In the 1950's there was an experiment done to delve deep into human nature. It was a test of the effects of love on humans. This experiment was performed on twin babies;

it took one twin and showered him in love and affection, and the other with only food. Near the end of the experiment one baby was doing great, healthy and jolly as could be. The other ran high fever. This experiment revealed an essential truth about human nature; Without love, man does not thrive.

This brings scientific light onto the religious writings of the Torah's, Parashat Ekev. In this chapter God talks to Moses about how he has tested the Israelites in the desert, about how he needed to make sure they would keep his commandments under extreme stress. One of the most intriguing lines to me is when Moses claims that God only gave them Mana to show them that they "shall not live on bread alone but by anything the Lord decrees." God requires them to heed his instruction.

However, if they do not follow His orders, forgetting to follow his commandments, it would result in their inevitable destruction. I feel it is my duty as a Jew and as a Bar Mitzvah to locate the reason behind this particular story, to try and understand its morals to put them into good use for the common practices of today.

Upon a closer look one can find multiple messages throughout this passage, but I feel most passionate about the ongoing contest of materialism versus spiritualism. This conflict is best articulated through the short phrase "man shall not live on bread alone but by anything that the lord decrees" implying the philosophical belief that we, as a species, are more than just bodies. Rabbi Morris Adler put it [quote] they [referring to humans] are capable of thought, yet they don't recognize their potential unless their intellectual powers are awakened to ask questions and seek answers. [end quote] This goes along with my personal belief that curiosity is synonymous with humanity. This curiosity is what makes us happier with exercising our intellectual capacity, empathy, charity, debate, than with items of the material world. Now I'm not going to state all the anti-materialist cliches, money can?t buy happiness, possessions don't make a man; etc? because those are relative. Lets just walk through the life of a materialist living on today?s bread, let's name him Joshua. He is woken up on his Gucci pillows bought by his parents that he hasn't talked to in a couple days. Gets dressed in his shnazzy Buckley uniform. At school, walking down the school hallway, he hears no customary hellos, or good mornings as he is too caught up adjusting the flatness of his collar. Someone with non-designer clothes on which Joshua considers clearly inferior falls on Joshuas shoe, only to receive a "what are you doing on my manolo blahnick?" Joshua thinks materially. He appreciates the bread, the material, he couldn't respect his parents, hear the voices of his peers, or empathize with the fallen.

So what's wrong with that? What's wrong with idolizing Gucci, Abercrombie, and all these other retailers. Does that mean you are the example above? No. You can be rich, loaded, as long as you don't live solely on the money, the bread. You can also fulfill yourself with friends, good laughs, and plenty of hugs.

I decided to take some notes on my own life and I looked at the people who are my friends and those who weren't, and I found a pattern. The people I care about are naturally those that aren't so unbelievably caught up with themselves that they don't notice others, those who have the traits one should expect, like kindness, respect and interest. Interest, curiosity! This is what Rabbi Adler was referring to! "We are capable of thought, yet they don't recognize their potential unless their intellectual powers are awakened to ask questions and seek answers."

People don't feel content unless others show interest in them, unless they themselves show interest in the world. How does this have anything to do with Dolce and Gabana? Those fascinated more by purses than with people tend to lose their human friends for their purse friends. People that don't treat others well will end up feeling the hurt themselves, because, like the unloved twin I mentioned before in the 1950?s experiment they will start feeling worse, for precisely the same reasons. Now, just as a little demonstration, everyone in this room right now imagine the time you've felt the most joy, most satisfaction?????. Ill bet that most-if not all- of you imagined a similar moment. By that I mean a moment marked by love, and not materialism. My immediate reaction to this question was bursting into Bohemian rhapsody in a random car ride with my immediate family of 10.

My torah portion deals with nothing new, everyone has heard life is worth more than the sum of its parts, but does everyone live according to this? How would one keep themselves from living solely on bread? My answer is through artistic expression and creativity. An example in my life of the difference between materialism and creativity is a recently developed website where several friends and I write about electronic gadgets. This takes possibly the most materialistic side of my life, the iPod crazy side, and flips it into creating and writing. I believe that every part of every person?s life would be better with an aesthetic foreground. With this shield from the material world, materials can?t take over. When you cook, plate the meal, when you hear Queen come on the radio sing along, when you talk, do it in a British accent.

I'd like to bring you back to the twin who received food but not love. Think about the world as your loved twin. Shabbat Shalom!