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.

The end of Parshas Emor contains a discussion of the mikallel - one who curses G-d. The Torah recites at Vayikra 24:10 that a man who was the son of a Jewish woman "went out" and cursed Hashem. Rashi asks where did the mikallel go out from? Rashi answers by citing R' Brachya (as recited in the medrash) who states that the man went out from viewing the Lechem HaPanim - the "shewbread" (described above at Vayikra 24:5-9). The man expressed skepticism - a king should eat fresh baked bread daily, how is that Hashem has bread which sits before him for up to nine days after it was baked? Since the mikallel could not understand ,he wound up cursing Hashem.

The Imrei Emes (Gerrer Rebbi) asks - how can the mikallel have questioned the Lechem HaPanim as being stale, old bread? The bread was miraculous as it stayed fresh and warm the entire time that it was on the table. Indeed, we learn from the the Gemara in Chaggiga that when those who had been oleh regel to Yerushalayim 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. 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.

In light of the above - how do we understand the confusion of the mikallel which led him to ultimately curse Hashem?

The Imrei Emes answers that the Lechem HaPanim was given that name because it reflected the views of the person who looked at it. Rabbi Frand quoted a pasuk in Mishlei which states "Kamayim panim l'panim, ken lev ha'adam l'adam" - translated as - like the water of the face to the face, so too is the heart of a man to a man. Rabbi Frand explained that the way a person looks at another person, that person will look back at him. If a person scowls or looks skeptically at another, that person will return the look or the feeling which was emoted.

In the same way, the Lechem HaPanim would reflect back the look of the person who gazed at it. If the person looked at the Lechem HaPanim in awe (like the oleh regel) the Lechem HaPanim would appear to be the miracle that it was. However, if a person looked at the Lechem HaPanim skeptically, it would reflect back as stale old bread.

This mikallel could not understand the miracle of the Lechem HaPanim and was in all likelihood frustrated by the reverence shown by all of the other Jews to the bread. This frustration was only amplified when he looked at the bread skeptically and it only appeared to him to be old bread.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ 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 - Are Banks Truly Exempt From Criminal Usury

This week's weird but true legal case looks at the question of when a bank can be exempted from New York's criminal usury laws.

I can recall from my early days in the trenches of the District Courts of Nassau County, well before the great recession and credit crunch, listening to a pro se individual arguing that it was unfair that his credit card issuer was exempt from New York's criminal usury laws merely because it claimed to be from South Dakota.

For those of you who may be unaware, under New York Penal Law sec 190.40, it is illegal to charge interest in excess of 25%. Although this law may have been useful to prevent loansharking, it has proved useless to prevent consumers from being subjected to incomprehensible interest rates charged by the big banks. This is because the large banks claim to be national banks and therefore exempt from the local usury laws.

In Citibank v. Hansen, 2010 WL 1641151 (Dist Nass Cty Apr 23, 2010) a pro se defendant challenged his bank's assessment of a 29.99% interest rate based on his default in payment on a credit line.

As noted by Judge Ciaffa in his decision:

The monthly statements sent to defendant regarding his “CitiFlex Line” account advised him that the annual percentage rate of interest on the account could be increased if he failed to make certain required monthly payments toward his indebtedness.But there is nothing in the papers submitted that explains why Citibank should be entitled to a monetary judgment that includes interest rates and fees that significantly exceed New York's criminal usury rate of 25% (P.L. § 190.40), and which effectively double the permissible civil rate on loans and debts subject to New York law. Are such otherwise “usurious” interest charges properly recoverable in a District Court proceeding brought by a national bank against a New York resident debtor?

In framing the issue before the Court, Judge Ciaffa noted Citibank's status as a national bank, but noted that:

a national bank's right to exceed this state's usury limits is not established simply by alleging its status as a “national bank.” Instead, under applicable provisions of federal law, a greater showing is required. At a minimum, the bank must demonstrate, through proof in admissible form, that at least one significant non-ministerial action associated with the account took place in the bank's “home state.”

