8 May

The Baseball Witch-Hunt Season


Categories: in Bible, Contrarian wisdom, Current Events, ethics, good and evil

Ever since I was a kid, I love baseball. When I was about 7 or 8, I could rattle off the top ten pitchers, batters, along with their minor league and career averages.

Yes, baseball is terrific.

Yet, today, I must confess: I do not like watching the Barry Bonds and the Roger Clemens baseball hearings take place. Though steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991, the league did not implement league-wide PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) testing until 2003, two years after Bonds hit 73 home-runs.

On the basis of his impressive career alone from 1987 to 1999, a period where he was steroid free, Bonds would have been a lock for the Hall of Fame. Bonds would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer and he would have also been known as one of the greatest players ever. Up until that point of Bonds career, he was a three-time National League MVP winner, he won eight Gold Gloves as a left fielder, and he had hit 455 home-runs. At that time some baseball historians were saying that Bonds was one of the top 10 players ever to live.

If Bonds had never taken steroids, he would have played another six or seven seasons, each year fading a little bit. He would have certainly surpassed the 500-homerun mark, and he could have made a run at 600. But even if he ended his career with 445 home runs, he would have been a shoe in for the Hall of Fame because of the amount of home-runs he already had, plus his three MVPs and eight Gold Gloves.

Then Bonds’ record took off. In 2000, he hit a career high 49 home-runs, and then in 2001, he broke McGwire’s single season home-run record by hitting 73. Bonds went on to surpass Hank Aaron’s career home-run record, and Bonds finished his career in 2007 with 762 home-runs.

It seems to me that some purists feel angry Bonds broke Aaron’s record.

Let’s be truthful with ourselves: the home-run race benefited baseball, and everyone looked the other way. Ok, the fact baseball czars did not test for PED means that one must give the benefit of the doubt to the players. If one wishes to be angry at anyone, be angry at the Baseball Commissioner and his associates for not testing the players. Bear in mind that after the infamous Baseball Strike of 1994-1995, fans like me, vowed never to watch another ballgame. When Big Mac and Sammy Sosa started their famous competition, thousands of fans came back to the game with a spirit of forgiveness. Bud Selig, the Baseball Commissioner delighted in the renewed interest of the game.

We all did.

The time has come for fans to give credit where credit was due. If we want to go after anybody, we should inspect the politicians from the President to the common Congressman and see whether their records will stand the test of purity and honesty.

Somehow, I don’t think they would do so well.

Ask yourself a simple question: Who do the politicians think they are? Do they fancy themselves as the guardians of baseball purity?

What is wrong with this picture?

Think again. Aren’t these the same politicians who have squandered Social Security monies and Medicare funding? Aren’t these the same charlatans who are personally enriching themselves at the expense of the public, e.g., inside trading?

“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Just for the record, whatever Bonds or Clemens may have done is benign when compared to the kind of the antics baseball has tolerated for much of its history. In fact, fewer sports can claim as many cheaters as baseball. Baseball and cheating have a long history. The artful deception of the Baseball Other is the stuff that baseball lore and legends are made up of. Contrary to popular political belief, there are a lot of players in the Hall of Fame who would have never made it for we have empirical evidence that cheating took place. Some cheated long enough to change the outcome of a pennant race, while others cheated throughout their careers. Some cheated just for the fun of it.

In Jungian terminology, baseball has a shadow side that cannot be denied. Let’s be honest, baseball is not a shrine for Catholic saints or Hassidic Rebbes (many of whom, also cheated). It is a place where we honor the memory and life achievements of baseball’s immortal heroes, but make no mistake: many of them were not saints.

In the interest of brevity, I will mention just a few of the game’s best known baseball cheaters:

  • 1. New York Giants (1951) - Bobby Thomson

The year was 1951. Bobby Thomson got mobbed by his Giants’ teammates after hitting the “shot heard ’round the world.”

“That year, the Giants admitted they had an elaborate sign-stealing system in place at the Polo Grounds in 1951. Did it help them erase the 13½-game lead the Dodgers had in August? Did Bobby Thomson know what Ralph Branca was throwing when he hit his “Shot heard around the world?” Those questions are unanswerable, even by Thomson, who exhibited Clintonesque qualities when he was once questioned by the Wall Street Journal, years later. He said, “I’d have to say more no than yes . . .” After equivocating, he finally said, “No, I didn’t steal the sign for that pitch.”

But wait, it gets better; the Giants really cheated—no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Herman Franks (who was also a friend of my late father) used to sit in the Giants clubhouse, which was conveniently located past center field. He used a telescope to read the catcher’s signs. He would then set off a bell or buzzer in the Giants bullpen that would identify the next pitch, and a relay man signaled the sign to the hitter.
  • 2. John McGraw (3B, SS, OF, Orioles, Cardinals, Giants, 1891-1906)

This Hall-of-Famer should have played football. Two old chroniclers named Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns wrote in “Baseball: An Illustrated History,” On the field, the 155-pound McGraw “held far bigger base runners back by the belt, blocked them, tripped them, spiked them — and rarely complained when they did the same to him.” He was known to grab onto runners belts as they were rounding third, and grab the belt loops of runners tagging up at third. “He uses every low and contemptible method that his erratic brain can conceive to win a play by a dirty trick,” wrote one reporter.

