Category Archives: Current Events

Hail Mariano

Posted on September 18, 2013 | 2 comments

It was one of the most moving scenes I’ve witnessed on a baseball field. Mariano Rivera entered this past year’s All-Star Game to a standing ovation from the 45,000 fans at Citi Field but, even more poignantly, from the players in both dugouts, almost all of them his longtime opponents. He has been feted by his rivals in every stadium in which he performed, including this past week in Fenway Park. The celebrations are in recognition not only of his athletic excellence but, more importantly, of his goodness and sterling character.

The greatest closer in the history of baseball is retiring this year after a long, distinguished and record-setting career. Those few critics who have long disparaged the closer role, deeming it overrated and capable of fulfillment by almost anyone, must answer one question: how come no one has ever accomplished what Mariano has, and for almost two decades?

The record speaks for itself. The Yankee pitcher has well over 600 saves, and 300 more than his closest active rival, who, at 38 years old, will never challenge that record; over 40 saves in the post-season with a microscopic 0.70 ERA, with 11 World Series saves, all records that will likely never be broken. He possesses a strikeout to walk ratio that is astonishing, and consistency that is mindboggling. Many of his peers who had exceptional seasons or two have usually flamed out within a short period. Rivera marches on, year after year, throwing the same unhittable pitch, and racking up save after save.

His personal story is even more compelling. Having grown up in poverty in Panama, he strengthened his arm by throwing stones and makeshift baseballs of old socks or fishing nets. The pitch that made his career – the cutter that darts in or away from hitters after their reaction time has passed – was discovered almost as a fluke, but nothing else about his life seems coincidental. And the respect he has earned from fans, teammates and fellow players is not at all contrived or manufactured, nor is the adulation typical of the modern athlete. Therein lies his uniqueness, not as much in the skill he displays on the baseball field but the values and character he embodies both on and off the field.

Too often, athletes are lionized for the wrong reasons, and the right reasons are very rare. The very notion of perceiving athletes as “role models” rings false and usually ends in disappointment. Too many succumb to the allures of money, drugs, cheating, and womanizing and many have contributed thereby to the debasing of American culture. Most are actually role models for, as Mickey Mantle said about himself towards the end of his life, “what not to do.” That is what makes Mariano Rivera such a welcome relief (interesting word in this context) in the sports world.

Rivera is a religious man whose expressions of faith after wins or losses always sound sincere and heartfelt. His frequent references to God seem real and natural and not contrived. He is married to his childhood sweetheart and together they raise their family, that itself a sports world rarity. His charitable work is as legendary as his baseball talent – building a sports field in his home town, renovating churches (his wife is a pastor in one), funding athletic activities for underprivileged children, etc. He has spent his farewell tour of American League cities by visiting – in each stadium in which he has played – the longtime employees (clubhouse workers, ticket sellers, etc.) with whom he has interacted over the years, bestowing gifts on one particular person in each venue, and explaining that these employees are as much a part of the baseball business as he is. Such selflessness is acknowledged in the media but not trumpeted. Needless to say –no, it must be said – he has never had the slightest hint of scandal tarnish his reputation in a baseball era that has been pockmarked by persistent scandals.

His career teaches us important lessons. One was suggested by a colleague. Roles matter in life, and people have to make their contributions to the world in line with their fundamental roles. Thus, Mariano Rivera will soon retire holding a unique and dubious record: having played the most games in major league baseball history – well over 1100 games – without recording even a single base hit. But only a baseball am haaretz would construe that as a blemish on his stellar career; his role is to save games, not to swing the bat. Take note: it is only in a milieu poisoned by persistent grievances of feminists and others that the prescription of roles grates and exasperates. They are essential to the functioning of any organization, or religion, or gainful activity. We should always strive to do well what we can do and what we are supposed to do, and not lament or moan about what we can’t or shouldn’t do.

