Max Kellerman's Musings Vol XLI - All about A-Roid

Today's Max Kellerman show was dominated by the Alex Rodriguez steroid controversy. (No during the show, Max did not refer to Alex Rodriguez as A-Roid, that is a product of my odd sense of humor). The following is my brief take on the portions of the show which I was able to listen to today.

Max started the show by assigning classifications for various types of players in the steroid era. The highest class was the known steroid users which Max defined as Bonds, Sosa and McGwire. The second tier was the accused steroid users - those who have been named by others but there has been no proof or admission of steroid use. The third class was the suspicious class. Max defined this group as consisting of players who had either subtle physical changes in their physique or whose game improved later in their careers when it should have decreased. The fourth class was the "everyone else" group. Max defined these as players who were "maybe yes, maybe no" steroid users where people would not be surprised to hear they were juicers. The final group of players were assigned the "no way" moniker. Max explained that if a person were to hear that one of these player used steroids it would evoke a "no way" reaction. Max identified Derek Jeter as one of these types of players. [Max actually named players for each of the aforementioned groups, but out of an abundance of caution I will omit those names from this post].

Max later discussed how the A-Roid revelation was the Watergate of the steroid era. This has been a common theme over the last few weeks on the Max Kellerman show as in discussing the Joe Torre book he indicated that the revelation that A-Roid had a "single white female obsession with Derek Jeter" was like catching Nixon. Similarly, on today's show Max indicated that people always had a suspicion that the President lied, cheated or stole, but could still retain their naivete that he was an honorable man. Once Nixon was exposed, people lost their ability to give him the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, now that A-Rod has been revealed as A-Roid, people will not be able to easily explain a player's marked improvement or prodigious skills.

Later, Max developed the idea that the impact of the steroids era is that players who are not juicers will still be suspects now that A-Roid has been exposed as a juicer. He gave examples of certain players who had early success but then blossomed later. Other examples were players who maintained a constant high level later into their careers. Unfortunately, guys who look good will be forever tarnished because they could be compared to steroid users.

I want to just take a moment to discuss one point that came out of the Peter Gammons interview which was on 1050 ESPN at 6 PM. [Yes, I know that Max Kellerman did not discuss the interview as the excerpts were not made public until later in the day]. When asked why he took the roids, Alex Rodriguez talked about how when he got to Texas after signing the richest contract in baseball, he wanted to prove to everyone that he was the greatest player in the game. This answer shows that A-Roid is still delusional and has not owned up to his actions. By using performance enhancing drugs, a player does not prove he is the best. Instead, he proves that only through cheating is he capable of being the best player in the game.

Max's discussion of how the A-Roid saga has become the Watergate of the steroids era has its roots in Torah thought. There is a well established Torah principle of "Maaras ayin" that sometimes we refrain from permitted activity because people might think that we have done something which is illegal and either: (1) draw the conclusion that the activity is permitted or (2) believe that the actor is an unethical person. Some examples are the fact that collector of the half shekel would wear clothes which contained no hem so that he could not be accused of secreting the coins in his clothes (Yevamos 102b) or not leaving laundry out to dry on Shabbos because it might appear that the laundry was done on Shabbos (Shabbos 146b). In order to avoid giving the wrong idea, we refrain from certain actions so that people do not believe that we have done something wrong.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Beshalach

The following is a brief summary of a thought said over by R' Frand in his shiur this evening. I have attempted to reproduce this vort to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistencies are the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Shemos 13:18 the Torah writes "Vayasev Elokim es ha'am derech hamidbar yam suf vachamushim alu v'nei yisrael mei'eretz mitzrayim." Rashi comments on the word "vachamushim" that the Jews were armed with weapons. However, this concept is difficult to understand as the Torah does not recite anywhere that the Jews either had or took weapons from Egypt when they left.

R' Frand answered this question by quoting R' Berel Soloveitchik (who said in the name of his father the Brisker Rav) that the Jews were armed with the z'chus (merit) of carrying with them Yosef's bones.

