Thursday, October 29, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Lech Lecha

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.

This week's parsha contains a description of Sarah's selfless act (Bereishis 16:1-3). When Sarah realized that she was unable to bear children, she told Avraham to take Hagar and have a child with her. The Torah relates that Avraham listened to Sarah.

In describing the interplay between Avraham and Sarah, the Torah states that Sarah says "Ulai Ebaneh Mimenah" which Rashi interprets Sarah as saying - perhaps in the z'chus of taking a tzarah (rival) into the home, I will be zocheh to build.

Rabbi Frand then asked - what is the z'chus that Sarah is referring to? He answered the question that it is the z'chus of being a m'vater which is best translated in English as one who forgoes.

Rabbi Frand then told a story in the name of R' Shach about a chazan who had davened for the amud in Ponovitch. The chazan had gotten older and could no longer be heard over the din of the air conditioning, however he still wanted to daven for the amud on the yamim noraim. He suggested that they turn off the air conditioning, but those davening there for the yamim noraim were not interested. He then approached the Rav who told him to give up the amud, as no one ever loses by being m'vater.

Rabbi Frand then linked the story to a story he had read in the sefer Ohel Moshe from R' Moshe Sheinerman (sp?). There was a couple who got engaged and were soon to be married. Three weeks before the wedding the couple found out that the Chassan had cancer and would soon need chemotherapy. They went searching for direction as to whether they should go forward with the wedding but were unable to get clear p'sak. They then went to R' Kanievsky who asked each individually what they felt was appropriate. The Chassan said that the Kallah should break off the engagement because it was not right that her first year of marriage would be with someone who was undergoing chemotherapy. The Kallah said that she did not want to break the engagement as it was not right for the Chassan to undergo chemotherapy alone.

R' Kanievsky counseled the couple that they should go forward with wedding. He even attended the wedding (a rare event for him according to Rabbi Frand). When R' Kanievsky arrived he danced with the Chassan and Kallah and they all escorted him out when he was done.

On the way back from the wedding, R' Kanievsky's driver asked him how he knew that this was the right course of action. R' Kanievsky answered that he had a proof from a Medrash. The Medrash (on Parshas Noach) tells the story of Alexander the Great who visited a king because he wanted to watch the king judge his people. Two litigants came before the king in relation to a land purchase. The buyer indicated that he had paid a bargain basement price for the land because it was poor quality, however he found a great treasure in the land which he felt it would be inappropriate to keep and as such he wanted the seller to take it back. The seller also indicated that he did not want it as the deal was the deal. The king asked the seller - do you have a son. The seller answered in the affirmative. He then asked the buyer - do you have a daughter? Yes, the buyer answered. The king then said that the children should be married and that way the treasure could stay in both families. Alexander then indicated to the king that in his land the government would have killed them both and taken the treasure.

R' Kanievsky said to his driver - the Chassan and Kallah were both willing to be m'vater in order to help the other. If this was their attitude there was no way the marriage could fail to be successful.

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, October 28, 2009

Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol LIII

This week's weird (but true) legal case asks the question - can a highway authority charge a higher toll to non residents then residents? Don't assume that you know the right answer.

In Selevan v. New York Thruway Authority, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered the appeal of decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissing a lawsuit by two Nassau County, New York residents challenging the New York Thruway Authority policy that charges residents of Grand Island less than others.

As explained by the Circuit:
The Grand Island Bridges (jointly, “Grand Island Bridge” or “the Bridge”), maintained and operated by NYTA, comprise a portion of Interstate-190 that spans Grand Island, New York, a municipality situated in the Niagara River approximately halfway between Niagara Falls, New York and Buffalo, New York. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that, pursuant to NYTA policy, each vehicle crossing the Bridge-except those driven by residents of Grand Island-must pay a toll of 75 cents. Residents of Grand Island, who may establish their status with, among other things, vehicle registration documents, are entitled to pay as little as 9 cents per trip-that is, 66 cents less per trip than non-residents of Grand Island.
On appeal to the Second Circuit, the Thruway Authority argued as they had in the court below that "plaintiffs have not suffered injury-in-fact because “a discount afforded to differently-situated individuals does not necessarily result in a palpable ‘injury’ to those not afforded the discount.” This was rejected by the Circuit noting that the District Court had properly turned that argument aside since the injury is"the burden of paying higher toll rates than Grand Island residents and the denial of toll discounts based on their residency status."