  • 3. Gaylord Perry (pitcher, Giants, Indians, Rangers, Padres, Yankees, Braves, Mariners, Royals, 1962-1983)

“Gaylord Perry, a Hall-of-Famer, compiled his 314-265 record on the wings of a Vaseline ball. He’d stand on the mound, touching his cap or his sleeve, either loading up the ball or trying to convince batters he was doing so. In 1982, he became one of the very few pitchers to be suspended for doctoring the ball. Gene Tenace, who was Perry’s catcher with the Padres, said the ball was sometimes so loaded he couldn’t throw it back to the mound. Indians president Gabe Paul defended Perry: “Gaylord is a very honorable man,” he said. ‘He only calls for the spitter when he needs it.’”

  • 4. Ty Cobb, one of Baseball’s greatest players, loved to sharpen his spikes and maim anyone who tried to tag him out when he would steal a base.

 

  • 5. Whitey Ford has many outstanding records: Winning percentage, left-hander, career (minimum 100 wins), .690; Most World Series wins, career, 10; Most World Series starts. After his career ended, Ford admitted to occasionally cheating by doctoring the ball with his ring. Ford, Sutton and Perry were often accused of throwing illegal pitches, scuffed ones or spitters.

We honor some men who found a way around the rules of the game while excluding others? Was Perry an isolated incident? Of course not, Whitey Ford is in the Hall as well. Whitey, the great, was fond of cutting up a baseball or two with a sharp ring he once wore. In short, the infamous list of less than honest citizens goes on. Despite the baseball antics, these players give much for the fans to cheer about. I personally resent the politicians and the purists who are trying to make the Hall of Fame into a religious shrine for the holiest players.

What about Pete Rose? Hasn’t he done enough penance yet? Let’s be honest: Pete Rose made a mistake. But he is hardly alone-we all do. To disregard one of the most successful baseball careers in the history of the game with a zero mistake policy does a disservice to Rose, the teams he played for, the fans who enjoyed watching him play, and the sport of baseball. Pete Rose’s suspension should be lifted for him, and for baseball. Heck, even the Pope forgives, just like Jesus-so should baseball.

Guess what? People who bring excitement to our favorite pastime deserve to have a break. If you want to test the players from now on (which we already do), then fine—but baseball didn’t mind letting their superstars play, and neither should we. Continue Reading

Share

8 May

Book Review — Society and Self: On the Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik


Categories: in biblical theology, Contrarian wisdom, ethics, good and evil, Halacha, Theology and Philosophy

Book Review:

Society and Self: On the Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, by Gerald J.(Ya’akov) Blidstein. OU Press, 2012, 155 pages, ISBN-10: 1602802041, U.S. cover price: $25.00

Gerald J. Blidstein’s Society and Self: On the Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik is an excellent introduction to the thought-provoking ideas of Rav Soloveitchik.

The author presents a clear précis of Rav Soloveitchik’s views on a variety of topics such as:

  • Could Rav. Soloveitchik be considered as a “Religious Zionist”? (Ch. 1)
  • Issues pertaining to Jewish/Gentile and Orthodox/non-Orthodox relationships (Ch. 2)
  • Rav Soloveitchik’s thoughts on faith after the Holocaust and the establishment of Israel (Ch. 3)
  • The theological and existential tension between the individual and the community (Ch. 4)
  • A theology of marriage and its broader implications (Ch. 5)
  • A theology of Rav Soloveitchik’s view on human mortality and mourning (Ch.6)

In the interest of brevity, I will focus on some of the themes that impressed me as a reader.

The subject of relationships is especially relevant for our day. Here is a little bit of background to Rav Soloveitchik’s thought. In his famous theological essay, “The Lonely Man of Faith,” the author writes about the two creation stories found in Genesis 1-2. According to Soloveitchik’s typology, Adam in Genesis 1 is a majestic figure—a being capable of technologically mastering the world around him. However, for his knowledge and intellectual prowess, he is “ontologically incomplete” (p. 80). Although Adam and Eve appear in the first chapter, Adam in Genesis 1 is self-sufficient. In Genesis 2, Adam emerges as a being that discovers the reality of loneliness within his soul. Through the discovery of Eve, Adam “forms the first covenantal community, a community in which God is the third partner.” Moreover, “This community bears an ontological character that is the pattern for the covenantal faith community of Israel.”

As a model for the Divine-human covenantal relationship, marriage demands total commitment and constancy; it is more than a contractual arrangement (p. 112). Soloveitchik argues that the theme of covenant “creates a personal experience that enriches and enhances the lives of two individuals” (p. 113).