After a discussion of the relevant state and federal banking laws as applied by the Federal Courts, Judge Ciaffa observed that:

the issue presented, here, is whether Citibank has, indeed, so structured its affairs. The Court shares the concerns expressed by several of my fellow judges as to whether national banks and other credit card issuers have been literally following the letter of the law, or have been abusing it for their enrichment at the expense of our state's citizens.

After reviewing the evidence presented by Citibank, Judge Ciaffa refused to grant judgment applying the 29.99% interest rate as Citibank had failed to demonstrate that it had performed non-ministerial acts from its "home state" of South Dakota.

[I wonder if there is a CitiField (home of the NY Mets) or Citibank Park (home of the Long Island Ducks) in South Dakota].

You can find the decision here http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20144.htm .

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ 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 - Sanhedrin 74

Sanhedrin 74 is a classic daf which brings together topics which are known to people from all levels of Jewish education. There is a discussion of the "big three" - the rules which can never be broken even to save a life - adultery, taking a life and idolatry. There is also a discussion about how Queen Esther allowed herself to be with King Ahasveros and multiple levels of question on the question itself.

Although all of the above topics are deep and worthy of discussion, the lawyer in me actually was more interested in a minor point which was raised by the gemara in talking about rodef.

Simply stated, the law of rodef states that if you see someone chasing another in order to kill him, you may kill the rodef to prevent him from killing the other person (yes the gemara contemplates that if you can "wing" the attempted murderer you should do so).

What piqued my interest was the "collateral damage" portion of the discussion. Rava states that if a rodef is chasing someone and that person breaks objects to evade the rodef, the person being chased is absolved from compensating the rodef if he was the owner of the objects, but would have to make restitution to a third party, because he is making use of the third party's items to save his life.

The gemara then follows with a discussion as to someone who is chasing after the rodef to prevent him from killing another. While in the process, the chattels are broken. The gemara states that the person chasing the rodef does not have to pay for the objects, whether they are owned by the rodef, the person being chased or a third party. The gemara then observes that this is not a true rule of law, but rather that a court must absolve him of making payment because otherwise the person would not attempt to intervene to stop the rodef from killing. Thus the first "good samaritan law" was born.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Monday's Musings on Sports - Of Sacrifices and Sickos

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. Although Max resigned from 1050 almost one year ago, I have tried to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

This past weekend saw the unofficial start to the 2010 NFL Season. I say that because as one General Manager said on the Mike and Mike in the Morning show a few years ago - the next football season starts the day after the Super Bowl. Obviously, the general public is not privy to the post Super Bowl planning (for obvious reasons). Indeed, to many the football season does not begin until the start of training camp or the first preseason game in August. However, those who are a little more football oriented begin to pay closer attention at draft time -- when we recall our team's weaknesses from the prior year and hope that the needs will be addressed in the draft.

This year the NFL turned the draft into a three day long dog and pony show. While the draft used to be a one day affair, the NFL chose to stage it over three days, including having the first round in prime time on Thursday night. This was actually quite beneficial to me, since the Jets were picking 29th and by the time they picked I had already gotten home from the Rabbi Frand shiur.

When the draft eventually ends there are always two types of stories which make the headlines. One of these stories usually involves a player who came from a poor upbringing and now that he has made it big he will buy a house, car (small island?) for his family. The other type of story involves a collegiate athlete who was not taken in the draft due to various reasons (injury, failed drug test, etc...). Occasionally, an undrafted player will make an NFL roster either as a free agent or after performing exceptionally in a secondary league (AFL, XFL, CFL), but usually things don't turn out well for those people as undrafted players rarely become NFL stars.

On Sunday night a story broke about Scott Sicko (yes that really is his name - here is a link to an article about him http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Scott-Sicko-will-take-his-ball-and-go-home?urn=nfl,236491). Scott had decided that since he was not drafted by any NFL team, he would pursue a post graduate degree in history. In so doing, Scott turned down a few teams who tried to get him to join as an undrafted free agent. To me, Scott's act of declining the offer indicated one of two things: (1) that he was unwilling to make the sacrifice required of undrafted free agents who are generally cannon fodder in training camp, or (2) that he was willing to sacrifice the dream of an NFL career in order to move on with his life.