One particular trait of Rivera’s, so prized by the Jewish people, stands out: humility. In an age when countless basketball and football players, and many baseball players, showboat with every accomplishment – standing and gazing at their handiwork, glaring at defeated opponents, waving their arms and bowing to the crowd after working out a third-inning walk – Rivera is universally admired for his steely determination but also stoic demeanor. He never gloated after successes and never pouted after his rare failures, notably in the 2001 World Series when one hard-hit ball, his throwing error, and a bloop hit, cost the Yankees the seventh game, or in the 2004 blown playoffs against the Red Sox. Instead, he praised his opponents, accepted God’s will (in his words), and was always gracious. After a recent blown save, he said: “This was a great game, until I entered it.” He remains a fierce competitor, but without any desire to show up the teams whose defeat he had just sealed. When the games end, he breathes a sigh of relief (that word again) and after a few seconds displays a smile as he accepts his teammates’ congratulations. Nothing more.

No wonder baseball’s best players stood and applauded for him at the All Star Game, the man who had victimized so many of them for so long, but did it with grace, humility, dignity and mutual respect.

That is the Musar of Mariano.

2 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Virtue of Self-Doubt

Posted on September 12, 2013 | 6 comments

The Ten Days of Penitence culminating in Yom Kippurim usher in a period of reflection, contemplation, introspection and repentance. We look back at our past deeds and evaluate what could have been done differently or should have been done better (or not at all) before turning our attention to prospective actions, thoughts and traits. An honest appraisal of oneself is imperative as a prelude to making any real progress in one’s character development.

Earlier this summer, I received an intensive lesson in self-evaluations and re-appraisals in a trip to the great American Midwest and south, and a tour of presidential libraries. In less than a week, we visited the Truman Library (Independence MO), the Clinton Library (Little Rock AR), and the two Bush libraries in Texas (Bush II in Dallas and Bush I in College Station). Each was fascinating (they all are; I have visited most), and each was extraordinarily well done. Truman was the first to devote his post-presidency to his library, although FDR was the first president to designate his home in Hyde Park as a library and research center. (An excellent new museum just opened at the FDR Library, and was visited more recently).

Each museum has one objective and answers one general question: how does the president want to be remembered – not how the media or historians perceive him – but how does he want to be remembered? Truman emphasized his humble origins, his accidental presidency that took years to become his own, his integrity and small-town American values. Clinton’s library is an architecturally and intellectually overwhelming, and incredibly wonkish. It is as if he tried to account for every single day of his presidency; his daily schedule for every day of his presidency is neatly displayed in folders month after month, year after year (well, not every day; it was the days of “no official presidential business” that got him into trouble.) He was also the least personal of presidents, as if his entire life was about politics. All the other presidents featured their backgrounds, personal homes, lighter moments, family life, hobbies, etc. Clinton, unique among modern presidents, seemingly did not have a home – he lived in the governor’s mansion and then the White House for well over two decades, and vacations were spent at friends’ homes.

George H. W. Bush. had the most impressive personal history of any of them – having had much more life experience than the others in a variety of capacities, without complete success in any of them – from being shot down as a Navy pilot in WW II to his business career, service in Congress, variety of presidential appointments, the vice-presidency and his one-term presidency. His library devotes more time to his other careers than the others did, and naturally with special emphasis on the Gulf War during his tenure.

And the George W. Bush library was riveting, and visually spectacular. Obviously, he underscored certain things and gave short shrift to others, but one thing stood out, and maybe it was because we went to Truman on Sunday, Clinton on Monday and Bush II on Tuesday. Bush’s whole theme – like the name of his memoirs – was “Decision Points.” There is even a Decision Points Theater in his museum where visitors can stand and assess the various factors, pro and con, that went into his major decisions – the war, response to Katrina, the surge, and the financial crisis – with each issue broken down into four categories, with expert advice on both sides – and then the visitor gets to decide. It is a tiny glimpse into the life of the president, the decisions that have to be made – sometimes quickly – and how sometimes good and reasonable decisions do not turn out as hoped.

