Thursday, December 31, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayechi

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 inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

The first vort relates to a minhag that is not widely accepted in klal yisrael. Although I have davened in many dozens of shuls, I have only seen this minhag once. The Tur mentions a minhag that in Chodesh Nissan they read one of the karbanos of the Nassiem from Parshas Nasso on each consecutive day of Nissan. R' Zalman Volozhin notes that the parsha of the Nasi of Dan is read on the 10th day and that the following year's Rosh Hashana will fall on the same day of the week as the 10th of Nissan. This year, the 10th of Nissan 5769 was a Shabbos (April 4, 2009) and Rosh Hashana 5750 started on a Shabbos (September 19, 2009). The remez to this is from Vayechi where the bracha to Dan is Dan Yadin Amo (49:16).

The second vort (said in the name of R' Mattisyahu Solomon) dealt with the bracha that Ya'akov gave Yosef. In Vayechi 48:15, Ya'akov says that Hashem has been his Roe'h - shepherd. The Midrash Yalkut Shimoni on Tehilim states in the name of R' Chama Bar R' Chaninah that there is no lower job than that of the shepherd. Every day, the shepherd goes with his staff and coat into the fields with the sheep, whether it is hot or cold or raining. Neverthless, David HaMelech also called Hashem a shepherd (Mizmor L'David Hashem Ro'ii) and the only reason he did so was because Ya'akov had already called Hashem by that title in Yayechi.

Rabbi Frand then asked - why was Ya'akov the first to call Hashem his shepherd and why now?

Rabbi Frand answered in the name of R' Chaim Volozhin that in Parshas Vayigash, Ya'akov is asked by Pharaoh about his age and he responds that he has had a miserable life (Vayigash 47:9). Now in Vayechi, Ya'akov had a chance to reconsider and realizes that Hashem has guided hm and that all has been for the best. He then analogizes it to a shepherd who moves the sheep from a nice watering hole or meadow to harsher ground because the wolves are coming. The sheep do not understand why they are being taken from the nicer area and do not see the danger they are being saved from. There is also a deeper level - the shepherd does this because he cares for the sheep and does not want to see any harm befall them. Rabbi Frand used the term empathy to describe the shepherd's view of the flock. This is the language of Hashem who has been Ya'akov's shepherd.

The fact that Ya'akov uses this term when giving the bracha to Yosef is not coincidental. The Torah mentions Ya'akov and Yosef together in the beginning of Toldos when it states that these are the generations of Ya'akov, Yosef was shepherding his brothers with the sheep. This shows that Yosef truly cared and empathized with his brothers.

We also see this middah in Yosef when he is in prison. When one is in prison it is best to keep to one's self. Yosef did the opposite as he saw that the servants of Pharaoh were upset (Vayeishev 40:6-7). He asked why are you upset - and then interpreted their dreams.

Rabbi Frand then quoted the gemara in Ta'anis which states that it is forbidden to be intimate during a time of famine. The gemara learns this from Yosef as it states in Mikeitz (41:50) that Yosef's sons were born before the famine came. This is another proof as to Yosef's middah of empathy and the halacha we learn from his act.

Rabbi Frand closed with a story from Rabbi Moshe Sivitz (http://kevarim.com/?s=zivitz) who was the Rabbi in Pittsburgh in the 1930s. There is a story told about him that his family eventually would not let him walk alone in the winter in Pittsburgh. The problem was that any time he saw a person who could not afford a winter coat, he would give his away and walk home cold.

We can all try to learn from these acts and be cognizant of the needs of others.

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 up!

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 130

Before writing about Bava Basra 130, I would like to briefly discuss a great nugget contained on Bava Basra 129b.

Within a discussion as to how to interpret the use of the terms present (Matana) and bequest (Yerusha) in the same statement, the gemara on Bava Basra 129b offers the possibility that the second statement was made "toch kidei dibur" - a phrase which many are familiar with, but few know the source.

If you were to ask an eighth grader what is toch kidei dibur, you would no doubt get an example rather than an explanation. The answer would go something like, if I start a brocha and complete it incorrectly, I can end the brocha properly if done within a short period of time. Perhaps an advanced eighth grader would be able to tell you that the time is measured based on the amount of time to say "shalom alecha rebbi umori."

But where does the measurement come from?

Tosafos (d'h Vehilchasa) quotes Rabbeinu Tam who states that if a person was doing a business transaction and saw his rebbi or another gadol, he could not say hello to the person, as it would be a break in the transaction and he would be prevented from rescinding the deal. Therefore, the chachamim were m'saken that the length of time it would take to say hello to the rebbi is not considered a hefsek in the transaction.

One brief interesting point (to me) from Bava Basra 130, involves a discussion on 130b as to whether it is better to learn a halacha based on the statement that the halacha follows Rabbi X's position (halacha adifa) or whether it is better to see the halacha in action (ma'aseh rav). The discussion occurs following a statement that the halacha accords with R' Yochanan Ben Berocha who states that a father can choose to give his entire estate to one of his children.

The Rashbam explains that according to halacha adifa, it is better to say that the halacha follows a person , because if we act solely based on observation of a ruling, we might not realize that the reason the halacha went that way was because of some outside force and not the presumed halachic precept.

On the other hand, under ma'aseh rav, there is also room for error if one merely listens to a statement that the halacha follows X, since it is possible that this is academic in nature and will not ever be applied in practice.

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 up!

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - Trader Joe's Bohemian Lager



This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Trader Joe's Bohemian Lager.

In late October I learned that a number of beer line would soon be coming under the Va'ad of Detroit, including the Kirkland (Costco) beers which are brewed at the Saranac plant in Utica and the east coast lines for many of the Gordon Biersch brewed beers including Joseph's Brau and Trader Joe's beers.

I started to look for the Trader Joe's beers but was largely unsuccessful. I soon learned that TJ's did not sell beer in Nassau County (the county I live in). The helpful bell ringing store clerks told me that they sold beer in the borough locations, but rather than chase rainbows, I emailed TJ's corporate and found out that the Trader Joe's on Court Street in downtown Brooklyn carried beer.

It took me quite a few weeks, but I finally made it to the Trader Joe's. Having visited the store I can offer three observations. First - parking in the area is very tough. Second - they really do have a great selection of beer at great prices and you can mix your own six packs or even buy a single bottle at the same price as if it was part of a six pack. Third - you need to go with a list of the kosher supervised TJ's beers, as there were quite a few that are not under supervision (to see a complete list, please click here - http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/09/kosher-beers-semi-annual-kosher-beers.html.

One of the beers I picked up was the Trader Joe's Bohemian Lager. The beer pours a golden yellow and is more akin to a pilsner than a lager. I'm not sure what makes it Bohemian, but I have long since learned that the names that brewers give their brews can have little connection to their actual styles.

I found that the lager went well with Friday night's roasted chicken and spicy rice. The beer has some crispness and a decent level of alcohol (5% abv) and would be a good first step for someone looking to move from macros to craft beer.

Trader Joe's Bohemian Lager is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit, as are many other beers produced under the TJ brand. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Trader Joe's Bohemian Lager, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/10707/21614.

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

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 up!

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayigash

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 inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

Parshas Vayigash begins with the confrontation between Yehudah and Yosef over the fate of Binyamin. In addressing Yosef, Yehuda tells the story which has been said to Yosef numerous times before - they are just brothers who left their father behind and came down to get food. Following his recitation, the Torah states at Vayigash 45:1 that Yosef was not able to hold back and he revealed his identity. But what was different about this recounting of the brothers' story that caused Yosef to break down?

A second question was asked about Yehuda's offer to take Binyamin's place (44:33). Rashi explains that Yehuda said that he was superior to Binyamin and would be a better captive as he was better in strength, war and for service. The Sifsei Chachamim asks - what does Rashi mean by strength?

A third question was asked in relation to a Tosefta in Berachos wherein four rabbanim were debating why Yehuda was zocheh to malchus. Initially they offered that it related to his honesty by admitting that Tamar was correct, but this was rejected, as was the theory that it related to his suggestion that Yosef be sold into slavery rather than killed. The rabbis ultimately decided that it was because of Yehuda's humility. However they do not explain why the humility was the deciding factor.