R' Frand followed this by citing to a ma'amar chazal on the line in hallel "Hayam Ra'ah Vayanos." He stated that the yam ran (Vayanos) because the Jews were carrying Yosef's bones. It is written in Bereishis that Yosef ran outside (Vayanos Hachutza) when Potiphar's wife attempted to seduce him. Chazal teach that in the merit of Yosef's running away from sin, the yam ran away from the Jews.

In the sefer Shemen Hatov, R' Weinberg asks why the Jews needed the z'chus of Yosef to cause the sea to split? Didn't they have the z'chus of Nachshon who bravely walked into the water until it was up to his nose before the sea finally split? Wasn't this a great merit since Nachshon indicated that he believed so firmly that Hashem would make a miracle that he was willing to potentially sacrifice his life in an effort to prove that Hashem would save the Jewish people?

R' Weinberg answers that there are two distinct forms of acting "al kiddush Hashem." One form of kiddush Hashem is by giving up one's life al kiddush Hashem. The other form is the person who lives "al kiddush Hashem." The person who gives up his life gets a great reward for his actions because he dies to sanctify Hashem's name. However, once the person has given up his life, the act is complete.

In sharp contrast is the person who decides to take an action which sanctifies Hashem's name, but will not cause his own death. This person takes an action which he knows will have repercussions for many years, repercussions that he will have to live with and endure. This was the z'chus of Yosef. Yosef chose to resist the urge to sin with Potiphar's wife, knowing full well that he would be punished as a result. By resisting, Yosef voluntarily committed himself to a prison sentence which he knew could potentially last the rest of his life. Despite the fact that a long term punishment awaited him, Yosef chose to live "al kiddush Hashem" and as such his z'chus is great.

Rabbi Frand closed by comparing the act of the yam to Yosef. Yosef resisted human nature by ignoring the human desire for self preservation and choosing to act morally. Similalry, the yam, in staying open (rather than continuing to flow) also resisted its nature and allowed the Jews to pass without swallowing them up.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol XLI

Tonight's Weird (but true) Legal Case analysis looks at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's review of Judge Lamberth's decision in Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation, 528 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

As discussed in last week's post (http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/01/wednesdays-weird-but-true-legal-cases_28.html) in his 2006 decision, Judge Lamberth ruled that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), Chabad could pursue the return of the "Archive" which consists of over 25,000 pages of the various Rebbe's handwritten teachings and correspondence. However, Judge Lamberth had ruled that Chabad could not seek return the "Library" which consists of more than 12,000 seforim and 381 manuscripts, since it belonged to a Soviet citizen when it was seized in the 1920s and thus the taking did not violate international law. Judge Lamberth also ruled in conclusory fashion that the acts of state doctrine would bar the court from considering the taking of the Library.

On appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the court first noted that contrary to the defendants' argument, both the archive and the library belonged to Chabad (and not members of the Rebbe's family as the defendants had argued).

In relation to the question of whether Chabad could seek recovery of the Library, the appeals court disagreed with Judge Lamberth's conclusion that the Library was properly seized by the Soviet government. In so doing, the DC Circuit noted that the Library had previously belonged to Chabad and not one particular Rebbe. As such, when it was seized in the 1920s it had been seized from a worldwide movement and not from a Soviet citizen. Additionally, the DC Circuit noted that since the Russian appeals court in 1991 had vacated an order requiring that the Library be returned to Chabad, the Library had been "retaken" by the Russian government and was thus a proper subject for the lawsuit.

In connection with the act of state arguments, the DC Circuit agreed with Judge Lamberth as to the Archive, but disagreed in relation to the Library. In connection with the Archive (seized by the Russians from the Germans post WWII), the defendants had argued that since Germany was occupied by Russia at the time of the seizure, the act of taking the archive was an act of a sovereign state within its borders and could not form the basis of the suit. However, the DC Circuit disagreed, citing to the Potsdam Protocol of 1945 showing that the castle where the documents was seized by Russia was in Poland. As to the Library, the DC Circuit took issue with Judge Lamberth's conclusory statement that the taking was an act of state, since under the "Second Hickenlooper Amendment" [I did not make that up] the act of state doctrine does not apply to seizures occurring post 1959. Since the seizure allegedly took place in 1991, the Court reinstated Chabad's claim as to the Library.