In ruling that the Plaintiffs had a cognizable claim under the Commerce Clause the Circuit rejected the lower court's characterization of the complaint, stating:
According to the District Court, “[t]he true gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that the Grand Island toll policy discriminates against New York citizens traversing a bridge within the State.” Selevan, 470 F.Supp.2d at 172. We disagree. First, as noted, each plaintiff alleged that he or she paid the Grand Island Bridge toll as part of a trip to another state, where each engaged in shopping and other commercial activities. See J .A. 164-65 (Am.Compl.¶¶ 5-6). Moreover, that plaintiffs may not have crossed into another state immediately upon paying the toll is of no importance; the critical inquiry in our jurisprudence is whether the toll in some way affects interstate commerce.
Importantly, the court also rejected the argument that interstate commerce was not burdened, explaining:
NYTA's argument that “the 75-cent general toll did not impose any cognizable burden on interstate commerce,” Appellee's Br. 24, is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality, 511 U.S. 93, 114 S.Ct. 1345, 128 L.Ed.2d 13 (1994). In that case, the Court rejected the argument that a surcharge of $2.25 per ton of solid waste generated outside of the state was too minimal an amount to be discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause. See id. at 100 n. 4. The Court reasoned that “the degree of a differential burden or charge on interstate commerce ‘measures only the extent of the discrimination’ and ‘is of no relevance to the determination whether a State has discriminated against interstate commerce.’ “ Id. (quoting Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 455, 112 S.Ct. 789, 117 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992)). Here too, the toll differential speaks to the extent of the alleged discrimination, rather than to the presence of a violation. Because this case comes before us following a decision on a motion to dismiss, we need only consider whether the complaint alleges a plausible claim that the regulation violates the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. Whether the 75-cent toll is actually a burden on interstate commerce is a question left for later proceedings.
We'll have to keep an eye on where this goes now that the case is back in the hands of the District Court.

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, October 26, 2009

Monday Musings on Sports - Keeping Faith in your pitchers and others

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.

While in shul last shabbos I listened (in the hall during kiddush) to a worry wart Yankee fan complain about how Joe Girardi had "cost" the Yankees two games by lifting pitchers too early. He then made reference to the infamous Grady Little move with Pedro Martinez in 2003 and how no one was perfect as Mike Scioscia had lifted John Lackey too early in Game 5 of the ALCS (although the Angels did win that game). Although his point was either that no one's manager is pefect in taking their pitcher's temperature or that Joe Girardi should be fired if the Yankees did not win the ALCS. I am actually still not sure that he did not mean both, but nervous Yankees fans can be that way - either arrogant or pessimistic and sometimes both at the same time.

The conversation about having faith in your pitcher made me think of a vort I heard before shabbos from the Rabbi Frand shiur that I downloaded from the Yad Yechiel website on Friday afternoon (I missed the live Thursday Night shiur as they do not have a broadcast in the Utica area, but that was the topic of yesterday's post). Rabbi Frand asked about Noach - how could he have spent 120 years building the ark and have been mikarev no one? When repeating the vort to my friend R' Yitz R., he mentioned in the name of R' Jonathan Sacks that the parsha does not indicate Noach ever said a word to anyone. If this is the case how could he have succeeded?