But here’s what was most impressive: Bush didn’t claim to be right on every decision. Even good decisions can sometimes go awry. He didn’t even know if it was the right decision at the time, only that it was his honest conclusion after weighing all the facts, circumstances and expert opinion. Truman was the same way; in his library, there was a large wall, that contained floor to ceiling two dozen different opinions from people as to whether Truman should have used the atomic bomb – and twice – on Japan, including a quote from Dwight Eisenhower in 1963 that he (Ike) thought it was unnecessary. Some of the quoted were quite critical of Truman. In essence, Truman didn’t claim to be right, only that he did what he thought was right – to avert the anticipated death of a million American servicemen in a land invasion of Japan. (To me, still a compelling and proper conclusion for an American Commander-in-Chief.)

There was humility in both men, the modest expression of doubt – and even in Bush I’s account of the lead up to the Gulf War, agonizing over launching it and seeking a world consensus before doing so. FDR’s new museum was similarly, and brutally, honest, with a dozen sidebars called “Confront the Issue” that featured unblemished and objective looks at FDR’s actions or inactions: did he know about Pearl Harbor before it happened? Did he provoke a war with Germany by siding with Britain and ending America’s neutrality months before December 1941? Did he do anything substantial to save Jewish refugees, beyond rhetoric? Should he have bombed the railway tracks to Auschwitz? Did he conceal his health problems from the public before the 1944 election? Both sides were presented. Criticisms were acknowledged.

Doubt is good; it is human. It is humbling. It is worthy of a leader.

Bill Clinton’s museum stands out in that he had no doubts. It is not done in a heavy-handed way, but the idea comes through very clearly. Every issue he confronted had only one right answer – his. The only problem in his presidency was the presence of Republicans, who could only obstruct and thwart his efforts to perfect the world but little positive. Even the section on his impeachment was devoted to statements and videos of scholars saying that his was not an impeachable offense, and all about politics and personal destruction. And even some of his strengths as president – his ability to triangulate policy and compromise with Republicans – are muted in favor of his certainty of rectitude that brooks no other possibilities. He comes across, and probably is, a decent and caring person, but he has no doubts, no hesitation, no regrets and no second thoughts about any of his policies or actions. Nor, seemingly, will he abide anyone else having them.

The current occupant of the White House seems cut from the same cloth, and one would expect his presidential library and museum to countenance no dissent, no criticism, and no latitude in which there can be more than one right opinion, or any opinion not that of Obama himself. It certainly explains today’s desperate needs to avoid looking like he has erased his red line on Syria’s use of chemical and to make the pending compromise look like it was his idea all along – and not like he has been outmaneuvered by the wily Russians. (I suppose it stands to reason that a former KGB operative should be able to outwit a former community organizer.)

This is a terrible weakness in a president, a leader or in any human being – the inability or unwillingness to take a second look and re-evaluate past decisions. The inner capacity to tolerate that one might have erred and sometimes grievously in one’s calculations, or even that one made a sound decision that subsequent events proved faulty, is critical to self-improvement and personal growth. Perhaps the weaknesses arise from personality and temperament, from insecurity born of one’s youthful experiences, or from the ubiquity of the modern media that will record for posterity every admission of failure and broadcast it repeatedly.

Whatever the reason, the days before Yom Kippurim are an ideal time for us commoners to search our hearts and ways, evaluate past conduct, rectify misdeeds, learn from our mistakes, make the appropriate changes for the future, and, in so doing, merit divine favor and grace in the year ahead.

6 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought

The Muddle

Posted on September 4, 2013 | 12 comments

As Rosh Hashana, the New Year with its awesome judgment approaches, we remind ourselves in prayer that all mankind are judged on this day, wittingly or unwittingly. There is a special resonance this year to the passage: “Regarding countries, it is said today which is destined for the sword and which for peace, which for hunger and which for abundance…?”

