A mystical interpretation draws attention to the Godly fire that descended from heaven, which consumed the sacrifices, while the animals themselves are also identified with fire. In this approach, inanimate things are related to the element of earth, the vegetable kingdom is linked to water, while animals are related to fire. The ritual of an animal being sacrificed is meant to evoke a reaction in the fiery animalistic aspect of people to assist them in a spiritual journey of subduing and ultimately transforming the animal aspects of the soul (12).

None of this mystical or symbolic talk is much comfort to a goat that is being slaughtered. However, for those of us who are not vegetarian, I don’t think it is a deep respect for the life of animals that causes us to recoil from animal sacrifice, as much as it is a squeamish distaste for the confronting image of a life being extinguished. Yet, it appears that the confronting and messy nature of the killing, processing and burning of animals fat, flesh and blood is, for reasons I don’t fully understand, a vital part of the Jewish tradition (even if not actually practiced any more). Judaism is not meant to be an opium of the masses or source of inner peace. It is meant to be a disruptive, disturbing confrontation between finite sensual humans and their demanding, engaged God who calls them to justice, worship and self transcendence.     

Notes:

1. Ramban in his refutation of Maimonides.
2. Isaiah 1:10-11.
3. Talmud Sanhedrin 109a.
4. Isaiah 1:17,23.
5. Radak on Isaiah 1:11. Rashi takes a similar approach.
6. Pesachim 57a and b. Translation from https://www.sefaria.org/Pesachim.57a.11?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en.
7. Rashi on Pesachim 57b.
8. Maharsha on Pesachim 57b, points out the significance of his right hand being severed in that the main service in the temple was done with the right hand and he put silks on his hands during the service, it was decreed in heaven that he punished...so he could not save himself with his left hand.
9. R. Bchaya, on Leviticus 6:3, p. 423 (Mosad Rav Kook edition).
10. Leviticus 6:2.
11. Abarbanel based on Kuzari, p. 80.
12. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in Likutei Torah, Parshas Pinchas, p.150

Commitment to a Soft Cause - Abraham’s Willingness to Sacrifice his son

Licensed for non-commercial re-use 

This past Sunday marked the celebration by the world’s Muslims of the decision by Abraham to sacrifice his son, Jews read about this choice in the weekly Torah portion this week of Vayera. Putting aside the name of the son to be sacrificed, Isaac in the Torah, Ishmael in Islamic belief, the idea of being prepared to kill a child or any person for God is quite confronting and troubling.

One way to think about the meaning of this story is about the need to commit to and sacrifice significantly for non-concrete causes, such as Inter-faith respect and bridge building. This conclusion is based on commentary that sees Abraham demonstrating intense love of an invisible God in the face of extreme and passionate displays of devotion to concrete Idol-gods.

To die for in the 21^st century

It is useful to bear in mind that “sacrificing our sons” for a cause is something that is still done today when countries send their young men and women to fight and die. While individual parents don’t know if their sons or daughters will die (God Forbid), collectively as a nation we know what some of our children will almost certainly die, yet our representative governments send them anyway.  This does not make it ok but for me it adds some perspective, especially considering that in the end Abraham does not kill his son.

Summary of the key Text

1 It came to pass after these things (הַדְּבָרִים Hadvarim, in hebrew)  , that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am." 2. And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you… 4. On the third day, Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar… 9. They came to the place of which God had spoken to him, and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and he bound Isaac his son and placed him on the altar upon the wood.   10. Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife, to slaughter his son. 11. An angel of God called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham! Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."   12. And he said, "Do not stretch forth your hand to the lad, nor do the slightest thing to him, for now I know that you are a God fearing man, and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from Me.[1]"

Traditional Explanations

The meaning of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his son is explained alternately as Abraham actualizing his potential[2], a punishment[3] , settling an argument about who was greater; Ishmael or Isaac[4], or Abraham proving his devotion to God by his willingness to sacrifice his son. We have the angel Satan complaining[5] about the 100 year old Abraham’s failure to offer any sacrifices when he celebrated the birth of his miracle child. God responds that the whole celebration was only on account of his son, yet if God tells him to sacrifice him, he will do so immediately[6]. Alternatively, it is not Satan who questions Abraham’s failure to express gratitude but Abraham himself reflecting on the fact he did not offer an ox as a sacrifice to God[7].