R' Frand answered the question by citing to R' Meir Schapiro who opined that Noach did not believe that the people of his generation could be saved and would be willing to do teshuva. This is the reason that Hashem's sign to the world that he would never again flood the earth was the rainbow. After a period of darkness and heavy rain, the clouds break and when the sun hits the water in the air there is a beautiful rainbow. Hashem tells Noach that the people may be dark and the world may be surrounded by terrible darkness, but there is a hope for a bright future as people are not beyond redemption and every person has an internal divine spark which is capable of doing good.

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, October 25, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - Saranac Maple Porter




This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at one of the newest offerings from Saranac - the Saranac Maple Porter.

I first experienced the Saranac Maple Porter last Thursday evening at an event at the FX Matt Brewery in Utica, NY, designed to introduce this year's 12 Beers of Winter. I had previously received an email from Saranac advising that they were planning a 12 Beers of Winter preview and inviting me to attend. I was hesitant at first, but then I got the follow up invitation whereby they offered to put Sarah and I up in a hotel. I knew that if I could convince Mrs Kosher Beers to come it would be an incredible experience. And it was.

Let me first take a step back and talk a little about Saranac and the FX Matt Brewery. Frequent readers of this blog may realize that the FX Matt Brewery has made a commitment to producing kosher products. All beers - including the bottled versions of Brooklyn Brewery (12oz bottles only) Lake Placid, Pete's Wicked and Saranac are under supervision. The sodas produced by Saranac and now a new line of organic sparkling juices are also under kashruth supervision. I hope in the next few weeks to be able to announce a new line of beers produced at the plant which are under hashgacha, however I have not yet seen the LOC.

Late Thursday afternoon we arrived at the Brewery and met the marketing, promotions and management teams. After a quick beer in the tavern (I chose a Pale Ale draft, while Sarah tried the Big Moose Ale) it was off for a brewery tour given by the owners of the Brewery - Fred and Nick Matt. The tour was quite extensive and educational and gave an insight into the brew process and the company's involvement with the community.

As part of the tour, we were given an opportunity to taste fresh unfiltered Saranac straight from the tank - I chose the IPA and it was the smoothest, creamiest IPA I had ever tasted.



After the tour ended, the Saranac people hosted a sit down tasting dinner with the various courses meant to accompany the flavors of the new winter beer line. Since our hosts at Saranac (Megan and Ryan in particular) did not want us to feel left out, we were provided with Noah's Ark (a kosher restaurant in Teaneck NJ which specializes in kosher travel meals) courses which were similar to the dishes being served to the rest of the diners.

The beers themselves were great and I hope to review them over the next few months. Tonight I would like to review the one my wife liked the best - the Saranac Maple Porter.

In Sarah's words - this would be a great beer to have on pancakes. No, she is not pregnant (as far as I know) but the beer is a sweet tasting brew which rivals dessert wines. It has a sweetness from the maple additive, little bitterness but an underlying alcohol bite that lets you know its not soda. Sarah prepared apple kugel muffins which we ate with the beer and the sweetness of the apples and almond in the muffin (Fred's wife correctly identified the ingredients when she sampled one of the muffins) were a perfect pairing with the beer.

Saranac Maple Porter 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 Maple Porter, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/99/53203.

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, October 20, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 60

Bava Basra 60 is the last daf of Chezkas Habatim and draws together issues of the use of common areas with aggadita on the Churban. I would like to spend a few moments discussing some points our daf yomi group found interesting tonight.

The second mishna on 60a discusses whether a person who owns property which abuts the public domain (rishus harabim) can have projections from his building into the public domain. The mishna states unequivocally that the public areas cannot be impeded, but that a person can tear down part of his building and then rebuild it in deeper within his property, thus allowing for a protrusion without reaching the public domain.

The gemara then asks on 60b, what happens if the person made the suggested reduction and then never built the protrusion? The Rashbam elaborates on the question - does this mean that he has lost the power to do so at present as the public has now taken over this portion of the property?

Since my group tonight was half lawyers, we recalled the story told in law school about a particular street in Rockefeller Center which is closed one day a year so that it does not become a "public street."