In order to answer these questions, Rabbi Frand began by quoting the Tolner Rav who in turn cites to a Sfas Emes. The Sfas Emes on Vayeishev (in the name of his grandfather, the Chidushei HaRim) asked - what was the reason that Yosef and Yehuda were in conflict in Parshas Vayeishev? He explains that the debate centered around the proper path for the Jewish nation. Yosef believed that they should be separate and apart - divorced from the physical world, as such he is referred to in V'zos Habracha as "Nazir.". Yehuda was more involved with this world and he believed that holiness can be found in the physical world. As such, the bracha in V'zos Habracha refers to him as "V'el Amo Tive'enu."

The Sfas Emes then quoted his grandfather that the same debate existed in chassidus. The Kotsker Chassidim felt that it was better to be selective - fewer in number, but holier in stature. Meanwhile, the Gerrer Chassidim believed that the greater the number the better, even if some of the chassidim were not of the highest caliber.

When Yosef was in Egypt, it was his belief in being separate and apart from the physical world which allowed him to survive his time in Potiphar's house and subsequently in prison. However when Yehuda came down and told the story from his own perspective, Yosef realized that there was some validity to Yehuda's position and that the Jewish people would require both derachims in order to continue. Yosef understood that a nation cannot be wholly in one of these paths and that the way to build a nation is to have some diversity among its people.

Rabbi Frand quoted a famous ma'amar about how a shul should have 12 windows - one for each tribe to show the diversity of the Jewish people, but that all of the different derachim lead to Hashem.

Yosef's realization occured when Yehuda said - I will submit to you, Yosef. This was a showing of strength, as it states in Pirkei Avos who is strong - one who conquers his will. Additionally, it was a showing of modesty - which a King must occasionally show for the good of the people. When Yosef saw this, he realized that this was the way to build a nation - with elements of both traits.

Rabbi Frand also brought a proof from the Haftorah in which Yechezkel was instructed to take two pieces of wood and to write the name of Yehuda on one and Yosef on to bring them both together in his hand. In this way Yosef recognizes the truth of Yehuda and Yehuda that of Yosef - and in so doing can build a nation.

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, December 23, 2009

Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol LIV

Wednesday's Weird (but true) legal case analysis returns with what might be the weirdest case in 2009, a case which asks - can one be arrested for driving a bicycle with no hands? The answer may surprise you.

In People v. Chen, 25 Misc.3d 1240(A), 2009 WL 4827498 (City Ct Ithaca 2009) the court considered a matter where the defendant was issued a ticket by a Cornell University Police Officer for Insufficient Control of a Steering Mechanism, a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1226.

The court described the following facts in its decision:

On October 9, 2009, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Officer Cady of the Cornell University Police Department observed Mr. Chen riding his bike on East Avenue on campus. The officer testified that Mr. Chen took both hands off the handlebars, spread his arms out to the sides, and then placed his hands behind his head, while continuing to cycle. There were no pedestrians or other vehicles in Mr. Chen's path at the time, but the officer stopped and issued him the ticket for failing to keep at least one hand on the bike steering mechanism at all times.
The court noted that Chen testified in his own defense and stated that he was a very proficient bicycle rider and that he had complete control over the bicycle at all times. However, the court did not dismiss the ticket.

Instead, the court cited to two decisions from New York appellate courts in which it was stated that cyclists did not need to give a continuous hand signal for 100 feet before turning (like the driver of car) because it would be inherently dangerous to keep one hand off the handlebars for that length of time.

Based on the above decisions, the Court stated that it was:

[C]onstrained to conclude that given the inherent dangers in riding with no hands on the bicycle steering mechanism does pose a danger, especially in a municipal area riddled with potholes and other irregularities in the road. As the facts in this case are not contested, the Court finds and concludes that Mr. Chen, on October 9, 2009, did operate a bicycle within the City of Ithaca at a time when he did not have at least one hand on the steering mechanism, and as a result, the Court finds him in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1226 .

The court did get creative in its sentencing as the defendant was sentenced to a conditional discharge, with the condition that in the future, Chen use at least one hand to steer the bike.

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, December 22, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 123

Bava Basra 123 has some interesting discussions about Ya'akov Avinu. I would like to focus on two of the discussions in this post.

Within the discussion about whether the bechor takes a double portion in the entire estate (i.e 2/3 of the property, regardless of how many brothers he has) or only a portion which is twice the size of any single heir, the gemara brings a proof from Parshas Vayechi (48:22). The gemara cites to Ya'akov's conversation with Yosef where Ya'akov tells Yosef that he is giving Yosef an extra portion that he took from the Emori with his Cherev (sword) and Keshet (bow). The gemara then asks - but did Ya'akov fight with weapons - there is a pasuk in Tehillim (44:7) that teaches that he did not use them? The gemara answers that the Cherev was his prayer and the Keshet was his request.

The Rashbam offers insight as to the prayer referred to by the gemara, explaining that Ya'akov had prayed for his children and that he would be zocheh to inherit the bechorah from Esav with his prayers.

The above point plays into another interesting note from the daf. On Bava Basra 123b, R' Chelbo asks R' Shmuel Bar Nachmeni about the meaning of the pasuk in Vayeitzei (30:25) where the Torah states that when Rachel gave birth to Yosef, Ya'akov told Lavan that he wanted to leave Lavan's house. R' Shmuel answered that Ya'akov saw that in the future, the descendants of Esav would only be conquered by the descendants of Yosef, citing to the famous nevuah in Zecharyah that the house of Ya'akov will be a fire, the house of Yosef the flame and the house of Esav will be straw. Although I had read this pasuk dozens of times, I never saw the connection between the birth of Yosef and the request to leave Lavan until I learned this daf.

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, December 20, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - Red Baron Blonde Lager

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at the Brick Brewery's Red Baron Blonde Lager.

Regular readers of this page will note that I rarely review beer in cans. There are two basic reasons. I usually prefer bottles because they do not create shabbos issues (yes, I know that there are some poskim who permit beverage cans to be opened on shabbos, but my posek is not of that opinion). The second problem was more an issue of perception - that anything which had previously been in contact with metal would be negatively influenced by the contact.

My belief as a to metal begins with something I learned from my wife's side of the family. The Heineken man has always used non metallic kiddush cups (glass, ceramic, etc.) because he believes that once the wine has been in touch with metal it picks up the taste of metal. I shared this with my parents and now my father (once he finishes making kiddush) pours the wine out of the kiddush cup into a glass cup and everyone drinks from a glass or plastic cup.

Naturally, I assumed that the same would be true of beer. After all, every time that I drank a Bud from a can (youthful dalliances, I can assure you) the beer tasted of metal.

During Sarah and my recent trip to the Saranac brewery, I learned that the metal can does not impact on the beer. Part of the excellent 12 Beers of Winter program included a guided tour of the brewery with one of the owners. When Sarah & I went on our tour with Nick Matt, he mentioned that they would soon be producing cans of Saranac on a line which had been built after last year's fire. I then asked - but doesn't that take a great beer and give it a metallic flavor? I was assured that the cans are prepared in a fashion that the beer would not react with the metal.

This brings us to Brick's Red Baron Blonde Lager. I can assure you that although the beer was poured out of a can, it does not have a metallic flavor. However, not only does it not taste like metal, it does not really taste like anything. The beer poured a pale yellow, so pale that it might be lighter in color than a chardonnay. The beer claims to be 4.8% abv, but I am not sure that an entire six pack of the lager would have that much alcohol. Yes, I know that its a Blonde Lager and therefore its not supposed to be hoppy, but there are quadriplegic rabbits with more hop than this beer.

Red Baron Blonde Lager is under the Kosher Supervision of the Kashruth Council of Canada. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Red Baron Blonde Lager, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/416/1221.

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

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!

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Mikeitz

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 inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Mikeitz 42:1-2, the Torah tells of Ya'akov's observation that there is food in Egypt and his question to his sons as to why they are making themselves conspicuous (Lama Tisraoo) - they should go down to Egypt and obtain provisions. Rashi comments that Ya'akov and his family had food at the time, however, Ya'akov still wanted them to go down to Egypt, because he did not want them to give the appearance (to the children of Esav and Yishmael) that they were without need for food.

