Sunday Night Suds - Redhook Slim Chance Ale

This week Sunday Night Suds revisits light beers by reviewing Redhook's Slim Chance Ale.

When I first came across this beer in the hidden gem of beer stores (Bridgeview Liquors - located just over the Bayonne Bridge in Bayonne, New Jersey) I was quite excited. Redhook has a fantastic reputation as a quality craft brewer and I had never seen a Light ale.

By way of quick background, most light beers are lagers such as Bud Light, Coors Light, Miller Lite, Michelob Ultra and Sam Adams Light (reviewed here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2008/11/sunday-night-suds-samuel-adams-light.html ). These beers start with a lighter tasting style of beer (lager) and then water down the taste by removing calories and often times alcohol.

Thus, the Redhook Slim Chance Light Ale (which the experts at BA have classified as an American Blonde Ale) looked promising. I mean, how can you call a beer an ale without hoppy goodness? The short answer is that you can't.

The Redhook Slim Chance is truly a light beer in the tradition of the silver bullet and Bud Light. If there were hops in the brew process they were probably on the outside of the tank looking in. The alcohol content is also very low (3.9 % abv) even when compared with other light beers (Bud Light, Coors Light and Michelob Ultra all run at 4.2% abv).

If you are looking for a light beer which doesn't taste much like beer (or anything else for that matter) this may be the beer for you. Otherwise, pass this atypical Redhook product by and grab something else from this bicoastal brewer such as their ESB, Blonde Ale, Winterhook or Sunrye.

Redhook Slim Chance Light Ale is under the kashruth supervision of the Orthodox Union. For the experts take on the Slim Chance Light Ale, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/18134/48026 .

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!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bamidbar

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 Bamidbar begins with Hashem commanding Moshe to count the Jewish people. Rashi notes that this is the third time since the Jews left Egypt that Hashem orders that they be counted. Rashi explains that the Jews are dear to Hashem and so He counts them over and over, much like a person who has something dear to him will count those objects over and over.

Rabbi Frand noted that Bamidbar 1:2 uses an odd word for counting - "Siu". Normally, counting in Hebrew uses the verb "Moneh" or "Siphor" or "Pikod" (although there is at least one other instance of the word "Siu" as this is the basis of the command to count in Ki Sisa). Rabbi Frand explained that the word "Siu" generally means "lift up" and that this is the purpose of Hashem asking for the count. Could one actually believe that Hashem needed Moshe to count the Jews because Hashem did not know their number? Rather Hashem wanted each Jew to feel special and by having them individually counted, their stature in their own eyes was raised.

Rabbi Frand then quoted the Chasam Sofer who notes that at Bamidbar 1:48, Hashem specifically commands that the Levi'im should not be counted. The Torah uses a double language "Don't count" (using Pikod) and "don't take their census" (using Siu). Isn't this redundant? The Chasam Sofer explains that Hashem was concerned that since shevet Levi held a special role, they might think highly of themselves and become haughty. Therefore, Hashem spelled out that the Levi'im should not be counted using the Siu terminology as well.

Following the command not to the count the Levi'im, the Torah briefly discusses the role of the Levi'im in the carrying of the Mishkan, before digressing to the way that the nation travelled and the individual flags. Following this, the Torah again reaches the issue of the Levi'im and their role in carrying the Mishkan (Bamidbar 3:5-10). Rabbi Frand then asked - why have a partial discussion of the role of the Levi'm in carrying the Mishkan, and then interrupt it, before dealing with it in more detail in the third perek?

Rabbi Frand answered, but first prefaced the answer with a thought from R' Yaakov Kaminetzky. R' Yaakov noted that the rules of flag movement occurred in the second year that the Jews were in the midbar. But why did this wait until the second year? He answered that the use of flags is very diversifying as the individual tribes would identify with their own flag. In order to prevent dissension and pirud, Hashem waited until there was a unifying source in the middle - the Mishkan - before assigning the flags to the tribes. Since the Mishkan which united all the Jews was in the middle, they were protected from pirud.

Rabbi Frand then answered his earlier question (in the name of the Shemen Hatov). The reason that a little bit about the Levi'im and their role in carrying the Mishkan was mentioned early, was as a sign that the Mishkan was now assembled and was going to be at the center and a source of protection against dissension when the tribes subsequently got their flags.