President Obama has certainly worked himself into an untenable predicament – and of his own making. The obvious should be stated at the outset: once he launches an attack against another country – e.g., Syria – that has not attacked the United States, he becomes what he long decried, mocked and lambasted. He becomes Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. He becomes the commissioner of America, the world’s policeman. No wonder he is tap-dancing around this decision and his ever-fanciful foreign policy. His background, temperament and every instinct militates against aggressive action against Syria, and yet on some level he certainly realizes that the American president has a different role on the international scene than, say, the Chilean president.

Obama, who has long confused his musings for policy and his speeches for action, has boxed himself into a corner. Whatever the polls say – and I believe that Americans have little interest in intervening in Syria’s civil war, notwithstanding the horrendous loss of civilian life and the wanton use of chemical weapons – the United States still defines itself as the nation that upholds the world’s moral order, that seeks justice for the oppressed, that has less interest in expanding its empire than in exporting its values. (There’s a reason why super heroes who fight injustice – Superman, Batman, et al – were all American creations.) Obama has never subscribed to that notion of American exceptionalism, and tragically abdicated that role; the vacuum has been filled by an assortment of rogues, miscreants and murderers, and especially Russia’s Putin, who has run circles around Obama on several occasions and does not seem to be swayed by Obama’s “charm.” Putin is today the world’s most consequential leader, the first time in generations that role is not being played by an American president. It is Putin, ultimately, who will decide Bashar Assad’s fate, not Obama and his missiles.

For sure, Obama recognizes the foolishness of his red lines and the vacuity with which his threats have been greeted in the Middle East. He would love to be the first president since Hoover (Carter?) never to have fired a shot at an enemy of his own making. But the world does not lend itself to liberal fantasies, and has become under Obama’s watch a much more dangerous place given America’s retreat from the global scene.

That is why the current “crisis” atmosphere is surreal. The “red line” was crossed months, not weeks, ago and prompted no reaction but words, threats and investigations. Then, battleships were dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean, ready to fire. Then, nothing, except an unnecessary deferment to Congress and a quick round of golf. The hunger for political cover is itself stunning, as if Congressional approval will allow Obama to tell his friends on the left that he had no choice. The hypocrisy is also breathtaking; would Nancy Pelosi et al support such an authorization requested by a Republican president? And the delay masks a plan that, by all accounts, will do little more than lob missiles at Syrian targets – but not endanger the regime (ruled out) nor seize the cache of chemical weapons (not possible without ground troops). The purpose is to “do something;” in halachic language, it is to “be yotzei,” but without accomplishing any strategic objective. “Doing something” may play well on television, but has little effect in the Middle Eastern cauldron.

Obama’s caution was warranted for at least one reason: the civilized world benefits from evildoers killing each other, even if the collateral damage (innocent civilians, women, children, etc.) are sadly slaughtered in the process. The world has long looked at the massacres of innocents with treacly laments, pious intonations, and chants of “never again,” from the Holocaust, to Biafra, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, a host of others, and now Syria. The custom is to pay lip service and vow action, but remedial or effective action is exceedingly rare. And, the innocents aside, who is really fighting and dying in Syria’s civil war? The combatants share two common denominators: all the groups hate Jews and Israel, and no group boasts a Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. Assad’s use of chemical weapons is horrific, but so was the cannibalization by one of the rebel groups of a dead loyalist soldier whose heart was summarily excised from his chest and proudly consumed by his killer, sans condiments or cutlery.

One recalls the Iran-Iraq war that lasted almost a decade in the 1980’s and how the civilized world benefited from that carnage. It is easy to draw the same conclusion here. While the loss of any life is a tragedy from a divine perspective, the world in which we humans live benefits from the death of the wicked. “The death of evildoers is satisfying for them and for the world” (Masechet Sanhedrin 71b). The lucky Syrians – and the intelligent ones – seem to consist of the two million refugees who have fled the killing fields, and surely they are ripe for humanitarian assistance. But it is hard to see how an Assad replaced by another murderous dictator really solves anything or advances any moral cause.