Rabbi Frand then mentioned the gemara in Ta'anis which discusses that when a person travels (in a time when there is a lack of rain') from a city where they are not fasting to a city where they are fasting, he must observe the fast. Furthermore, if he forgets and breaks the fast, he must eat in private, quoting the pasuk in Mikeitz where Ya'akov tells his sons not to be conspicuous.

Rabbi Frand then mentioned that R' Pa'am used to open his shades for chanukah so that the outside world could see the lights. However, once the lights had gone out, he would shut the shades immediately. R Frand explained that the mitzva of pirsumei nisa is significant and the world should see the menorah. However, once the lights have gone out, it is important not to be conspicuous.

Rabbi Frand also had a Pesach oriented vort this evening. In Mikeitz 44:12, the Torah recites that when Yosef's servants were searching the brothers' bags for Yosef's cup, he instructed them to search all the brothers' bags from the oldest to the smallest, despite the fact that he knew the cup was in Binyamin's bag.

Rabbi Frand then quoted the Tczabiner Rav (excuse the spelling) who said that he once heard a vort from a watchmaker in Krakow who connected this story to bedikas chameitz. When we search for chametz on the evening of the 14th day of Nissan, our spouses or children put out ten pieces of bread and we then look for the bread, although the locations are fairly obvious. We then complete the task and return to our Pesach preparations. The gemara explains that we learn the mitzva of bedika from the metzia (finding) and the chipush (searching) by Yosef's servants for the cup in the brothers' bags.

The watchmaker explained that although Yosef knew where the cup was hidden, he still had the servants check all the bags from the largest to the smallest. So too when we do bedikas chametz - although we may know where the bread is hidden, we still make a complete search of the house in order to properly prepare for Pesach.

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, December 15, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 116

Bava Basra 116 continues the development of the laws of intestacy which is the hallmark of Yesh Nochlim. I would like to use this post to briefly discuss one points from today's one point from yesterday's dapim which I found interesting.

On Bava Basra 115b, the gemara makes a statement that if a judge rules that a daughter of the deceased inherits in equal shares with the son, it is not to be followed as it is a maasei tzadukim. The Rashbam then gives the backstory on the tzadukim as he explains that Tzadok and Baisos were students of Antignos Ish Socho who had learned Antignos' statement (from Pirkei Avos 1:3) that one should not worship Hashem like a servant who only acts in order to get paid. However, they misunderstood and thought that this meant that people would never receive any reward for serving Hashem. They could not comprehend how this could be the case and thus began to reject many limudim including the one related to how and when daughters inherit.

On Bava Basra 116b, the Mishna discusses the daughters of Tslophchad and how they came to inherit their father's estate. The Mishna notes that they inherited three portions, each of which has its own interesting nuance. They inherited their father's individual portion because he was among those who left Egypt. The Rashbam explains that everyone who left Egypt with Moshe earned a portion in the land of Israel, even if the person did not live long enough to enter Israel. Since Tslophchad left Egypt, his daughters (as his only remaining heirs) were entitled to divide his portion. Additionally, Tslophchad's father (Chever) left Egypt with Moshe and also died in the midbar. As such, Tslophchad inherited a portion of his father's estate (and therefore his share in the land of Israel) which was actually a double portion because he was the bechor. The Rashbam also notes the significance of the double portion since it usually does not pass until it vests and the Jews had not yet entered into Israel when Tslophchad died. However, since the land of Israel was deemed to have vested in all who left Egypt once they left, the bechor's double shared had indeed vested and they could inherit the double portion.

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!

Monday, December 14, 2009

Monday's Musings on Sports - Coulda Woulda Shoulda, Rosh Hashanah and the NYJ

As regular readers of this blog are aware, the Monday post was usually devoted to sports with highlights and analysis of the Max Kellerman show which formerly aired on 1050 ESPN Radio. As Max has resigned from 1050 and has not yet resurfaced on the NY area radio waves, I have decided to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

Yes, I admit it, I am a long suffering New York Jets fan. I have watched the Giants win three superbowls in my lifetime, but that does not even compare to the anguish of watching the Belicheats win the Lombardi Trophy. I have seen the swamp game in Miami (3 picks to the same player!), the Browns double OT loss (I turn the game on right after shabbos ends, just in time to see the Browns kick the winning field goal), the Vinny T tease (blowing a lead to the Broncos in the AFC championship game) and countless late season collapses. But it was not until this week that I truly came to understand the NY Jets.

Following the NYJ defense's complete demolition of the Tampa Bay Bucs yesterday, I had a chance to listen to numerous player interviews about the team's prospects for the playoffs. Some players gave the party line of just focusing on the next game. Other players spoke about needing to run the table. But the one that struck me was the player (I did not catch the player's name) who talked about how the team would try to win every game that it could and not focus on the close games that were lost earlier in the season.

This kind of attitude struck a chord with me as it was a positive way at looking at the team and its performance. It also was reminiscent of a shiur that I heard last Thursday from the founder of http://www.theshmuz.com/ (aka Rabbi Shafier).

Rabbi Shafier gave a very positive look at emunah (faith) and how everything happens for a purpose. But the shiur was more than just about the basics, as Rabbi Shafier drove home the point that everything happens in the way that Hashem intends to occur by referencing Rosh Hashanah and Amazon.com.

A central belief in Judaism is that on Rosh Hashana the world is judged by Hashem. The Jews go to synagogue to pray on Rosh Hashanah to ask for good things for their families and then await the results that will come in the following year. Once Rosh Hashanah has passed, we are required to do our hishtadlus (due diligence) and Hashem will give us what we have been judged to receive.

Rabbi Shafier incorporated this concept into his shmuz by stating that people would have less regret if they understood that what occurred was the result of Hashem's judgment on Rosh Hashanah. Rabbi Shafier illustrated this concept with a personal story. The night before Amazon.com went public, Rabbi Shafier had a discussion with his wife about buying into the IPO. They had previously decided that they would set aside $2,000 and buy shares at the offering price. Then Rabbi Shafier's wife mentioned that she had been reading the business section of Newsweek (which he said that she did not usually read) and that they had a negative outlook on Amazon. Based on the article, they decided not to invest in Amazon.

Rabbi Shafier then told the audience that had they bought the shares at the IPO, the current value of the $2,000 investment would be $1.4 million.

Rabbi Shafier then said - while they could use the money, it was not to be, as Hashem had decided that he was not to make this profit. Certainly, things could have turned out differently if his wife had read Time (which had a positive outlook on Amazon), or if she simply had followed her usual reading habits of skipping the business section. The fact that she had read the Newsweek business section was Hashem's way of directing the outcome that He had declared on Rosh Hashanah.

The same concept can be seen in the player's take on the NYJ season. The rest of the games on the schedule are out there to be played. In each game, the players must prepare and work hard and then play the game. Looking back on the close games that were lost will not change their outcome and the only way to move forward is to focus on the games at hand.

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, December 13, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - New Belgium Two Degrees Below Ale



This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at New Belgium's 2 degrees Below Ale.

The first question that crossed my mind when I saw this beer is -- 2 degrees below what? I did not need to look far as the bottle gives you the answer. The folks at New Belgium explain that the beer is produced in a near freezing state with plenty of hops and roasted malt. They also recommend serving the beer at 37F. By all rights, this should make the 2 below one of the Heineken man's favorites, since he likes to serve his beer direct from the freezer, but there is more to the story.

The Beer Advocate site calls this beer an ESB (extra special or extra strong bitter). The New Belgium website calls it a Winter Warmer. The website also tells the story of how it was originally brewed in small batches for a race which commemorates a mailman who used to make deliveries by skis, but they don't give much more explanation.

The beer pours a rich amber color with quite a lot of foam. I have tried this a few times and regardless of the angle for the pour, the foam is there. The hops are quite pronounced, but I would not say that it its as strong a bitter as some others that I have tried (you want a bitter ESB - try the Redhook). The beer does have quite a kick as it is 6.6% abv.

I had my most recent 2 Below with roasted chicken and potatoes and the dry hopped brew was the perfect companion to my aishes chayil's perfect Friday night meal. I highly recommend it on a cold winter Friday night...

New Belgium Two Degrees Below is under the Kosher Supervision of the Scroll-K of Colorado. Although the beer does not bear the kosher symbol on the label, it can be found on the bottom of the six pack carrier. Additionally, if you would like me to e-mail you the LOC for New Belgium Two Degrees Below, send me an e-mail and I will gladly oblige.