Others see this as having a much wider purpose, Abraham teaching the world by example about righteousness and devotion to God, especially considering the fact that he had a three days “cooling off period[8]” in which he could have changed his mind but he did not[9]. This was a dramatic act that educated the world about God and how much one must love him[10]. When the angel states “Now I know that you are a God fearing man”, it is interpreted as if he said ‘now I have made known to everyone that you are God fearing[11]’.

Time to kill off something or to risk everything

In practical terms I think the underlying message is about a willingness to sacrifice for our ideals. Writers talk about the need to “kill your baby”, in terms of losing words or even chapters one wrote and loves for the sake of a better book or story. On a personal level it is about letting go of certain behaviours or excuses to adhere to standards I believe in. This is different to sacrificing for a goal. If Abraham went through with killing his son, he would be destroying the future of his ethical monotheism project[12]. This is more like a whistle blower working for a cause they love but then choose to destroy it because of a principle. It is also like those righteous gentiles who risked the safety of their beloved families to hide Jews in the Holocaust.

Pie for Sky

I find in the area of work that I am involved in, broadly diversity and ethical education, that there is a lot of lip service but not enough willingness to prioritize this work over other claims on resources such as time and money. More broadly, some in the non-profit and community sector become so focused on building their institutions and image and getting a larger slice of the charity dollar “pie” that the needs of their clients becomes secondary. We need to be willing to make the trade-offs involved in pursuing the “blue sky”, eg. our ultimate ideal of success of our mission, and sacrifice our share of the pie to achieve it. 

Trade offs

Our reading this week, has other trade offs as well. We have Abraham appropriately[13] prioritising offering hospitality to (what seemed to him to be) three Arab travellers[14], over a divine revelation[15].  In another trade off, peace between husband and wife[16] is given greater importance by God who quotes Sarah selectively as saying she herself was old, rather than telling the whole truth about Sarah calling Abaham old when she questioned the promise of them having children at an advanced age[17].  The truth is stretched again when Abraham calls his wife his sister out of fear for his safety[18]. Humble acceptance of God’s intentions is less important to Abraham than the possibility that the city of Sodom can be saved when he is told that God plans to destroy it[19].

Disturbingly, Lot prioritised his duty to protect his visitors from the angry mob over his love for his daughters.  He wrongly offers them to the mob for rape or even to be murdered[20]. An alternative view asserts that Lot did not seriously offer his daughters, but was like someone who throws himself in front of a potential murder victim and says “kill me instead” but knowing he will not[21]. Lot’s daughters do not remain pure when they break the rules against incest to sleep with their drunken father[22] in order to either preserve the human race[23] or in their desperation to have a child in spite of being tainted as survivors of Sodom[24].  While this is not condoned, in the end King David descended of a child born from that choice, and ultimately the Messiah himself is destined to be a descendent of David and this forbidden union. Abrahams love[25]  for his son Ishmael is sacrificed for the interests of Isaac, either preserving his spiritual integrity[26], securing his inheritance[27] or even saving his life[28]. Abraham banishes Ishmael who with his mother gets lost in the desert and nearly dies[29]. This real world series of choices is rounded off with the ultimate trade off for Abraham is the choice between obeying God and allowing his son to live.