Rabbi Frand closed by quoting a Medrash which states that the Jews saw that each angel in Heaven had its own flag and that the Jews strongly desired flags. Rabbi Frand explained that the reason that the angel had its own flag was that the flag identified the angel's role and it is well known that each angel had exactly one task to perform. The Jews yearned for their flag because they wanted to know their job, since every person wants to know their role in life.

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 XLVIII

This week's weird (but true) legal case grapples with the issue of whether a singer can parody another person's song.

The genesis of this review is a conversation which I had with my father in law on the way back from Sarah's cousin's wedding. The band had played a song which was a Jewish parody of the Lynyrd Skynyrd classic "Sweet Home Alabama." My father in law asked me whether the band could legally do this. I knew that somehow the bigger acts like Weird Al found a way to parody songs, but was intrigued by the question and decided to look into it.

As luck would have it, my research led me to a recent Judge Deborah Batts decision in Bourne Co. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Co., 602 F.Supp.2d 499 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

In Bourne, the creator of the Pinocchio song "When You Wish Upon A Star" sued the parent company of the Family Guy over an episode which included a song entitled "I Need a Jew" which was set to the music of "When You Wish Upon A Star."

As noted by Judge Batts, the Family Guy episode:

[I]s centered around the show's father character, Peter, and his inability to manage his family's finances. After hearing his friends talk about how men with Jewish-sounding names have helped them to achieve financial success, Peter decides that he “needs a Jew” to help him with his finances. The overall theme of the Episode is that Peter's beliefs based upon racial stereotypes, even potentially “positive” ones, are ridiculous. At the end of the Episode, Peter says to his wife, Lois, “I see what you're saying. The Jewish are just like us. No better, no worse.”

When the TV show's producers initially decided to parody the Pinocchio song, they asked for a license from Bourne, but were turned down. They they wrote a song which clearly resembled the Pinocchio classic in tune, but with decidedly more risque words.

As stated by Judge Batts, the facts of the matter were not in dispute. The Judge noted:

For the purposes of this motion, the Parties agree that Defendants' use of the song “When You Wish Upon a Star” would be an infringement of Bourne's rights under the Copyright Act but for a finding of fair use. The Parties agree that “When You Wish Upon a Weinstein” incorporates musical elements from “When You Wish Upon a Star” and was created in a manner intended to evoke that song. The Parties also agree that at least one of the purposes of the song used in the Episode was to hold bigotry and people like Peter Griffin up to ridicule.

In determining the motions for summary judgment, Judge Batts relied heavily on the doctrine of fair use. The court explained:

According to the Supreme Court, “[t]he fair use doctrine [ ] ‘permits [and requires] courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.’ ” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 576-577, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994) (quoting Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 236, 110 S.Ct. 1750, 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Further, “[t]he task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis.” Id. at 577, 110 S.Ct. 1750.

Having applied the fair use test (which I will omit from this post in the interests of brevity), the court opined:

[B]y juxtaposing the “saccharin sweet” song “When You Wish Upon a Star” with “I Need a Jew” the Defendants do more than just comment on racism and bigotry generally, as Plaintiff contends. Rather, Defendants' use of “When You Wish Upon a Star” calls to mind a warm and fuzzy view of the world that is ultimately nonsense; wishing upon a star does not, in fact, make one's dreams come true. By pairing Peter's “positive,” though racist, stereotypes of Jewish people with that fairy tale world-view, “I Need a Jew” comments both on the original work's fantasy of Stardust and magic, as well as Peter's fantasy of the “superiority” of Jews. The song can be “reasonably perceived” to be commenting that any categorical view of a race of people is childish and simplistic, just like wishing upon a star.

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 Metzia 24

Bava Metzia 24 continues a discussion about found objects and whether the person who finds the object must make efforts to publicize that the item has been found.

One of the episodes discussed on Bava Metzia 24b involved a wallet which was found in the leather skinners' market place. When Rava was asked what must be done with the wallet, he said that the finder could keep it. The question was then posed to Rava in hypothetical form - what if a Jewish person came and said that it was his and prodceud a sign which would identify the item as his? Rava responded that the finder could still keep it. The questioner persisted - but the man is yelling that it is his! Rava answered that it is no different than yelling that his house fell down or that his boat sank in the sea.