Please note that not every brew produced by New Belgium is under kosher supervision. Please check my latest Kosher Beer List (http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/09/kosher-beers-semi-annual-kosher-beers.html ) for a complete listing of those New Belgium brews which are certified kosher.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about New Belgium Two Degrees Below, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/192/26542 . As always, please remember to drink responsibly and to never waste good beer unless there is no designated driver.

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!



Thursday, December 10, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayeishev

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 inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

I apologize that this post is only being seen on Sunday Night. We did not show the R' Frand broadcast at the YIWH on Thursday and I only downloaded the shiur later. While it was my intention to summarize it Thursday night I was unable to complete the post until Sunday.

Rabbi Frand told over the story about when the Volozhin yeshiva was going to select the Rosh Yeshiva and needed to choose between the Netziv or the Beis HaLevi. They took the issue to the beis din who considered the matter. Then one of the dayanim said - this is parshas Vayeishev. The other dayanim looked at him incredulously since the week's portion was not Vayeishev. The dayan then explained himself - every parsha from Bereishis through Vayishlach has a hero and a villain - Adam and the snake, Noach and the people of his generation, Avraham and Lot , Yitzchak and Yishmael, Yitzchak and Efron, Yaakov and Esav, Yaakov and Lavan. But in Parshas Vayeishev there is no longer a good guy vs a bad guy because they are all tzadikim. This is what I meant by this being parshas Vayeishev as they are both qualified to be Rosh Yeshiva.

Rabbi Frand told one other "light" vort (his term, not mine) in relation to Yosef being called a "na'ar." In Vayeishev 37:3, the Torah states that Yosef was a na'ar for the children of Bilha and Zilpa. The Medrash Rabbah asks - why is Yosef called a na'ar (usually translated as young boy) if he was 17 at the time. The Medrash Rabbah answers that Yosef was immature as he was dressing his hair and using make up around his eyes to make himself look attractive.

Rabbi Frand then mentioned a story where R' Yerushalmi asked the Gerrer Rebbi - why is it that only by Yosef does the medrash need to explain the basis for his being called a na'ar? At the time of the akeidah Yitzchak was thirty seven years old, yet Avraham (in Vayeira 22:5) refered to Yitzchak as a na'ar, why is that not addressed by the Medrash?

The Gerrer Rebbi answered - to a parent, their child is always their na'ar, their young son. Since Avraham was referring to his son Yitzchak, it was natural to refer to him as the na'ar. However, by Yosef it was the parsha itself which referred to Yosef as a na'ar, a puzzling situation which required explanation as to why a young man was still called a boy.

When the Gerrer Rebbi finished his explanation, he and R' Yerushalmi were approached by a nonagenarian who asked the Gerrer Rebbi for a bracha. After he gave her the bracha, the woman then said - can I have a bracha for my young son (using a yiddish term) as well? R' Yerushalmi commented - not only is he a tzaddik, but he merits help from Hashem to demonstrate his point.

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!

Monday, December 7, 2009

Monday Musings on Sports - Rex Marks the Spot

As regular readers of this blog are aware, the Monday post was usually devoted to sports with highlights and analysis of the Max Kellerman show which formerly aired on 1050 ESPN Radio. As Max has resigned from 1050 and has not yet resurfaced on the NY area radio waves, I have decided to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

Following the Jets Thursday night win against Buffalo, a great deal of ink was spent on Rex Ryan's comments about Mark Sanchez after the Jets win. As NFL fans may recall, during Thursday night's game Sanchez attempted to run for a first down and dove forward for extra yardage. Two players after the dive, Sanchez took himself out of the game. It was later learned that he had sprained his right knee on the play.

This marked the second week in a row that Sanchez had injured his knee while running with the football. In the previous game against Carolina, Sanchez had injured his left knee while running out of bounds. After that game, Rex Ryan brought in Yankee manager to teach Sanchez to slide. Why? For those uninitiated - in football a quarterback can run and then slide feet forward on his side or back. From the moment that he launches into the slide (commonly known as the , the quarterback cannot be touched. He also gains no extra yards from the slide, but the trade off is that there is no danger that he can be hurt by other players.

The alternative is that the quarterback can dive head forward. When he makes this kind of dive, the quarterback is fair game to be hit by other players, but also can get extra yards until he is touched by an opposing player.

In the Buffalo game, Sanchez scrambled and dove forward for the first down. In so doing he sustained the knee injury, although it is unclear whether it was caused by the hard AstroTurf or contact with another player. After the game, Ryan talked about how it was more important that Sanchez make a "give up" slide then risk getting hurt.

The obvious flaw in Ryan's lament was that the point of making a "give up" slide is to avoid injuries to the head or upper body which are the usual points of impact when a player dives forward. Injuries to the legs are much less frequent occurrences when a quarterback is diving for a first down.

Following the press conference, I read numerous articles about how Ryan's criticism was damaging to Sanchez's psyche as it purportedly deterred him from being competitive and could damage his standing with the team. There is some truth to the argument that making a give up slide and not getting the first down (when the game's outcome was still in doubt) makes Sanchez look like he is afraid to get hit.

The comments I have a problem with were those made on a sports radio show which took issue with Ryan implying that if Sanchez slid properly he would not have gotten hurt at all. Yes, the injury was a freak thing as Ryan's concern in having Girardi teach Sanchez to slide was to avoid head/shoulder injuries. But what bothered me about the criticism was that none of the hosts on the show was a parent and as such they could not understand the angle that Ryan was coming from.

Parents try to do whatever they can to prevent their child from getting hurt. No parent likes to see their child hurt, even if the child learns one of those "life lessons" as a result. As such the parent warns the child not to do something else so that there is an extra layer of protection to prevent the child from getting hurt. When the child does not listen and pays the consequence, the parent is upset at the child as well as himself for not preventing the child's injury. Even if the child is injured in a way that the parent could not have anticipated, there is still a feeling of anguish over the injury -- that if the child would have listened, everything would be fine.

We see a similar concept in Torah thought. The Rabbis enacted gedarim (fences) which protect us by adding an extra layer of prevention from violating a biblical prohibition. While we may not like or agree with the geder, we are required to follow it as it will prevent us from the more severe problem of violating a heavenly prohibition. When we ignore the geder we run the risk of violating the Torah prohibition and face much sterner consquences.

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, December 6, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - New Belgium's Fat Tire


This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at New Belgium Brewing Company's Fat Tire Amber Ale.

This beer has a large cult like following but is sadly not available in New York, or anywhere near New York. The New Belgium website (http://www.newbelgium.com/faq ) indicates that New Belgium is available in the Midwest and on the west coast, but other than the Carolinas and Georgia, it is not available on the East Coast.

So why would you call a beer Fat Tire? The website indicates that it was named by the founder of the New Belgium brewery in honor of his bicycle trip across Belgium where he sampled various beers. I guess that is a good reason. The New Belgium people have seized on the Fat Tire as an identity for the brewery as all the bottle caps for the New Belgium products which I have seen have a picture of a bicycle with fat tires over the New Belgium name.

So what does the Fat Tire taste like? The beer has a somewhat fruity smell and a crisp taste with some hops, but quite a lot of other flavors mixed in. Like all the other New Belgium products which I have seen, the Fat Tire has a recommended temperature for serving the brew (45 F) although I had mine tonight a little bit colder than that. In fact, I have learned from experience that the New Belgium brews can actually last more than the standard 1/2 hour in the freezer (if you need to get them cold in a hurry) without becoming a beer slushie. This could be related to their slightly higher alcohol content, or could be based on something else completely. Still, I would not recommend excessive time in the freezer, unless you need an excuse to clean out the freezer.

Fat Tire is a great beer to have on its own as the complex flavors give a different feel with every pour. I can see why the beer has developed the following that it has in the Midwest (some have called it a vacation beer).

New Belgium Fat Tire is under the Kosher Supervision of the Scroll-K of Colorado. Although the beer does not bear the kosher symbol on the label, it can be found on the bottom of the six pack carrier. Additionally, if you would like me to e-mail you the LOC for New Belgium Fat Tire, send me an e-mail and I will gladly oblige.