As a post script t0 the DC Circuit's June 2008 decision, on January 22, 2009, Judge Lamberth issued a Temporary Restraining Order, requiring the Russian Federation, Russian Ministry of Culture and Mass Communication, the Russian State Library and the Russian State Military Archives to take all necessary measures to secure and protect the Library and Archive. Although not fully discussed in the TRO, there appear to be allegations that "original pages of the collection" had been disappearing. Interestingly, this issue came up at the same time that the defendants' lawyers were moving to be relieved as counsel to the defendants due to a break down in communications.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Kamma 37

The Mishna on Bava Kamma 37a gives various examples of how an ox can be mu'ad in one scenario, while Tam in another. Some examples mentioned in the mishna include: an ox which is predisposed to goring other oxen while being a tam for other animals; or an ox which is mu'ad to gore calves but will not pick on oxen of its own size. The mishna then relates that R' Yehuda was asked about whether an ox could be mu'ad for shabbos but not during the week. He responded that the owner would pay nezek shalem if the ox gored on shabbos, but would only pay half during the week.

Rashi and Tosafos have different explanations as to how this ox came to be mu'ad on shabbos. Rashi explains that the ox was essentially bored - since it worked all week but had nothing to do on shabbos, it gored. Tosafos explains (quoting the Yerushalmi) that it saw people wearing different clothing and did not recognize them and gored them because the ox thought they were strangers.

I heard an interesting vort on the concept of mu'ad l'shabbos from R' David F. He said that a woman once came to the Rogechover (sp?) and complained that her child would not nurse on shabbos. He responded "you have a baby who is mu'ad l'shabbos." He explained to her that the baby was not used to seeing her in shabbos clothes and did not recognize her. He suggested that the mother change into her regular (weekday) clothes when she nursed the baby. This solved the problem.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up

Max Kellerman's Monday Musings Vol XL - Let the comparisons begin!

Having watched last night's Superbowl in its entirety, I was fairly certain how Max Kellerman would open his show today. When a game is as tight as SB XLIII was, with two Fourth Quarter comebacks, the pundits will inevitably call it the greatest SB ever. Of course, this presented a problem for Max, since there was no way that any SB could top his beloved Giants upset of the Patriots in SB XLII.

Max opened the show with numerous attempts to prove that SB XLIII was inferior to the Giants win in SB XLII. This included an argument that there was more of a media circus surrounding SB XLII due to the fact that the Patriots entered the game undefeated (true). He also argued that the natural rivalry of Boston-NY in SB XLII created a greater story (also true).

I must respectfully disagree with some of Max's other arguments for why SB XLII was supposedly the greatest SB of all time. Max asserted that the teams involved in SB XLIII were inferior to last year's teams. This argument must fail for two reasons. First, Pittsburgh was the No.2 seed out of the AFC playing against the NFC West division winner. Yes, Pittsburgh was not the #1 seed like last year's Patriots. On the other hand, the Cardinals were the NFC West division winners and not just a wild card team. The second reason why the quality of the teams is irrelevant (Max called it a battle of a very good team against a good team) is that the pedigree of the team is irrelevant when it is playing at a high caliber. Indeed, were Max to be quizzed about the greatest boxing match of all time, he would have to admit that it would not need to involve an undefeated champion against a scrappy fighter with a number of losses along the way. While it may make for great theatre (Rocky, anyone?) the best game involves two teams playing their best and putting on both an offensive and defensive show.