While giving the daf tonight, I was reminded of am incident where I found some lost items and due to my own ignorance did a very stupid thing. I had been living in Kew Gardens Hills Queens and was walking on Main Street when I found a fancy leather portfolio. I opened it and found that it had the owner's name and address. I called the man and arranged to meet him on my way out to the airport as my wife and I were flying from Newark to Chicago that day.

Later that afternoon, I met the man on the street in Queens and gave him his portfolio. We then drove to Newark and I dropped Sarah off at curbside check in so that she could check our luggage and I could park the car. When getting out of the car, I notice a large number of bills on the floor outside my car - tens, twenties, singles and even a fifty. I picked up the bills and gave them to a Port Authority police officer who must have thought that I was crazy. I drove away thinking that I did the right thing. However under halachic law I was definitely wrong.

As taught on Bava Metzia 24a, lost money which contains no distinguishing features in a public place does not need to be returned (no I have no clue whether it must be returned under NJ law). As such, I was not halachically obligated to give the money to the officer.

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 - Shiner Commemorator

This week's Sunday Night Suds continues the review of Shiner beers with look at the limited edition Shiner 100 Commemorator.

Although I have only recently become a chassid of the Shiner beers, they have been brewed at the Spoetzel Brewery in Shiner, Texas for 100 years. (No word on how long they have been under the Va'ad of Detroit, though). In honor of their one hundredth year, the good folks at Shiner have concocted a limited edition brew entitled the "Commemorator" which has been brewed in the style of the Dopplebock. As noted by the experts at BA:

Bocks--you know, those beers with goats on the label--are relatively strong German lagers. Doppelbocks--as the name might suggest--are typically even stronger and contain enough malty goodness that they’ve been considered a meal in a glass for centuries. Generally they have a very full-bodied flavor and are darker than their little Bock brothers and sisters and a higher level of alcohol too. They range in color from dark amber to nearly black, and dark versions often have slight chocolate or roasted characters.

Much like the Shiner Bock (reviewed last week here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/05/sunday-night-suds-shiner-bock.html ) the Shiner Commemorator falls on the low end of the alcohol content for its style, coming in at a 6.7% abv. When compared with the other dopplebocks listed on BA, the Shiner Commemorator ranks 319 out of 340 for alcohol content among dopplebocks.

While the brew may be low on alcohol in comparison with others of its style, it certainly is not light on taste. There is a strong caramel flavor to the beer with a nice amount of sweetness and little aftertaste. I enjoyed mine tonight with chocolate chip cookies, but I have found that the Commemorator goes equally well with standard dinner fare.

Shiner Commemorator 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 Commemorator, send me an e-mail and I will gladly oblige.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Shiner Commemorator, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/143/47098 . 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's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Behar-Bechukosai

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 Behar (Vaykira 25:1-8) begins with a discussion of the laws of Shmitta, when the land is left fallow every seventh year. Following the discussion of Shmitta, the Torah then discusses the laws of Yovel (Vayikra 25:9-13) when the ancestral fields return to their owners and the fields are also left unworked. After this discussion, the Torah ventures into discussions about various areas of civil law (Vayikra 25:14-18) before returning to the topic of Shmitta and anticipating that there may be questions - what will there be to eat in the Shmitta year (Vayikra 25:19-22)? The Torah answers by reassuring the farmer, as Hashem states that He will bless the land so that the produce of the sixth year of the cycle will be so abundant that it will last three years.

Rabbi Frand then quoted a question from the Noam Elimelech (who asked in the name of his brother) - If the Torah does not waste words, why would the Torah state - if you ask where will be food, this is the brocha Hashem will give? Wouldn't it be more logical to simply state outright - Hashem will give a brocha of abundance for the sixth year? Furthermore, why is the promise made (and Shmitta revisited) after the discussion of various other topics?