Please note that not every brew produced by New Belgium is under kosher supervision. Please check my latest Kosher Beer List (http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/09/kosher-beers-semi-annual-kosher-beers.html ) for a complete listing of those New Belgium brews which are certified kosher.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about New Belgium Fat Tire, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/192/607 .

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

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayishlach

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 inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Vayishlach (33:16-18) we read about the parting of Ya'akov and Esav and the two travelling off on their respective paths. In relation to Ya'akov, the Torah writes that he travelled to the city of Sukkos and built a house there, and sukkos (translated as shelters) for his animals, therefore he called the place Sukkos.

Rabbi Frand asked two questions on these pesukim. The first question was why does the Torah say that Ya'akov travelled to Sukkos and then later write that he called it Sukkos because of the shelters he built for the animals. If he had not yet built the sukkos and decided to name the city after the sukkos which he built, how could he have travelled to the city called Sukkos?

The second question that Rabbi Frand asked was why did Ya'akov call the city Sukkos after the animal shelters? It seems to be an odd choice of naming rights for the city.

Rabbi Frand answered the questions by quoting to the sefer Milchemes Yehuda (I did not catch the name of the author) who writes that we learn from this story that Sukkos was not only the name of the city, but it was a state of mind for Ya'akov. Ya'akov had previously lived with his parents, then learned in the yeshiva of Shem V'aiver, then lived in his father in law's house and now finally had "settled down." In so doing, Ya'akov stated " I see that the world itself chases the material things - money, homes, honor - but the world itself is merely a temporary dwelling like a sukkah which we live in for a short time before moving on." When a person knows that he will only be in a structure for a small amount of time, he is less particular about the house. That was the message of travelling to Sukkos, Ya'akov's realization that the physical things are merely temporary.

Ya'akov's lesson is also borne out by the following pasuk. The next pasuk states that Ya'akov travelled to Shechem "Vayichan es Pnei Ha'ir" - he encamped before the city. The gemara in Shabbos offers multiple explanations as to what Ya'akov did there, including that he was mis'saken coins, stores and bath houses. The Milchemes Yehuda asked - why did Ya'akov need to do these things for the people of Shechem. He answered that Ya'akov arrived in Shechem and saw that people were infatuated with the materials things - money, stores and physical pleasures. As such he tried to be mis'saken - to fix peoples views of those things based on his understanding that this world is merely a sukkah.

Rabbi Frand closed by talking about how the Torah also mentions that Ya'akov erected a matzevah for Rachel in this week's parsha. He asked - why do we mark graves with stone? He answered (again from the Milchemes Yehuda) that there are four forms in nature - the inanimate, the plant life, the animal and the one who speaks. It would appear that there is a great distance from top to bottom as one walks on stone, while speech is the height of communication. However, the two are more similar than one would expect.

A person who wants to create something that will last makes it from stone. The kotel is not poured concrete - it is stone which has lasted thousands of years. Yes, people can choose to walk on stone, but things made from stone can last for milennia.

A person lives for a very short time on this earth. If the person does great things then he can be remembered for many generations after he passes on. Or, the person can merely walk through life without attempting to make an impact on the lives of others.

By erecting a stone, we say about the deceased that she has made an impact in this world and that her legacy will last well beyond her finite years on this earth.

I recently heard from my mother's cousin about a speech given at a Chicago area dinner. The speech was given by an educator who said that he would not be Orthodox today (and certainly not an educator in a Jewish institution) if it were not for his after school teacher who taught him Torah after his public school day had ended. The speaker then mentioned my mother in law who had taught him so many years before. I never saw this side of her, as by the time I met my wife, my mother in law was already working in the catering business. Still she had already made her mark on this world by inspiring a young boy to become frum and eventually a teacher of young Jewish children. It is particularly ironic that I heard this story about her this week as her Hebrew name was Rachel and her tombstone was recently erected. Without a doubt, her legacy will be that of the stone - lasting well beyond her far too short years on this earth.

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, December 1, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 102

Bava Basra 102 continues the discussion of what to do when graves are found in a field. As part of this discussion, the gemara cites to a beraisa which poses the question of how to treat one, two, or three bodies which are found "mushkav k'darko" - lying in the proper fashion. The gemara recites that if it is one or two bodies, the field is not deemed a graveyard and the bodies can be disinterred and reburied on another site, provided that the earth which surrounded the bodies is transferred as well. If there is a third body buried in the same row, then depending on the spacing between the bodies, they may not be disinterred.

While the commentaries on the daf spend a considerable amount of space discussing the proper way to make measurements (including taking shots at the Rashbam for rounding up 7.2 to 8 when computing the diagonal used for the measurement of the next segment of the field), they do not discuss what mushkav k'darko means.

I spoke with a member of my daf group who happens to be on the chevra kadisha about this mushkav term. He explained that when preparing a body for burial, the custom is to have the hands down folded over the body. Thus if the body found buried in the field is discovered in a seated position, or with the head between its legs, the body would not be suspected to have been intentionally buried and would not count in the determination as to whether the field was a graveyard.

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!

Monday, November 30, 2009

Monday Musings on Sports - Larry Frank the Se'ir Hamishtaleiach

As regular readers of this blog are aware, the Monday post was usually devoted to sports with highlights and analysis of the Max Kellerman show which formerly aired on 1050 ESPN Radio. As Max has resigned from 1050 and has not yet resurfaced on the NY area radio waves, I have decided to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

This week's post discusses the debacle which is the New Jersey Nets and how Lawrence Frank lost his job through no fault of his own.

Following the NBA lockout, I decided that I could no longer root for the Knicks and began to look for another team to follow. I was never a big NBA fan, but I had attended a few Knick games and hung a poster or two in my room when I was in high school. After Patrick Ewing said his now infamous line "Sure NBA players make a lot of money, but we spend a lot too" I knew that I could never root for the Knicks again.

I began to root for the NJ Nets and soon thereafter they began to improve their play. A few short years later they acquired Jason Kidd and then made the playoffs for the next six years. Their coach for much of the time was Lawrence Frank who started his career with a bang, taking a .500 team and directing them to 13 straight wins. They made the finals a couple of years in a row and it seemed like the NBA championship ran through the swamp every year. Perhaps his best (but least heralded) year was in 2004-2005 when the team played without Kidd and RJ for most of the year and he somehow brought the team from ten games out into the playoffs.

Over the last few years the job became exceedingly more difficult for Coach Frank. The team ownership became obsessed with a planned move to Brooklyn and less interested in fielding a competitive team. Jason Kidd was the first player traded, but RJ went a few months later. A year later it was time to dump Vince Carter. Although Rod Thorn was always able to acquire value in return for the stars they traded away, the talent was young and at times raw.

Despite these issues, Coach Frank was consistently able to get his players to practice and play hard. However, the Nets were struck by an early injury bug this season and many nights only fielded seven or eight players. The losses began to mount and suddenly the Nets were looking at the real possibility of breaking the NBA record for futility to start a season. The only thing left to do was fire the Coach, as to paraphrase Michael Kay - you can't fire all the players.

Was Coach Frank responsible for the team's injury bug? Of course not. Was he the one who engineered the trades which dumped All Stars in exchange for prospects? The same answer applies. But sometimes there needs to be a scapegoat and this time it was Lawrence Frank - mercifully fired before the team tied the record for futility.

The concept of scapegoat draws its origin from the Yom Kippur service. The Torah tells us that the Cohain Gadol would have two goats - one of which was slaughtered and the other sent to the desert to be thrown off a cliff. The gemara in Yoma (41 and 67) explains that there was a red string tied around the goat and another around a rock at the top of the cliff. After the goat died from its fall, the string tied to the rock would turn white as a symbol that Hashem had forgiven the Jews. Thus was born the concept which was commonly known as the scapegoat.

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, November 29, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - Saranac Big Moose Ale



This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Saranac's Big Moose Ale.

The Big Moose Ale is another of the new beers which previewed in Saranac's 12 Beers of Winter box. To my knowledge, its Saranac's first foray into the name brewing game.

Numerous breweries have played the game of giving a brew a catchy name in order to drive sales. Recently when we were in Cleveland, I was browsing in a supermarket and I came across some beers produced by Ridgeway Brewing (England) with some truly bizarre names - Bad Elf and Santa's Butt. I successfully resisted the urge to buy them as I did not know their source and did not know if they were kosher. They were also priced about $4 per bottle, but that was less of a deterrence since they were available in singles and the bottles were oversized. I then checked on BA and found other bizarrely named beers produced by Ridgeway including: Criminally Bad Elf, Insanely Bad Elf (both with abv's above 10%), Lump of Coal, Pickled Santa and Reindeer Revolt.