It is also hard to imagine that Congress will deny Obama the right to fire his missiles. Too many Congressmen are genuinely troubled by the butchery (some of them, by the way, like Secretary of State Kerry, not long ago considered themselves confidants of Bashar al-Assad), others enjoy the projection of American power, and some responsible ones see the defeat of an American president’s request in this sphere as a terrible loss of prestige for the United States and a further erosion of American influence in the world. An Obama threat of retaliation against Syria that goes unfulfilled will simply further embolden Iran to ignore this President’s idle blandishments and hasten the completion of its nuclear program. What to do? Here’s a suggestion.

Go to the source. Rather than waste rockets and missiles in a futile effort to weaken Assad, expend that effort in militarily engaging Iran. Iran is Syria’s sponsor and patron. If Iran is weakened – nuclear capabilities thwarted, regime changed, etc. – then Syria falls. The source of evil in that part of the world is not Syria but Iran. Wasting energy on a theatrical attack on the proxy but leaving the principal in place accomplishes less than nothing. By all accounts, the US (and/or Israel) will have to confront Iran someday soon. A nuclear weapon in Iranian hands is more dangerous than even chemical weapons in Syrian or rebel hands. It is not at all unlikely that the use of chemical weapons here was undertaken at Iranian initiative to gauge the American response, as Assad has the upper hand over the rebels with his conventional weapons. So why delay until tomorrow what can be done today?

This would be an opportune moment for that attack. Nonetheless, it is unlikely because Obama is so enamored of his rhetorical abilities he believes his words alone will halt the Iranian race to the bomb. So, for all the current commotion, there will be a lot of sound and fury signifying next to nothing, as politics once again trumps policy.

“And so of the countries, some will be destined for the sword,” not because G-d necessarily decreed it but because they have chosen it, and others will be blessed with peace because they have worked at it, fought and bled for it, and appreciate it. And some, like Israel, will desire peace, but not yet be its beneficiary because it is surrounded by hostility, evil and the forces of intolerance.

We are left to mourn the loss of innocent life, and pray for the time when G-d will instill His awe upon all His works and His dread upon all His creatures, so we may yet become a single society – a bond of brothers and sisters that do His will wholeheartedly.

And may the world then be blessed with redemption and peace.

Shana Tova to all !