Rabbi Frand answered by making reference to the sefer Abir Ya'akov (R' Ya'akov Yosef Reinman), who teaches that the mitzva of Shmitta involves a great deal of bitachon (faith). A person will farm his land for six years and think that all of his wealth comes from his own efforts. Thus Hashem says - don't work the seventh year; trust that I will take care of you, since it all comes from Me. The Torah then continues to other topics, before returning to Shmitta. However at this juncture, Hashem is saying - there are some among you who will follow Shmitta because I commanded it above. However, there will be others who are weaker and cannot follow the rule on blind faith. Hashem anticipates their questions/concerns and promises that they will be provided for with the abundant sixth year crop. This comes as a separate discussion because the question and promise is not a direct part of the mitzva of Shmitta. Hashem is saying later, if there are those with questions, don't worry, I will take care of them.

Rabbi Frand then asked - where do we see any other mitzva where someone who lacks faith is given a 3x reward in exchange? By comparison, there is no promise of a triple pay reward for someone who takes off and does not work on Shabbos. However, not working Shabbos also requires faith as many learned in the early part of the 20th century when the mantra was "If you don't come to work on Saturday, don't come in on Monday either."

Rabbi Frand again made reference to the Abir Yosef to answer this question. He noted that Shmitta is a greater test than Shabbos. During a regular week, one will refrain from work on Shabbos. However, Shmitta is refraining from work for an entire year. For a person in an agrarian economy, he is wondering where the food will come from if he does not work. With this form of test, Hashem tells those who question - yes there will be food, you will not starve.

Rabbi Frand then began to discuss Parshas Bechukosai which begins with the phrase "Im Bechukosai Taylaychu" - if you keep my laws. Rashi translates this as "if you learn Torah." Later in the parsha, the Torah state "V'im lo tishm'u li" - if you don't listen to Me (26:14). Rashi translates this as - "if you don't learn Torah." Much later in the parsha the Torah reaches the topic of Shmitta again stating at Vayikra 26:34 that the land will "appease its Shmitta years during the years of desolation." Rashi states on the following pasuk (Vayikra 26:35) that the years of Galus Bavel came as a direct result of the Jews not keeping the laws of Shmitta/Yovel at all while they were in Israel before the Galus.

Rabbi Frand then asked what the connection was between Shmitta and the Galus (in my words Mah Inyan Shmitta Eitzel HaTochacha)? And furthermore, how is it possible that they did not keep Shmitta the entire time that they were in Israel?

Rabbi Frand answered by quoting R' Ya'akov Kaminetzky that Behar Becukosai is one long parsha. It begins with a discussion on Shmitta. It then goes off on numerous tangents, until it reaches Bechukosai and returns to the discussion of Shmitta. How? It tells us that the year of Shmitta is a year when the land is not worked and the people are learning Torah instead. "If you listen" and while not working learn Torah - there will be great reward. If you don't listen and don't take the year off to learn, then there will be problems and the land will kick you out. This is the meaning of the statement that the Jews did not keep Shmitta - the Jews did not stop and learn during the Shmitta year as Hashem wanted them to do.

Rabbi Frand then told a story about one of the boys who used to learn in his shiur. The boy eventually left Ner Israel and got a job with T Rowe Price. Recently, the company announced that it was laying off 200+ workers in Baltimore, including this boy. The boy came to Yeshiva to talk to Rabbi Frand the next day. Rabbi Frand indicated that he tried to console the boy about the job, but the bochur did not want to be consoled. Instead, he said that he was being paid eight weeks severance and was wondering whether he could learn in Rabbi Frand's shiur while he was being paid the severance.

Rabbi Frand closed by saying that this is the meaning of time off. That when a person is getting a paid vacation (like the Shmitta year) he should be sitting and learning Torah. If one follows this task, he can be mikayaim "Im Bechukosai Taylaychu."

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 Metzia 17

Bava Metzia 17 continues a discussion of who is considered a liar and thus is not believed to when he states that he made a payment or took an oath outside of the presence of witnesses.

In discussing this issue, the gemara sheds light on the different forms of directions which can come from a beis din. On the very bottom of Bava Metzia 16b the gemara introduces a scenario where beis din says "Tzei ten lo" - (meaning "go and give him"). The defendant then comes to beis din and says - I paid. The gemara relates that he is generally believed provided that he takes a shvuas heses. However, if beis din says "Chayav ata liten lo" - (meaning "you are obligated to pay him"), if the defendant says that he made the payment he is not believed.

Tosafos (d'h Chayav) explains that we learn from this gemara that Chayav ata liten lo is not the final psak of beis din that payment must be made. The final directive to pay only comes when beis din says "Tzei ten lo."