While some breweries probably do the odd name thing in order to drive sales, the good folks at Saranac did not do this for the Big Moose Ale since its only available as part of the 12 Beers of Winter box which contains two bottles of the Moose. This is unfortunate as it was my favorite brew in the box.

Saranac classifies the Big Moose Ale as an American Pale Ale. The beer pours a rich copper color with a fair amount of lacing on the glass. The crisp taste is full of hops and went really well with left over turkey this evening. I had previously tried the Big Moose with Noah's Ark bbq ribs and it went really well with the sweet ribs. I seriously wish that they carried the Big Moose Ale in six packs as it could easily become one of my favorite offerings from Saranac.

Saranac Big Moose Ale is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit, as is every other brew produced by Saranac. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Saranac Big Moose Ale, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/99/53202.

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

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).

As a final note, while I was at Saranac I noticed that they had begun bottling for Kirkland (Costco). I contacted the Va'ad of Detroit and this week received LOCs for Kirkland along with three other new brands which are newly kosher certified - Gordon Biersch, Trader Joe's and Joseph Brau. I have updated the September certification list to reflect the varieties which are under kosher certification.

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, November 26, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayeitzei

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 inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Vayeitzei (29:1-30) we read of Ya'akov's arrival at Lavan's home and his interplay with Lavan and Lavan's family which ultimately results in Ya'akov's marriage to Leah and Rachel. When Ya'akov first meets Rachel, the Torah indicates at 29:12 that Ya'akov told Rachel that he was "her father's brother." This is an odd choice of words for Ya'akov as his mother was Lavan's sister and he was certainly not her uncle.

Rashi offers two explanations for this lashon. The first explanation is that he said to her that he was close to her father like a brother. The second (midrashic explanation) was that Yaa'kov told Rachel that he was like Lavan - if Lavan tried to trick him, Ya'akov was Lavan's brother in deceit.

Rabbi Frand then commented that many times the boys in his shiur will come to him for advice before they begin dating. They discuss many things, but he never has to tell them that its not a good idea to tell a girl that the boy is as good a trickster as the father. What possessed Ya'akov to tell Rachel that he was as good a con man as Lavan?

Rabbi Frand then asked a second question - how do we see that Ya'akov followed through with his statement that he was as good a trickster as Lavan. We actually see the opposite since when Lavan switches Leah for Rachel and then Ya'akov sees the true first wife's identity, Ya'akov approaches Lavan who tells Ya'akov you can marry Rachel in exchange for another seven years of work. If Ya'akov was such a good ramai, he would have taken Rachel and left without having worked the extra seven years!

Rabbi Frand quoted the Tolner Rav who answered the questions by making reference to a gemara in Bava Basra 89b (a Daf Yomi Crossover!) which discusses the various ways in which merchants could trick buyers or buyers could trick sellers by using uneven measuring devices. After discussing these various tricks, R' Yochanan Ben Zakai then questions whether he should openly bar these practices. He states that if he overtly discussed the tricks there is a possibility that people will learn "new" ways to trick others. On the other hand if he does not ban them the unethical people will think that the rabbis are not familiar with their tricks. The gemara then asks - did he or not? R' Shmuel bar R'Yitzchak said that they were openly barred based on a pasuk in Hoshea that the ways of Hashem are straight - the righteous will follow them and the wicked stumble upon them.

The Tolner Rav asked on the gemara - what difference does it make if the wicked think that the Rabbis don't understand their tricks? He answered that a person respects another if the other person knows the intricacies of his trade. By example, when I first visited the Square Rebbi, I knew that he was a great man and he certainly gives the appearance of being a holy man. But when I spoke with him and he asked me about my profession including the type of firm I work for and the type of work we do (all in perfect English) I was floored. Here was a chassidish Rebbi whose chassidim all speak yiddish and live in an insular community and he knew enough to ask whether I practiced civil or criminal law and the subcategories therof. This only served to raise my level of respect for him.

Rabbi Frand gave his own example of this principle in discussing Rabbanim who know a great deal about biology and how when a patient requires that a doctor consult with the Rabbi, the doctors are impressed with the level of knowledge the Rabbi has about the human body.

Rabbi Frand explained that R' Yochanan was concerned that the tricksters did not respect the Rabbanim. However, if they knew that the Rabbis knew the intricacies of their fraud the tricksters might respect the Rabbis. Rabbi Frand then quoted R' Chaim Vital who explains that R' Yochanan Ben Zakai was the gilgul of Ya'akov Avinu.

In telling Rachel that he was Lavan's brother in trickery, he was not saying that he would be tricking Lavan. Instead he was telling her that since he knew Lavan's tricks, maybe he could have an impact on and be mikarev Lavan. It was for this reason that Ya'akov never retaliated against Lavan - his intention was to try to earn Lavan's respect, not outfox him.

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, November 24, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 95

While preparing Bava Basra 95, I was struck by how different our view of wine is today as opposed to the time of the gemara.

The mishna on Bava Basra 93b stated that one who contracted to purchase wine was required to accept 10% of the wine as "kossisos." The Rashbam on Bava Basra 95a explains that this was wine which was starting to go sour (but was still drinkable) and was the common wine which was sold by shopkeepers for immediate consumption.

The gemara on 95a contains a discussion as to which type of wine the seller intended to buy which would require that he accept 10% kossissos. As the discussion spills over onto Bava Basra 95, the gemara offers an opinion that when a buyer indicates that he wishes to use the wine to cook with, there is an obligation on the seller to provide him with superior quality wine. The Rashbam explains that wine which was used for cooking needed to last for a significant period of time as it was not rapidly used by the buyer. As such, the seller could not provide kossissos wine since it would go completely sour before the buyer will have exhausted his cooking needs.

In contrast to the gemara, when someone in this era buys cooking wine, the product is usually of the poorest quality since people do not use fine quality wine to cook with.

Still, there was one point made by the gemara which still rings true today. The gemara on the bottom of 95b discusses a dispute as to whether one who consumes wine which is truly going sour must make the heightened brocha of borei pri ha'gafen or only the shehakol. As part of this discussion, the gemara mentions R' Zevid's position that wine which is pressed from grape kernels is of such poor quality that one would recite the shehakol blessing. The Rashbam describes such wine as "extremely bad" which would only be sold in the outer corners of the city. Yes, even in the times of the gemara there was a "thunderbird" wine which you needed to be desperate to drink!

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!

Monday, November 23, 2009

Monday Musings on Sports - The Purpose of Injuries in Football

As regular readers of this blog are aware, the Monday post was usually devoted to sports with highlights and analysis of the Max Kellerman show which formerly aired on 1050 ESPN Radio. As Max has resigned from 1050 and has not yet resurfaced on the NY area radio waves, I have decided to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

Last Friday I heard an interesting discussion on the Michael Kay show related to Leon Washington's injury and his attitude during his arduous rehab from a broken leg. As has been well documented, this is the final year of Washington's rookie contract which pays him about $500K for the year. Before the season began Washington was unable to agree with the Jets on a contract extension and his future contract would depend on his stats for this year. Although his season started in promising fashion, Washington sustained a severely broken leg in the Oakland game a few weeks ago and his season is over. The injury was so bad that he was unable to fly back to New York and he needed to have surgery in Oakland.

The segment of the Michael Kay show began with some quotes that Washington gave when he visited the Jets' training facility last week. After the quotes, Michael and Don began to debate whether it was good idea for Washington to have played out his contract this year and Washington's quotes that everything happens for a reason and that he has made his peace with the injury. Michael asked - if everything happens for a purpose, why does anyone need to take any affirmative steps since everything is pre-ordained. Don responded that we still need to act as things do not come if we don't take action. Bonnie Bernstein then added her own view, explaining that she had sustained a severe knee injury and that while she would not wish the injury on anyone, the rehab process had strengthened her and showed her that she could overcome adversity.