12 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Holidays, Israel

Shared Roles

Posted on August 23, 2013 | 5 comments

The perpetual debate about the woman’s role in Judaism has been framed almost completely in the negative – what it is that women can’t do or shouldn’t do and why not? But what can women do? (What women should do is really a personal decision that depends on background, temperament, talent and other factors.)
Certainly, we should start with the basics. Both men and women were created in the image of G-d and both have the capacity to achieve great spiritual heights. “I call upon heaven and earth to testify whether Jew or non-Jew, man or woman, the divine spirit rests upon a person according to their deeds” (Eliyahu Rabba 10). Both have intellects and spiritual worth.
Certainly, as well, Chazal embraced for the Jewish family what economists call “production complementarities,” the notion that a fully-functioning home requires the distribution of tasks in a way that usually accords with the couple’s proclivities and thereby maximizes both success and happiness. Some people are just more suited to the workplace and the production of income, and others better suited to domestic life, hands-on child-rearing, and the nurturing of the home front. Obviously, the former was traditionally the domain of men, and the latter the domain of women, with some notable exceptions.
From that perspective, Chazal perceived the division of spiritual chores in the home accordingly: “How do women achieve merit? By sending their sons to learn Torah in shul, and sending their husbands to learn Torah in the Bet Midrash, and waiting for their husbands to return home.” In so doing, “the promise made to women is greater than the promise made to men” (Masechet Berachot 17a). The “production complementarities” of Jewish life worked well enough to sustain the Jewish home for several millennia, but, it must be conceded, no longer enriches the lives of many women. For them, their “souls are not satiated” (Kohelet 6:7) being relegated to a supportive role, even if that supportive role is actually perceived as superior, and even if that role has, for the most part, worked. (The book is still out on whether the elevated public role that women desire has been good or bad for the Jewish family and our children, but the early returns are hardly comforting.) What can they do? What can a woman contribute to the Jewish world once her child-rearing days are over? What can she do to exalt her own soul and those of others? Again, in economic terms, when a couple no longer pursues “consumption complementarities” – a shared pursuit of consumer goods and services – but each person pursues spiritual satisfaction of his/her own (as a religious “consumer”), what roles are open to women?
They are numerous. Earlier today, at a street fair here in Israel, I bought a set of “Nashim B’Tanach” (Women in the Bible) cards, produced in order to raise awareness of the esteemed role of women in Jewish life. In all, 40 women are profiled, ranging from the famous ones to the relatively obscure, like Achsah, daughter of Calev and wife of Otniel, who was so named (Masechet Temurah 16b) because “whoever saw her became angry at his wife [for Achsah was so beautiful and smart].” These women, giants of Jewish life, were all different, each making a unique contribution to the Jewish world.
At the top of the list of laudable activities is Torah study. Last week’s Besheva profiled Daniella Golan, a fascinating Baalat Teshuva who merited learning “b’chavruta” (companion study) with Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook in his latter years. She heads a study center for women in Yerushalayim called “Or Chaya” guided by some of the greatest rabbinical personalities of the last few decades that encourages Jewish women (when feasible) to leave their homes a few nights a week and learn Torah. It has a Chasidic bent, and eschews provocations and heavily politicized areas of study, simply to focus on Torah lishma, study for its own sake – to create better people and better homes. Add to that the dozens of daily shiurim for women taking place across the country designed for Talmud Torah, not political statements. Kain Yirbu!
Along those lines, nothing is more appropriate than women principals or heads of schools for young girls. They are ideal role models, and the ones that I have known have been filled with Torah knowledge and wonderful character traits. Ditto for women teachers of Torah, recognizing the reality that many men (not always for the most salutary reasons) will not attend a shiur given by women. But for women? Kain Yirbu. Additionally, while I have not been supportive of the yoetzet program for reasons stated elsewhere, many fine Rabbanim have been, both here and in America. The jury is still deliberating that also, whether it will stay within the bounds of the mesorah or stray afar, but I do concede that there are two sides to the issue.
Well over a decade ago, women first broke ground by appearing as toanot before the rabbinical courts. Truth be told, I never understood the objection before and do not really perceive this as encroaching on any Jewish principle. A to’ain (pleader) is essentially a lawyer in the rabbinical court system. Why can’t a woman be a lawyer in that forum, any less than in any other forum? As a lawyer myself, and as a Dayan, I have encountered women numerous times as advocates. Perhaps that is why I never understood the ban before or the hoopla after; it’s just something new, like female referees, but essentially innocuous.
Can women be machgichot? This is an open question that is usually answered affirmatively. Rav Moshe Feinstein permitted it in a somewhat limited case – a widow taking over her husband’s hashgacha – but many Kashrut organizations are permissive. There are technical issues involving forcefulness (often a problem for a male as well) and occasionally yichud, but both seem eminently resolvable.
When we consider that almost every profession is open to women, it emerges that women can have very full days, very fulfilling lives (if they too are not bitten by the materialism bug that can capture the male species), and actualize their spiritual potential as much as anyone. The problems only arise when female fulfillment is sought only in the duplication of the male role (essentially an insult to women), when parenting is delegated to outsiders, usually foreign women, entrusted with raising our children, and when the Torah virtue of limitations is renounced in favor of unfettered personal expression.
Nonetheless, we should never forget the ideal. Women who focus on rearing children and caring for the home can find immense fulfillment in that as well. The Internet provides unlimited opportunities to hear shiurim on a constant basis from thousands of Torah teachers, male and female. The chesed that women can do when their children are in school or grown is enormous and indispensable to Jewish life, adding a dimension to our world that is precious.
We do not have to be the same or do the same things (or even bear the same titles). In fact, it is far better that in G-d’s orchestra, like in man’s, each person plays a different instrument and plays it well, but together, to forge the great harmony that G-d has established for us as our most sublime goal in life.