Later on 60b, the gemara takes on a three weeks' tone in discussing various acts which are zecher l'churban. These include ashes on the forehead of the groom, leaving a square amah near the door of the home unfinished and not completing meal preparations (although I know of no one who ever made casa d'harsana).

As part of this discussion, the gemara recounts a story involving R' Yehoshua and a group of people who decided that they would take on additional restrictions of never eating meat or drinking wine as their own zecher l'churban. R' Yehoshua talked them out of this by showing them they would have nothing to subsist on, since bread is made of flour and flour was offered in the beis hamikdash and water would also be banned since there were water libations.

Tosafos (d'h Mayim) asks why the people did not answer R' Yehoshua that they could drink water from cisterns as only mayim chayim was used in the Temple. Tosafos answers that any thing which was the same kind as the item used in the Temple would have fallen within this prohibition, for if not, the people would have been able to drink yayin mevushal and this was one of the first things that they prohibited to themselves.

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, October 19, 2009

Monday's Musings on Sports - Angels & Yankees, Cain & Abel and Just Being Yourself

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 while I was driving in the car I heard a discussion on the Michael Kay show about the proper makeup of the Yankee playoff roster for the ALCS. Unlike many of the newspaper columnists and sports radio jocks, Michael Kay stated that he did not think that the Yankees should abandon their power roster and activate more speed players. [Ed note, they did anyway but the jury is still out since the series is only 2-1 in their favor]. Kay talked about how the Yankee game all year had been to win with power as they had hit a team record number of HRs in the regular season. He was unenthusiastic about the numerous suggestions to carry lighter hitting speedier players over sluggers. Point blank, he thought that the speed game was the Angels team strategy and that the Yankees should try to beat the Angels by being the Yankees, not another version of the Angels.

As I was listening to the show, I thought about a vort I had just heard the night before from Rabbi Frand, but had been unable to summarize due to time constraints. As usual, the world of sports had a link to Torah, but I just needed to save it until Monday.

Rabbi Frand (quoting the Paneach Razeh - a sefer I am unfamiliar with) commented on the seemingly odd sequence of the pesukim in Bereishis. In 4:1, the Torah states that Cain was born first and that Chava remarked upon Cain's birth that she had acquired a man with Hashem (Kanisi Ish Es Hashem). The next pasuk states that Abel was born, but then in listing their occupations, the Torah gives Abel's job as shepherd before Cain's of a farmer.

The Paneach Razeh commented that Chava did not want Cain to work at all, her intentions were for him to become an eved Hashem, much like the position that the bechor occupied in the midbar before the jobs was given to the Kohanim. Cain however saw that Abel had become a successful shepherd and as such he wanted a job too. Abel then found work as a farmer. However, since Abel found his employment first, the Torah listed the jobs in the order they were chosen.

Rabbi Frand then quoted a gemara in Berachos (one of the margilah b'pumah statements) - I am a man and my friend is a man. I work in the city and he works in the field. He gets up to go to work and I get up to go to work. Just as he does not try to do my job, I do not try to do his.

What can we learn from this pearl from Berachos? People need to understand that their abilities may cause them to be better suited for certain types of work and they should not be jealous of and try to perform someone else's job task they are not suited for. [It reminds of the old lawyer joke - if I knew math I would not have gone to law school].

This was Cain's major stumbling block - he was suited to be an eved Hashem, but desired to have an occupation like his brother. When he was unable to succeed in this endeavor and offered mediocre produce as a sacrifice to Hashem, he quickly learned that his brother's offering was superior, causing him to become even more jealous of Abel.

So should the Yankees have tried to be like the Angels or stay Yankees? We know Michael Kay's answer.

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, October 18, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - Saranac Octoberfest Lager


This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Saranac's seasonal offering - Saranac Octoberfest Lager.