Matching the Molech Zeal

One contemporary interpretation[30] discusses the context of Abraham’s choice. It was a time in which worship involved absolute self-surrender til it triumphed over parental pity so that children were offered up to the idol Molech (perhaps only passed through the fire to be toasted).  As barbaric as it was, it displayed a conviction that the divine was most precious. Yet this worship was focused on a concrete symbol. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son demonstrated that the fierceness of devotion to the divine on the higher spiritual plane can be no less ecstatic than that demonstrated toward the concrete and physical god of Molech. Without Abraham’s example, “mankind would either have remained sunk in the mire of primitive feelings, though vigorously active, in its relationship to the divine or in slightly thawed frigidity lacking the quality of life in depth”. 

Conclusion

To stand for anything, is to prioritise it over other things. If we care about peace, it might be at the expense of justice. If we care about coexistence and building bridges, it will mean energy diverted from internal priorities. If we choose to stand for something “soft”, we might find that others who like what we are doing might still be much more interested in supporting hard causes like building a house of worship or even fighting their enemies. Yet, we are called on to make meaningful sacrifices, for non-concrete causes.

---

[1] Genesis 18, translation from chabad.org, with minor moficiations

[2] Ramban on Genesis 22

[3] Chizkuni (2006 Mosad Harav Kook version, Jerusalem, p.82), suggests that Abraham was wrong to make a covenant with Abimelech, king of the Philistines despite God’s promise of the Philistine land to Abraham, so God caused Abraham pain.

[4] Talmud Sanhedrin 89b

[5] This is linked to an alternative translation of the Hebrew word  הַדְּבָרִים Hadvarim in the first verse of the text about the binding of Isaac (22:1). Hadvarim has two meaning in Hebrew either matters or words. In the alternative translation we have it saying  “It came to pass after these words (of Satan) that God tested Abraham”

[6] Talmud Sanhedrin 89b

[7] Beresheet Rabba

[8] Genesis 22:4

[9] Maimonides in Guide for the Perplexed/Rabbenu Bchai

[10] Saadia Gaon –cited in Nachshoni, Y, (1988) Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Bereshis, Artscroll, Jerusalem, p.102

[11] Chizkuni, (2006) Mosad Harav Kook version, p.83

[12] Based on talks of the Lubavitcher Rebbe

[13] as per the statement, “Welcoming guests is greater than receiving  the divine presence (Talmud Shabbat 127a)

[14] Rashi on Genesis 18:4 ,
A Midrashic story, well known to Jewish children, relates that when non-believers came to Abraham’s tent they were persuaded to thank God for the food. On the surface this was simply about hospitality rather than converting others. In a parallel story within an Islamic tradition, Abraham once refused to feed an idol worshipper, God then reprimands Abaham by asking how old the traveller was. Then pointing out that all these years God himself was happily sustaining this idol worshipper yet Abaham could not bear him for a few moments. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bRuxQ5eokLEC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Abraham+Hospitality+Islam&source=bl&ots=c1RmXEt34e&sig=m7NzxytzmaFFWerdciqMqJB_Mdk&hl=en&ei=8Fa4TvmNL5SlsALo-amDBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

[15] Genesis 18:1-2, an alternative view is that Abraham’s divine revelation was actually a prophetic vision, as he dozed off in the heat of the sun and the three visitors is actually part of his vision (Radak)

[16] Jerusalem Talmud Peah Halacha 1, and Rashi on Genesis 18:13

[17] Genesis 18:12-13

[18] Genesis 20:2

[19] Genesis 18:20-33

[20] Radak

[21]  See Torah Shlaima, vol 1 p794, Midrash Hagadol, chapter 6, with explanation by Drashat Even Sho-iv in the name of Rabbenu Chananel  

[22] Genesis 19:30-38

[23] Beresheet Rabba 51

[24] Radak in name of Yosef Krah

[25] Talmud Sanhedrin 89b

[26] Shmot Rabba 1

[27] Genesis 21:10 see Bchor Shor

[28] Tosefta Sotah 6

[29] Genesis 21:14-16

[30] Rav Kook, cited in Leibovitz N, New Studies in Bereshit, Genesis, p.204