When giving over the daf to my group this evening, I analogized this to the situation under New York practice where Judges will decide a motion, but still require that a judgment be settled on notice. [Since three of the four people present at the time were lawyers this was a very easy sell].

Often times a Judge will determine a motion for summary judgment and rule that the Plaintiff is entitled to $__. However, the Judge will direct that the prevailing party submit a judgment on notice to all sides and only when that judgment has been entered is there a requirement that payment be made.

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 Musings on Sports - A-Roid, Manny and the Abudraham

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.

Anyone with the slightest interest in baseball, perhaps even anyone with a pulse, has heard that Manny Ramirez has been suspended from baseball for fifty games in relation to his use of a banned substance. Ramirez's stated excuse was that "his doctor" had purportedly prescribed the medication and that neither he nor his doctor were aware that it was a banned substance.

While Manny's excuse smacks of "the dog ate my homework", baseball's current climate has made it that much less believable because of Alex Rodriguez's recent admission of steroid use and Jose Canseco's book where he "named names" of those who were using steroids.

The problem for baseball players today is that there really are no players left who are above suspicion. Now that a handful of prominent players have been exposed as steroid users, the average fan is skeptical of his former heroes and the players' acts of prowess will be forever tainted by the actions of the few.

In sharp contrast to the deceptive acts of the few which poisoned the views of the masses, I wanted to mention a story regarding the honest acts of an individual and how he influence others for good. I heard a story in a Rabbi Frand shiur a number of years ago about the Abudraham and how he earned his name. I had always assumed that the Abudraham was the last name of this Rishon. I was incorrect.

The Abudraham, besides being a talmudic scholar and writing perushim, also was a meat merchant. In those times, meat was sold by weight which in his location was measured in drahms. When a person came to buy meat in the Abudraham's shop, the Abudraham would weight out meat into single draham portions. As such, when a person would ask for three drahams of meat, the Abudraham would not use a three draham weight on the scale, but would instead weight out three individual draham portions.

One day, a non-Jewish man came into the shop and ordered seven drahams of meat. The Abudraham utilized his one draham weight and portioned out seven individual drahams and gave them to the customer. Not long after the man left the shop he heard someone running after him and asking him to stop. It was the Abudraham holding another package of meat. The Abudraham explained that he was concerned that when he was weighing each draham of meat that he might have had some which were lighter than one draham. The customer indicated to the contrary as he had watched the Abudraham and saw that each of the seven individual drahams were slightly heavier than one draham in weight. Still, the Abudraham would not leave the man with just the one package he had taken from the shop.

The customer was so impressed with the Abudraham and his honesty that the man decided to convert to Judaism. Thus the Abudraham earned his name Abu Draham (father of the draham).

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 - Shiner Bock

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at another beer from Shiner, the little brewery in Texas with a big following.

Regular readers of this column may recall that I first got into Shiner beers this past fall when the Va'ad of Detroit faxed me a list of the beers under their supervision and I discovered that Shiner was approved by the Detroit Va'ad. I then set out on a quest to find Shiner and was able to locate the Shiner Hefeweizen (reviewed here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2008/11/sunday-night-suds-shiner-hefeweizen.html ) and Shiner Blonde (reviewed here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2008/12/sunday-night-suds-shiner-blonde.html).

On my most recent trip to Chicago I made my usual post Pesach pilgrimage to Binny's (approved by the CRC to buy from after Pesach) and loaded up on beers not generally found in NY. In so doing I picked up four new (to me) kinds of Shiner which will be reviewed on an occasional basis in upcoming SNS columns.

I had noticed that the Bock style of beer usually bears a goat on the label or cap, but never knew why until I read this on Beer Advocate:

The origins of Bock beer are quite uncharted. Back in medieval days German monasteries would brew a strong beer for sustenance during their Lenten fasts. Some believe the name Bock came from the shortening of Einbeck thus "beck" to "bock." Others believe it is more of a pagan or old world influence that the beer was only to be brewed during the sign of the Capricorn goat, hence the goat being associated with Bock beers. Basically, this beer was a symbol of better times to come and moving away from winter. As for the beer itself in modern day, it is a bottom fermenting lager that generally takes extra months of lagering (cold storage) to smooth out such a strong brew. Bock beer in general is stronger than your typical lager, more of a robust malt character with a dark amber to brown hue. Hop bitterness can be assertive enough to balance though must not get in the way of the malt flavor, most are only lightly hopped.