(It is a pity neither Blidstein, Kolitz, D. Hartman, Norman Lamm, or others have ever written about Rav Soloveitchik’s attitude about biblical criticism, but that is another topic for a future article.)

Particularly interesting is Rav Soloveitchik’s view of Zionism. Rav Soloveitchik rejected a secular Jewish existence, which he regarded as a betrayal to Jewish destiny (p. 67). Yet, Blidstein also notes that the Rav was highly critical of the Haredi—who, incidentally, never forgave the Rav’s criticism of their movement and theology (p. 21). It is a pity Blidstein did not elaborate more on the Rav’s critique of Haredism.

Unlike the Hassidic Rabbis (Gerer, Chabad, Satmar, Belz) who viewed the founding of Israel as a spiritual catastrophe (for the Jews rejected the Messianic redemption foretold by the prophets and the Sages and opted instead for a secular redemption), Rav Soloveitchik celebrated the rebirth of Israel as “an almost supernatural occurrence” (p. 20). When one considers what the Jews went through with the Holocaust, I am perplexed at how Rav Soloveitchik could say that the founding of Israel is “an almost supernatural occurrence”? (Emphasis added.) When King Cyrus of Persia decided to let the Jews go back and resettle their homeland and rebuild their ancestral Temple, Isaiah minced no words about the amazing turn of events. He exclaims:

Who says to the deep,

“Be dry—I will dry up your rivers”;

Who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd,

And he shall carry out all my purpose”;

And who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,”

And of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”

Isaiah 44:24-28

If Cyrus could serve as God’s “Moshiach” (‘Messiah”), why couldn’t President Truman also serve in that providential capacity? It seems to me that Rav Soloveitchik may have felt reticent to endorse Israel as a supernatural epiphany of God’s Presence in modern history. The logistics of creating a secular State that is also loyal to Jewish tradition are daunting. The thought of such a feasible reality probably made the Rav choose his words wisely.

Yet, who could deny that Israel is a supernatural miracle of our modern age-especially so soon after the Jewish people’s greatest tragedy-the Holocaust?

Notwithstanding the Rav’s great love for the modern State of Israel, he never visited the country. PM Menachem Begin even offered him the position of Chief Rabbi many times, but he refused to take the position.

What a pity!

In conclusion, on the back cover of the book, Blidstein presents a vital message that sums up Soloveitchik’s view of American Orthodoxy:

  • The Rav is very concerned that Orthodoxy has lost its dignity. He does not mean by this that it is insufficiently formal, nor is he referring to any lack of honor, of ceremonialism. On the contrary, he already discerned, in the early 1960s, that American Jewry had become disillusioned with the ceremonial sheen of organized religion, and that he saw the beginnings of the search for less-established religions. He was referring primarily to an absence of personal spiritual depth and to intellectual decline—tendencies that he saw in the public arena as well. One gets the sense that he regarded American Jewry, and Orthodox Jews in particular, as a spiritually and culturally enervated group, whether compared to the Jews of Western Europe or to those of Eastern Europe. His students were talented and well prepared, but he decried their lack of historical (and religious) rootedness, their personal roughness, and their limited spiritual development . . .”

Blidstein makes an excellent point. As I read this section several times, I found myself reminiscing Simon and Garfunkel’s famous lyric, “Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.”

The same thing could just as easily be said about the Rav, “Where have you gone Rav Soloveitchik? A confused frum (religious) world turns its lonely eyes to you.”

Unfortunately, today’s religious world of Haredim resembles Franz Kafka’s famous short story, “The Metamorphosis,” a tale about a man who woke up and discovered he had become a cockroach. Today’s Orthodoxy likewise has changed much since the death of Rav Soloveitchik. Haredism has pushed the Modern Orthodox Jewish community more to the right. In Israel, the Haredi have negated the conversions of Modern Orthodox rabbis, much like they have done with other streams of Judaism.

I doubt whether he would be happy and proud seeing how many of today’s religious Jewish leaders (i.e., the “Gedolim”) lampoon the venerable forms of Jewish piety, painting themselves as fools, fanatics and charlatans for all to see, or read about their hypocrisies on the Internet. One is reminded of the famous Talmudic passage: “King Jannai said to his wife’, ‘Fear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees. Beware of the hypocrites who ape the Pharisees; because their deeds are as immoral as Zimri’s; yet, they expect a reward like Phineas” (BT Shabbat 16b).

We can only hope that new leaders from within the ranks of Orthodoxy will someday chart a new course based upon the ethical and theological teachings of Rav Soloveitchik.

I sincerely recommend Gerald J. Blidstein’s Society and Self: On the Writings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. In addition, another excellent introduction to Rav Soloveitchik’s writings is Zvi Kolitz’s Confrontation: The Existential Thought of Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1993).

**

Reviewer: Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel, Rabbi of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista, Author of: Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Commentary Vol 1. Genesis 1-3 (Aeon, 2010)

Share