The discussions on the Michael Kay obviously have their root in traditional Jewish hashkafa. The gemara in Ta'anis 21 mentions how Nahum Ish Gamzu used to say "gam zu l'tova" - this is also for the good about everything that befell him in life. Once the Jews wanted to send a present to the Caesar and they asked Nachum Ish Gamzu to be the courier. On his way, Nahum stopped at an inn. During the night, the innkeeper emptied the jewels in the chest and filled it with sand. When the chest was offered to the Caesar he opened it and saw the sand. The Caesar was infuriated and wanted to kill all the Jews. Nahum Ish Gamzu said, "Gam zu l'tova" - this is also for the good. Immediately thereafter, Eliyahu Hanavi suggested that maybe this sand was from Avraham who threw sand and it turned into swords. The Caesar's forces tried it in battle and were successful. The Caesar sent Nahum back with with great honors and a chest full of treasures.

While we may not be zocheh to see such an obvious display of how Hashem does everything for the good, we do believe that all that He allows to happen is for the best (or in the words of Rabbi Akiva in gemara Berachos - kol ma'an d'avid Rachmana l'tav avid) and that there is a positive purpose to what happens in this world.

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, November 22, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - New Belgium Sunshine Wheat Ale


This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at New Belgium's Sunshine Wheat Ale.

Although the city of Fort Collins, Colorado has a population of less than 140,000 people, it is home to six breweries including: Anheuser Busch, Odell Brewing, Fort Collins Brewery and New Belgium. As I recently learned, New Belgium produces a number of kosher brews including the Sunshine Wheat Ale.

The Sunshine Wheat Ale is classified by BA as an American Pale Ale and it certainly carries the moniker in that it is pale in color. However the taste of the Sunshine Wheat is more akin to a Witbier. This could be due to the fact the brew is flavored with coriander and orange peel, or it could just be the flavor of the beer itself.

I first tried the Sunshine Wheat while sitting at my kitchen table with a sefer. Sarah tried it at the same time and decided to cook our supper with it (grouper). It added a nice flavor to the seared fish and also went quite well with plated finished product. I had another one later in the week with pineapple chicken and it went equally well. It is easily one of the best American Wheat beers that I have ever tasted.

New Belgium Sunshine Wheat is under the Kosher Supervision of the Scroll-K of Colorado. Although the beer does not bear the kosher symbol on the label, it can be found on the bottom of the six pack carrier. Additionally, if you would like me to e-mail you the LOC for New Belgium Sunshine Wheat, send me an e-mail and I will gladly oblige.

Please note that not every brew produced by New Belgium is under kosher supervision. Please check my latest Kosher Beer List (http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/09/kosher-beers-semi-annual-kosher-beers.html ) for a complete listing of those New Belgium brews which are certified kosher.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about New Belgium Sunshine Wheat, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/192/1911 .

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

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Toldos

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 inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

The first pasuk of Parshas Toldos contains an apparent redundancy as the parsha begins "V'aleh Toldos Yitzchak ben Avraham, Avraham Holid es Yitzchak" -these are the generations of Yitzchak son of Avraham, Avraham fathered Yitzchak. Many commentators have asked the question why the language is repeated. During tonight's shiur Rabbi Frand explored two answers to the question.

The Ibn Ezra writes that the reason for the second mention is the use of the language of Holid whichnteaches that Avraham raised and taught Yitzchak. He brings a proof from the pasuk by Yosef and his grandchildren of "Vayuldu al Birkei Yosef." This does not mean that they were fathered by or born on Yosef's lap. Rather it is translated that they were taught by Yosef.

Rabbi Frand then mentioned the Sforno who notes that in Lech Lecha, Avraham says to Hashem that he has no children and the "ben mesek" of his house is Eliezer. The Sforno explains that Avraham was saying that he has no son at present to take over his mantle and while he may have a son in the future, it may be too late.

In a similar vein, the Sfas Emes explains that Avraham was concerned that he would be so advanced in age when his son would be born that he would not have the ability to teach his son about who Avraham was. A person wants to teach his child his family customs and lineage and this was Avraham's concern. The Sfas Emes brings a proof from the Gemara in Yoma which explains that Eliezer was called "damesek" because he was mashke Avraham's Torah to the masses. However, Avraham wanted his son to be able to perform this task.

According to the Ibn Ezra, it is for this reason that the Torah writes that Avraham holid es Yitzchak - Avraham got his wish and was able to raise Yitzchak in his customs and tradition.

The second explanation mentioned by R' Frand was Rashi's reference to the "letzanei hador" - the jokers of the generation who wondered aloud whether Avraham was really Yitzchak's father or whether the true father was Avimelech. It was for this reason that the pasuk contains the double language as Hashem made a miracle and Yitzchak was the carbon copy image of Avraham.

Rabbi Frand then asked - why are they called jokers? If a person impugns the lineage of another he is wicked, not merely a joker!

Rabbi Frand answered in the name of R' Pam that this position could not have been seriously believed in Avraham's generation. Previously, Avraham and Sarah had lived together for many years without having children. Then, Avraham has a child with Hagar - obviously he is not the reason they were childless. Therefore those who insinuate that he could not have impregnated Sarah are obviously just jokers.

This presents the question - if they were just jokers who were posing an illogical question, why did they even need to be dignified with a response?

Rabbi Frand answered that it was because in future generations these jokers' positions might be taken seriously and people might seek to revise history and opine that the lineage of the Jews did not continue down through Yitzchak.

Rabbi Frand then mentioned how when Eisenhower was commanding the American troops at the close of WWII he instructed them to take film footage of the concentration camps so that the atrocities of the Holocaust could not later be forgotten. Who could have surmised that sixty years later, people would begin to doubt whether there was a holocaust or whether it was on such a large scale. Even though there are still survivors who tell first hand accounts of the atrocities, there are people who seek to deny the holocaust ever occurred for their own political gain. It is for this prescient reason that Eisenhower ordered that film footage be taken of the camps and why the Spielberg films and the various holocaust memorials are so important to preserving the memory of the six million against the onslaught of the jokers who seek to deny the holocaust even existed.

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, November 17, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 88

Bava Basra 88 contains the gemara's version of "you break it, you pay for it." Towards the top of Bava Basra 88a, the gemara states in the name of Shmuel that if one takes an object from a craftsman to examine and through an unfortunate circumstance the item breaks, the prospective purchaser must pay the craftsman for the item, provided that the item had a known fixed price.

The Rashbam explains that this involves an item like a pepper grinder where the craftsman makes many at a time and does not derive any benefit from the purchaser picking it up to examine the item. Indeed, the purchaser at this point becomes like a shoel (borrower) and is thus responsible for loss through oness.

The gemara then offers another example of "you break it you pay for it" where a prospective purchaser had picked up a piece of thigh meat to examine it. While he was looking at the meat, a horseman passed by and grabbed it out of his hand. They went for judgment before R' Yemar who ruled that the purchaser must reimburse the seller, provided that there was a set price for the meat.

Before the new mishna on 88a, the gemara discusses whether a person who separates produce while in the market may return the produce, or whether his separation has acted as a kinyan. The question is of importance when the produce is demai and the purchaser must take off ma'aser, then return the remainder of the produce and reimburse the seller for the ma'aser portion. The gemara says that a yarei Shamayim like R' Safra would have done this, but the gemara does not explain why R' Safra was pious.

The Rashbam fills in the blanks - that R' Safra was once praying when a man came and offered to buy something from him. R' Safra did not respond as he was in the middle of prayer. Taking the silence as refusal, the man then doubled his offer. R' Safra finished his prayer, but would only take the lower amount offer because he had decided to accept the first offer, but could not answer during the prayer.

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!

Monday, November 16, 2009

Monday Musings on Sports - Jones Drew, Belichek and DA.

As regular readers of this blog are aware, the Monday post was usually devoted to sports with highlights and analysis of the Max Kellerman show which formerly aired on 1050 ESPN Radio. As Max has resigned from 1050 and has not yet resurfaced on the NY area radio waves, I have decided to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

As I was loading our minivan in Chicago yesterday afternoon, I passed the time listening to the Jets-Jaguars game on Sirius Satellite radio. OK, I finished loading the car and then sat in it to listen to the end of the game, while Sarah got the kids ready and packed the food. Yes my wife is an angel, but that is a topic for another day.