Although Bock's are supposed to be heavier and higher in alcohol than normal beers, I found that the Shiner Bock was rich on flavor but not very heavy on bitterness. I then checked the Shiner website and found that the Bock has a 4.4% abv which also falls on the light end.

Having said that, if you are looking for a flavorful beer which is a step up from lagers, but are not ready to dive into stouts, I would recommend the Shiner Bock. I found that its crisp flavor went excellent with bbq and salads and would surmise that they would do equally well with chicken dishes.

Shiner Bock 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 Bock, send me an e-mail and I will gladly oblige.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Shiner Bock, please follow this link
http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/143/1352 . 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's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Emor

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 Emor contains the mitzva of Lechem HaPanim - the "shewbread" (24:5-9) which lay on the shulchan for an entire week before being replaced with twelve identical loaves. Rabbi Frand stated that some chassidim have a tradition to put twelve loaves on the table when making HaMotzi on shabbos to remember the Lechem HaPanim.

The Gemara in Chaggiga teaches that when those who had been oleh regel to Yerushalim were leaving, the Kohanim would pick up the table which had the Lechem HaPanim on it in order to show those leaving the great miracle of the Lechem HaPanim (it never went bad and stayed "freshly baked warm" all week long). The Gemara states that when the Kohanim picked up the table they remarked to those who were leaving - see how dear you are to Hashem.

Rabbi Frand asked the question - why specifically was this miracle chosen to show the Jews who had completed their trip? The Beis Hamikdash had many daily miracles, why was this one demonstrated to the people?

Rabbi Frand quoted the "Pri Tzadik" who states that the 12 loaves were symbolic of the 12 tribes and were an indication that they (the 12 tribes) are all dear to Him like the 12 loaves. Rabbi Frand then quoted a Medrash which teaches that all 12 tribes worshipped Hashem differently. Therefore, traditional shuls have 12 windows to show that the same way that although each tribe had its own way of worshipping Hashem, all the tefillos went up to Him. Although the various sects have different minhagim it is irrelevant, as long as everyone "keeps the shulchan aruch" all the minhagim are considered holy before Hashem just like the 12 loaves of the Lechem HaPanim.

Rabbi Frand then noted that immediately after the mitzva of Lechem HaPanim, the parsha tells the story of the mikallel - the son of a Jewish woman and an Egyptian man and who went out and cursed Hashem's name. Rashi asks why did the man go out? Rashi answers that the man finished learning the Lechem HaPanim and scoffed - saying how does one worship Hashem by giving him cold nine day old bread?

But why is this so significant to the mikallel? Rabbi Frand quoted R' Tzadok HaKohen who explains that the 12 loaves were indicative of the holiness of the 12 tribes before Hashem. This man had "sour grapes" - since he was not the member of a tribe as he descended from an Egyptian father. Thus the mikallel had a problem with the concept of the holiness of the tribes and their connection to the Lechem HaPanim, so he cursed Hashem.

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 XLVII

Tonight's Weird (but true) case asks the age old question - can one have a second bite of the Esrog?

In Schwartzman v. Harlap, 08 Cv 4990 (BMC), United States District Court Judge Cogan was faced with a controversy over esrogim. The facts in the unpublished decision indicate that Schwartzman was an Israeli esrog producer who sold esrogim to Harlap to distribute in the United States. Part of the agreement between Schwartman and Harlap was that Harlap would be the "exclusive" distributor of the esrogim.

In September 2006, a dispute arose when Harlap accused Schwartzman of violating the exclusivity provision. The parties submitted the dispute to beis din in Israel before a Rabbi Stern. After Rabbi Stern ruled for Schwartzman, the dispute was submitted to an Israeli court (J Cogan indicates that the record is unclear as to who submitted the dispute to the Israeli court). During the Israeli court proceeding, Harlap argued that Rabbi Stern could not decide the controversy as he was being paid by Schwartzman to be the Rav HaMachsir for the esrogim. Subsequently, the parties agreed to withdraw the Israeli court proceeding and the matter was resubmitted to Rabbi Stern for additional rulings. In the end, Rabbi Stern ruled for Schwartzman and awarded him $66,000 (Harlap had stopped paying when he challenged whether he was still the exclusive distributor).