People tend to favor certain types of beer depending on the season, lighter beers during the summer months, heartier beers during the cold winter months. However in the fall the breweries roll out beers specific to the month of October - the Octoberfest brews. As explained by the experts at beer advocate:

Before refrigeration, it was nearly impossible to brew beer in the summer due to the hot weather and bacterial infections. Brewing ended with the coming of spring, and began again in the fall. Most were brewed in March (Märzen). These brews were kept in cold storage over the spring and summer months, or brewed at a higher gravity, so they’d keep. Märzenbier is full-bodied, rich, toasty, typically dark copper in color with a medium to high alcohol content.

The common Munich Oktoberfest beer served at Wies'n (the location at which Munich celebrates its Oktoberfest) contains roughly 5.0-6.0% alcohol by volume, is dark/copper in color, has a mild hop profile and is typically labeled as a Bavarian Märzenbier in style.

The Saranac Octoberfest presents as a slightly lighter version of the Octoberfest style. It has the deep rich color of the brew and little hop bitterness, but is not as rich as other Octoberfests and while it has a listed alcohol content of 5.4% abv, the alcohol content does not really reach the palate.

I enjoyed my Octobefest this evening with falafel and while this was certainly not the combination intended by the 16th century germanic tribes, I found the beer's clean crispness and slight bite a perfect companion to the cilantro infused chick pea sandwich.

Saranac Octoberfest 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 Octoberfest lager, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/99/1522.

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, October 15, 2009

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits

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.

There is a famous medrash linking Adam HaRishon and Dovid HaMelech. The medrash states that Adam was shown all the generations until the end of time. During this view he saw the neshama of Dovid and that he was destined to live only three hours on this earth. Adam then said to Hashem - this special person - why is he to live such a short time? Hashem responded to Adam - this is my plan. Adam then asked Hashem how long Adam was supposed to live and Hashem responded -1000 years. Adam then asked (and Hashem agreed) that Adam could give 70 years of his life to David.

Rabbi Frand asked the question - why did Adam only give life to Dovid? Surely there must have been other people who Dovid saw who were destined to live short lives, despite their greatness. Why didn't Adam give (for example) thirty years to someone else?

Rabbi Frand answered the question by citing the Arizal who explained that Dovid was the gilgul (reincarnation) of Adam. Hashem had originally told Adam that if he ate from the etz ha'daas he would die the same day. However, after Adam ate from the fruit, Hashem relented and allowed Adam to live, albeit with punishments we still carry to this day.

Adam looked at Dovid and saw that Hashem was going to inflict Adam's punishment on Dovid because Dovid was Adam's gilgul. As Adam did not die the day he ate from the tree, Dovid, who was Adam's gilgul, was going to receive the punishment as he would die the day he was born. Having done teshuva for his act and feeling guilty that Hashem was going to punish Dovid for his sin, Adam asked Hashem to intervene and allow him to give 70 of the years of his life to Dovid so that Dovid would not die the day he was born.

Rabbi Frand said over one other thought at the end of the shiur in relation to his recent trip to Panama City. He said that since his childhood he was always fascinated by the Panama Canal and this gave him an opportunity to observe it in person. Rabbi Frand then explained in layman's terms how the canal works. First a ship enters from one ocean and travels into a lock. As the lock fills with water, the ship is raised until it can be passed to the next lock where it will rise or drop based on the water which fills the man made lake.

Rabbi Frand commented that the ships passing through the canal were massive in size, including one that held 5000 containers. The price for the canal passage - $200,000.

Rabbi Frand drew from this experience a greater appreciation for Torah. If water can cause a massive ship carrying 5000 containers to raise based solely on the power of water to create buoyancy, how great is the power of Torah which water is compared to.

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, October 13, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 53

Bava Basra 53 continues with the discussion of what type of overt act of chazakah must be performed in order to indicate dominion over property. While the gemara at the top of 53a continues the prior discussion in relation to transactions or gifts, I would like to briefly focus on the acquisition of ownerless property which is discussed on 53b.