After I loaded the last suitcase, the Jets scored a touchdown and with five minutes left found themselves up by one point with a decision to make – kick the extra point or go for the two point conversion. The question itself was not that difficult – if you make the two point conversion the other team needs a field goal to tie. If you kick the extra point, you only go up by two points and the other team can win with a field goal. If you miss the conversion, you are still winning by one.

The Jets went for the two point conversion and failed when Sanchez was unable to connect with Braylon Edwards. The announcers made it sound like the pass was late, but I have not seen the replay yet.

So now the Jets had to prevent the Jaguars from getting into field goal range. I sat in the car thinking the same thing that I recalled my father chanting for so many April nights when the Rangers were about to choke away a playoff game – “TOO MUCH TIME!”

At first it seemed that the Jets would pull it off. They had the Jags facing numerous 3rd downs, but each time the Jaguars would make a big play. Then, suddenly they were into Jets territory. And then in field goal range with two minutes to go. I start thinking Belichekian (more about him later) – just let them score and even if they put up 8 you have two minutes left to go down the field and tie the game or even go ahead.

The Jets players must have been given the same instructions as they allowed Maurice Jones Drew to run untouched to the one yard line. And then he stopped dead and took a knee. The Jets only had one time out left and the Jaguars were able to run the clock down to 2 seconds before kicking the game winning field goal. I was glad that I had not lost the entire afternoon sitting and watching (or listening to) the whole game.

Fast forward a few hours and the Patriots have a lead on the Colts late in the Fourth Quarter. Belichek has the Pats go for it on 4th down deep in their own territory, despite the fact that they are leading the Colts by 6. Going for it on 4th down is always a risk because the other team gets the ball if you don't make the first down. Doing this deep in your own territory is an even greater risk as you give the other team a short field. The upside in the Pats case was --if they made the first down they could run the clock down and the Colts would have no time to score.

For Belichek the gamble backfired as the Pats did not make the first down and the Colts marched 28 yards to win the game.

What do these two events have in common and what is their connection to Torah? The answer is DA.

When entering a synagogue one invariably sees a sign which says Da Lifnei Mi Ata Omeid - Know before whom you stand. When entering a shul, a person should be aware that they are in the presence of Hashem and need to act accordingly. The sign serves as a gentle reminder that since you are in shul you should not engage in frivolous activity.

In a similar vein - the key to the wins in the two games was knowledge of where the ball was on the field and what needed to be accomplished. By kneeling at the one foot line and not scoring the touchdown, Jones Drew was able to prevent the Jets from getting the ball back. By punting the ball and pinning the Colts back in their territory, Belichek could have won his game. By going for it on 4th down without regard to the ball's position on the field, Belichek lost the game. L'havdil, the knowledge of where one was factored in the decisions in each game.

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!

Belated Sunday Night Suds - Shiner Smokehaus


This week’s Sunday Night Suds looks at Shiner Smokehaus beer.

While I was in Chicago this weekend for my nephew’s bar mitzvah, I visited Binny’s on Dempster (Skokie) to look for beers which are not available on the East Coast. For those not familiar with Chicago, there used to be two liquor outlet chains in Chicago – Binny’s and Sam’s. Both of these stores had their individual strengths – Sam’s had an incredible selection of wines, while Binny’s had superior beer choices and usually better prices on beer and harder alcohol. When I came in for the first days of Pesach (or when I found myself downtown) I used to shop at Sam’s. When I was looking for good prices on scotch or beer (or when I found myself in Skokie) I would shop at Binny’s.

In October 2009 these two chains merged, thus I found myself traveling to Skokie with Mrs. KosherBeers on a Saturday Night looking for new beer. I had checked the Binny’s website in advance and saw that they had a wide selection of New Belgium beer (which I recently learned had many styles with kosher certification). While perusing their many well stocked aisles (as usual) I noticed that they carried Shiner Smokehaus, a beer which is made with smoked hops.

[For a great article about Shiner Smokehaus and Rabbi Krupnik, the amicable Rav Hamachshir (certifying Rabbi) for many beers which are certified kosher by the Va’ad of Detroit click here http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/sep/30/ab_m3_shiner_kosher_100209_67375/ ]

As my shopping cart already contained three sixers of New Belgium, I pondered whether I should invest in a six pack of the Smokehaus as well. I consulted with one of the knowledgeable clerks at Binny’s (always helpful and never pushy) and he told me that the beer tasted like “a barbecue in a bottle.” This of course only added to my concern about spending $7.99 +tax on a six pack when I might not want to drink more than one. I asked whether I could buy a single since I was already buying three six packs of New Belgium varieties, but the manager indicated that they did not sell singles except for specific oversized bottles. I kind of expected this response, but figured it was worthy asking.

As you can tell from the picture at the top of the page I did get a bottle after all. While I was being rung up for the New Belgium, they brought me a bottle of Smokehaus and presented it to me as a gift. I was shocked and grateful. They don’t know me, as I only shop there once or twice a year. They don’t know about my beer blogging hobby and certainly did not know that I had previously given their store a positive review on beer advocate two years ago. It was just a nice thing to do for a customer and shows why they are a great store.

So what did the beer taste like? Upon opening it, the beer did not smell like a BBQ. It also was somewhat pale in color and much lighter than the dark brown beer I was expecting. But the taste is undoubtedly mesquite. The beer basically tastes like a lager with a few mesquite chips floating in it (no I did not see any in the bottle). I don't know if I could drink a few of these at a time, but it was an interesting flavor and I would recommend trying one if you can find it.

I leave the food pairing for Shiner Smokehaus to your imagination, but if you can grill it, this beer probably would go well with it.

Shiner Smokehaus is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit, although the brew does not bear the Va'ad symbol on its label. If you would like me to e-mail you the Va'ad LOC for Shiner Smokehaus, send me an e-mail and I will gladly oblige.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Shiner Smokehaus, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/143/50270.

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

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 81

Bava Basra 81 is one of those dapim of gemara that come as a breath of fresh air in the middle of monotonous, hyper technical sugyos. The daf begins by quoting a mishna about whether the person who buys two trees in a field has purchased the field, or just the trees themselves. As explained by the Rashbam, the Tanna Kamma holds that the purchaser merely has bought the two trees and it is as if once the trees have borne their fruits for the year the buyer can cut them down and take them away. Meanwhile, Rav Meir holds that the buyer has purchased the land under the trees as well.

This is familiar territory as the sugya itself has made its appearance numerous times in the mesechta. But then the gemara in interpreting the mishna opens up the once monotonous fact pattern by seeking to compare the mishna to the law of bikkurim. The gemara quotes a mishna in Bikkurim wherein the Tanna Kamma states that the purchaser brings the fruit of the two trees up to Yerushalaim to be brought as bikkurim, but does not read the vidui bikkurim. R' Meir (who consistently follows his line of reasoning from our mishna) states that he does read the vidui bikkurim. Shmuel then says that according to R' Meir anyone who purchases fruit in the marketplace can use them for bikkurim as one does not need to own land to bring bikkurim.

The gemara then begins to bring pesukim dealing with bikkurim in an attempt to disprove Shmuel. One of these attempts asks the question - well what about the pasuk in Ki Savo which states that the bikkurim are brought from your land ("asher tavi me'artzecha"). The gemara answers that this is meant to exclude fruits from land outside of Israel as not falling within the law of bikkurim.

Tosafos d'h Hahu (one of the many fascinating Tosafosim on today's daf) asks why we need a pasuk to teach this - don't we already know from a gemara in Kiddushin that all mitzvos which are connected to the land of Israel are only kept in Israel? The gemara answers that bikkurim are mentioned in the pasuk in conjunction with the law of meat and milk (Shemos 23 - Reishis Bikurei Admasecha Tavi Beis Hashem Elokecha Lo Sivashel G'di BaChalev Imo) and there was a thought that people will believe that just like the people keep the separation of meat and milk outside Israel, so too would the laws of bikkurim apply there.

Tosafos also brings the opinion of the Rashba that bikkurim is not a mitzva which is unique to the land of Israel since the mitzva of bikkurim falls on the person, not the fruit. He explains that by teruma, ma'aser and challah, the unapportioned fruit is tevel and cannot be eaten until the portions are taken off. However, the law of bikkurim only applies to the person as he can eat any other fruit from the land prior to bringing the bikkurim up to the Beis Hamikdash.

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!