Max also attempted to argue that the Eli - Tyree catch (known to Max's fans as the "immaculate reception") was the greatest play in SB history. While it may have been a great example of how athleticism and luck can combine to dazzle an audience, it cannot go down as the greatest play in SB history because they did not score on the play. Indeed, what would have happened if the Giants went three and out after Tyree caught the ball against his head? It was a great play which was a key event in the game winning drive. But it did not hand the victory to the Giants like Holmes' fully extended toe tap. (For my money, the greatest SB catch is still Jerry Rice's one handed TD grab against the Bengals in SB XXIII which tied the game in the Fourth Quarter).

Of course there is a way to explain Max's view of the greatest SB of all time. Max's belief that SB XLII is the greatest SB of all time merely reflects that to him as a Giant fan, SB XLII is the greatest SB of all time. Meanwhile, to a Patriots fan, SB XXXVI is the greatest SB of all time because the Patriots won the game with a field goal as time expired. To a Jets fan, the upset of the Colts in SB III is the greatest SB of all time because the Jets were not even expected to compete in that game, let alone win (also because the Jets haven't gotten back to a SB since then).

As always, there is a Torah lesson to be learned from Max's show. When choosing a Judge to hear a halachic case, the gemara bends over backwards to try to regulate that the Judge should be disconnected from all parties so that he could impartially resolve the dispute. The gemara in Kesubos 105b relates stories about various Rabbis who refused to judge cases because of personal interactions which could have hindered their ability to be impartial. These stories include Shmuel who was crossing a bridge and was assisted by another passerby. When informed that the man had a case to be heard before him, Shmuel refused. Similarly, Ameimar was sitting as a Judge when a feather fell on his head. A person removed the feather and Ameimar then asked - why are you here? When the man responded that he had a case to be judged by Ameimar, Ameimar refused.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Sunday Night Suds - Pale Moon

This week's Sunday Night Suds review looks at the Blue Moon Brewing Co.'s latest offering - Pale Moon.

I first encountered this beer in late November 2008 when I needed to fill some time when a part in Queens Supreme Court was down for lunch. Since I had less than an hour, I went to visit Beer Garden, a hidden gem of a beer store located just over the Van Wyck off Hillside Avenue. While browsing the aisles of diverse micro, craft and imported beer, I came across a Brewmaster's Special box of Blue Moon containing four regular Blue Moon, four Full Moon (their Winter seasonal brew) and four Pale Moon. I knew that I had to try it.

The Pale Moon bills itself as a Belgian Pale Ale. As noted by the experts at Beer Advocate:

Belgian Pales consume the Belgian brewing scene, and were initially brewed to compete with Pilseners during the WWII time frame. They differ from other regional Pale Ale varieties, by traditionally being less bitter, using aged hops for a delicate hop finish, and boasting sweetish to toasty malt overtones. They should be decanted properly, leaving the yeast in the bottle. This will showcase their brilliant color range from pale straw yellow to amber hues. Most will be crowned with thick, clinging, rocky white heads. Flavors and aromas will vary. Some have natural spice characters from yeast and hops, while others are spiced.

In fairness to BA, the Blue Moon Pale Moon is nothing like the definition they utilize for "Belgian pales." The beer itself is not only "less bitter" there is basically no hop taste or bitterness at all. I am unsure why this would be a called a Pale Ale as it goes well beyond pilsner and almost reaches the weak lager like state.

Having said that, the beer went OK with our SB supper of heroes, chips (w/salsa and home made guac) and skinless hot wings. However, the Pale Moon's flavor was overwhelmed by many of the dishes so that the pairing was more of a "this does not clash with my meal" and less of "the flavors go well together.

If I was looking to introduce a beer to someone who drank chardonnay I would probably pick this brew (provided that I could find it in six or twelve packs). Draw your own conclusion by picking up Pale Moon at your local beer store.

Pale Moon Belgian Pale Ale is under the kashruth supervision of the Orthodox Union, as are all other beer produced by parent Coors Brewing Co. of Golden, Colorado. For the experts take on Pale Moon, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/306/42887 .

As always, please remember to drink responsibly and to never waste good beer unless there is no designated driver.

Finally, if you've tried this beer or any others which have been reviewed on the kosher beers site, please feel free to post your comments (anonymous comments are acceptable).

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!