On Bava Basra 53b, the gemara talks about the acquisition of ownerless land which had formerly belonged to a convert who died childless and as a result has no inheritors. Some of the cases discussed include two pieces of property which are side by side with a border in between them and whether a person can acquire all the property by performing an act of chazakah on one piece (with the intention of acquiring everything) or by performing an act of chazkah on the border fence in an attempt to acquire the entire property.

A later example of chazakah were more interesting to me. This dealt with a field which was ownerless (due to the death of the convert without any next of kin) and a person came along and built a home there, but did not put doors on the building. Another person then came and installed the doors. R' Nachman taught in the name of Rabbah Bar Avuha that the person who put the doors on acquires the property. The Rashbam explains that the building of the house without putting on doors is not an act of building, since without the installation of the doors, anyone can access the property. He then clarifies that the beginning of the building process is not what creates the chazakah, it is the completion.

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, October 11, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - Killian's Irish Red


This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Killian's Irish Red lager.

Last week I was asked to bring beer to a kiddush. While I am usually reticent to do so, certain circumstances which I cannot divulge required that I comply. As such, I was stuck in a bit of quandary - what do I bring to a kiddush that people will drink, but is still a quality brew that beer drinkers will enjoy?

So I went to my favorite beer store on Thursday night with a game plan...and came out with a case of Killian's Irish Red lager. Yes, its a lager and its brewed by a macrobrewer (surprise Killian's Irish Red is brewed by Coors). Still it has some maltiness and toasted grain flavors in the brew and would be more acceptable to those who know beer than say MGD or the Silver Bullet.

Surprisingly, the Killian's went over quite well at the kiddush. Quite a few people commented that they had never tried it before, but would be picking it up in the future. It went quite well with cholent and potato kugel, although it was not a good combo with chopped liver. In truth, I am not certain which beer if any goes with chopped liver - maybe a schwarzbier?

Killian's Irish Red is certified kosher by the Orthodox Union, as is every other beer produced by Coors.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Killian's Irish Red, please follow this link - http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/306/909. 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!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol LII

After a brief hiatus, Wednesday's Weird (but true) legal case review returns with a look at the Appellate Division's decision in the lawsuit over Dan Rather's employment with CBS.

In Rather v. CBS Corp, both Rather and CBS appealed decisions from the Supreme Court, New York County which dismissed some of Rather's claims against CBS, but permitted others to go forward. The underlying controversy arose in relation to a September 8, 2004 broadcast that Rather narrated on the CBS 60 Minutes II television program about then President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. As explained by the court:

Rather alleges that CBS disavowed the broadcast after it was attacked by Bush supporters, and fraudulently induced him to apologize personally for the broadcast on national television as well as to remain silent as to his belief that the broadcast was true. Rather alleges that, following President Bush's re-election, CBS informed him that he would be removed as anchor of the CBS Evening News. Rather claims that although his employment agreement required that, in the event he was removed as anchor, CBS would make him a regular correspondent on 60 Minutes or immediately pay all amounts due under the agreement and release him to work elsewhere, CBS kept him on the payroll while denying him the opportunity to cover important news stories until May 2006 when it terminated his contract, effective June 2006.
In decisions dated April 11, 2008 and September 25, 2008, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Rather's claims for fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contract, and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

In relation to the lower court's refusal to dismiss the breach of contract claim, the Appellate Division stated:

At the outset, we find that Supreme Court erred in declining to dismiss Rather's breach of contract claim against CBS. Rather alleges that he delivered his last broadcast as anchor of the CBS Evening News on March 9, 2005, and that, since he was only nominally assigned to 60 Minutes II and then 60 Minutes, he should have received the remainder of his compensation under the agreement in March 2005. Rather claims that, in effect, CBS "warehoused" him, and that, when he was finally terminated and paid in June 2006, CBS did not compensate him for the 15 months "when he could have worked elsewhere." This claim attempts to gloss over the fact that Rather continued to be compensated at his normal CBS salary of approximately $6 million a year until June 2006 when the compensation was accelerated upon termination, consistent with his contract.
The appellate court also rejected the claim for lost business opportunities, stating:

Rather's claim for lost business opportunities due to CBS's failure to release him to seek other employment is insufficiently supported. Since, according to Rather's own allegations, an immediate result of the September 8, 2004 broadcast was criticism that he was biased against Bush, it would be speculative to conclude that any action taken by CBS would have alone substantially affected his market value at that time. Rather's claim for damages for loss of reputation arising from the alleged breach of contract is not actionable.

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, October 6, 2009

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Bava Basra 46

Bava Basra 46 contains a gemara which seems to be straight out of a "sitcom." In the middle of 46a, the gemara answers the question - what do you do if the item you bring home from the tailor turns out to belong to someone else? Can you use the shirt, or do you have wait for the proper owner to turn up and (hopefully) switch it out with yours?

The gemara answers that the shirt can be used by the recipient, although if the same kind of item was switched at a beis avel (mourner's house) or a dining hall, the recipient cannot use the item and must wait until he gets his back from the other person.

The gemara quotes Rav Chiya who clarifies that the reason that the tailor is treated differently is that it is possible that he was given a shirt to sell and by accident he sold yours instead. Since the owner of the shirt wanted it sold, he would have no problem with the tailor giving it to you, therefore the recipient can use it. This is later qualified as the gemara relates that if the item is given to you by the tailor's wife or child you may not use the item since its possible that the tailor's family member got confused (or in modern parlance "switched the tickets").

I have not seen modern shaa'los u'teshuvos about this question, but I am sure they must exist...

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, October 4, 2009

Sunday Night Suds - Samuel Adams Coastal Wheat



Tonight's Sunday Night Suds looks at one of the newest offerings from Samuel Adams - the Coastal Wheat Ale.

When out shopping for kiddush worthy alcohol (yes Kosher Beers will drink single malts as well) I came across the Samuel Adams Coastal Wheat in the front of the display rack at Binny's in Skokie. As with most Samuel Adams brews, the Coastal Wheat did not have a Star-K on the label. I vaguely remembered seeing something like the Coastal Wheat on the LOC, so I called Sarah and asked her to check the link to the Samuel Adams LOC on this website. Sure enough, it was listed, so of course I had to buy it.

I then had second thoughts - did I really have to buy it? The six pack case indicated that it was beer brewed with coastal lemons from Oregon. Sometimes the lemon additive comes out right like the Saranac Summer Ale or the Samuel Adams Summer Ale. Other times fruit additives can be over the top and near undrinkable like the Saranac Summer Brew (lethal mixture of lemonade and lager), Samuel Adams Cherry Wheat (Cherry flavor + Wheat beer = Robitussin in a 12 oz bottle).

Since I did not find anything else of interest to me in the store, I picked up a sixer of the Coastal Wheat along with a six pack of the Shiner Commemorator as a back up. After proper refrigeration I popped one open during our first YT afternoon meal in the sukkah. The beer poured a dark yellow hefeweizen color and had a faint aroma of lemons. Despite the aroma, the beer was not overly sweet as the Sam Adams people seem to have used more lemon peel than fruit in their flavoring.

The Coastal Wheat was a great accompaniment to sweet kugel and poultry and would also work as a palate cleanser between fish and meat. I don't know if I would have one with heavy meat dishes. Must do more research...

Samuel Adams Coastal Wheat is under the Kosher Supervision of the Star-K. However, this is yet another Samuel Adams brew which does not have the certification mark on the label. If you would like to verify that the Coastal Wheat is on the LOC issued by the Star-K, please click here http://www.star-k.org/loc/kosher_letter_6635_bostonbeercompany.pdf.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about the Coastal Wheat, please follow this link - http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/52633 . Oddly, this beer is so new that it is not even featured on the Samuel Adams website.

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!