Thereafter, Schwartzman commenced an action seeking to have the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York enforce the award under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Unfortunately for Harlap, the Convention only contains limited means for challenging the award and specifically does not allow the US court to decide whether the award was correct.

However, Judge Cogan indicated that although the Convention did not reach the issue of the "non-disclosure" of Rabbi Stern's role with Schwartzman, United States law allows the court to consider whether the arbitrator (in this case Rabbi Stern) was impartial.

In the end, Harlap did not get a second bite of the esrog as Judge Cogan ruled that since the agreement between the parties indicated that there was a possibility that Rabbi Stern might be retained to be the Rav HaMachshir and the parties had resubmitted the dispute to him after Harlap had previously raised the question of Rabbi Stern's partiality in the Israeli court proceeding, the award could not be challenged.

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 Metzia 10

Bava Metzia 10 contains an interesting discussion on "Pe'ah etiquette" within the context of a discussion as to how one can be koneh objects. Abaye mentions that R' Chisda had learned from a Mishna in Pe'ah that if a person who is picking Pe'ah took some of what he was collecting and then threw it on top of other unpicked vegetation in the Pe'ah area, he has not accomplished anything. Furthermore, if the person threw his cloak on top of the unpicked vegetation in the Pe'ah area or flopped down on it, other any'im can forcibly take it from him.

[I can't stop thinking about the various school functions where you show up in advance of the time it is supposed to start and people have thrown their coats on top of entire rows of seats to "reserve" them in advance. No people are there now, even though its 1/2 an hour before the program is supposed to start. However, the seats are "reserved." How I wish we could apply the Pe'ah disenfranchisement to school programs, but I digress].

Tosafos (d'h Ma'avirin) teaches that the person who removes the "flopper" is not even called a wicked person. Tosafos (citing to Kiddushin 59a) explains that if a poor person is trying to make a business deal and acquire a cake at a good price and then another person swoops in and buys it, the aggressor is called a wicked person, because the other person could look elsewhere and try to find a deal without hurting the poor person. However, where the object is ownerless (such as Pe'ah) a person can't just flop on the object and anyone who takes it is not called a wicked person.

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 - Saranac Brown Ale

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at another of the Saranac brews - Saranac Brown Ale.

Regular beer drinkers who venture beyond macrobrews may have observed that traditional breweries lack some imagination with the naming of their beer styles. Many of the styles revolve around color such as White Ale, Irish Red, Black Lager and yes, Brown Ale. As noted by the experts at BA in their description of English Brown Ale (the forerunner of American Brown):

Spawned from the Mild Ale, Brown Ales tend to be maltier and sweeter on the palate, with a fuller body. Color can range from reddish brown to dark brown. Some versions will lean towards fruity esters, while others tend to be drier with nutty characters. All seem to have a low hop aroma and bitterness.

As mentioned above, the traditional brewers stay close to home with their beer classifications. As such, it should not be shocking to note that BA states the following about American Brown Ales:

Spawned from the English Brown Ale, the American version can simply use American ingredients. Many other versions may have additions of coffee or nuts. This style also encompasses "Dark Ales". The bitterness and hop flavor has a wide range and the alcohol is not limited to the average either.

With this in mind, let's take a quick look at Saranac Brown Ale. The beer itself pours dark brown with an inch of white foam. The beer is not nutty, certainly not as nutty as Saranac Nut Brown Ale (more recently reborn as Saranac Season's Best). There is a generous amount of malt in the brew, almost pushing it towards a stout. The beer also has a higher than average alcohol content (6% abv).

I enjoyed my Saranac Brown Ale with shwarma and falafel and the flavors melded together quite nicely. I could easily see having one or more of these with a steak or full flavored meat dish.

Saranac Brown Ale is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit as is every other beer produced at the Matt Brewery plant in Utica, NY. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about the Brown Ale, please follow this link - http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/99/33399.

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).

Finally, please accept my appreciation for sending Kosher Beers over the 10,000 hit mark. I'm so glad that my beer musings on sports, talmud, law and torah have amused so many readers. Here's to the next 10,000!

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!