The varying perspectives on what constitutes a sacrifice reminded of a vort which I heard from Rabbi Mansour on the two goats which are offered on Yom Kippur. The Torah teaches us that on Yom Kippur, the kohain gadol took two goats and held a lottery. One goat was sacrificed on the altar in the Beis Hamikdash. The other goat (the seir l'azazel) was taken to a mountain and thrown off a cliff.

R' Mansour cited R' Shimshon Rafael Hirsch who theorized what the seir l'azazel was thinking during this process. The goat sees the lottery and thinks - there must be a winner and a loser. He then sees that the other goat is slaughtered, flayed, dismembered and finally burnt on the altar. The seir l'azazel thinks - I must be the winner of this lottery.

Not long after the other goat is brought as a sacrifice, the seir l'azazel is led out of the Beis Hamikdash with an entourage in tow. He is accompanied out of Yerushalayim and up a mountain which allows him to see the whole city. The goat now thinks to himself - I really am the winner in this lottery. Of course this is the last thing that the goat thinks before he tumbles down the mountain to his death.

R' Mansour then connected the two goats to people's perspectives on Judaism. To an outsider, a religious Jew seems to be the one making sacrifices - he can't eat whatever he wants. He can't work on Saturday. He has to get up early and go to prayers every morning.

However, the religious Jew does not feel that he is making sacrifices. Instead he recognizes the value of his actions and sees the positive that comes from the "sacrifice." By way of example, when I was in my first year of law school everyone studied until late into the night every night as we were competing for grades on the bell curve. A classmate once remarked to me - I'm jealous of you that you have shabbos when you are not killing yourself to study. This still holds true today as I value my shabbos and look forward to its coming as I know that I won't be working that day. Is it a sacrifice not to work on shabbos? Or is everyone else worse off for not having one? Its all a matter of perspective.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Sunday Night Suds - Kirkland Signature German Style Lager

This week's belated Sunday Night Suds review looks at Kirkland's Signature German Style Lager. (More on the reason for the tardiness of the column at the bottom of the post).

I tried this beer last night with some take out Japanese food (yes there are kosher Japanese restaurants, but you need to go to Brooklyn or Manhattan to find them). Although Costco classifies this as a "German Style" lager, I could not tell from the taste which of the various styles of German beers they were trying to imitate. The BA website lists thirteen different kinds of German lagers including: Bock, Dopplebock, Eisbock, Helles Lager, Dunkel Lager, Oktoberfest, Rauchbier, Schwarzbier and Vienna Lager, all of which I have tasted and most of which I have reviewed on the blog.

The BA website classifies the German Style Lager as a Marzen/Oktoberfest although I don't have a clue why. The beer was not brewed in March (maybe I'm being too critical) but it also does not taste like an Oktoberfest either.

So what did the beer taste like? Not much, I'm afraid. The beer poured an orange color with a small amount of foam on top. The beer did not taste of hops or malts and was rather thin on body. Maybe that's why they called it a lager as opposed to the other three ales which come in the 24 count mix box.

Kirkland Signature German Style Lager is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit and bears the Va'ad logo on the bottom right corner of the front label. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Kirkland Signature German Style Lager, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/21516/48521.

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, the reason for the lateness of the this post is that I was present at an OU program this evening where there was a panel of mashgichim who spoke on various topics. Yes, there was a mashgiach who spoke on beer (thank you Rabbi M for alerting me to this program). I spoke with the mashgiach and found to my delight that there will soon be a large block of micro and macros beers which will be under hashgacha. As soon as I have confirmation as to their kashrus I will release the list on the site.

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

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Acharei Mos - Kedoshim

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

Parshas Acahrei Mos is perhaps most well known for being read on Yom Kippur, as the beginning of the parsha contains a description of the avodah performed by the kohain gadol on Yom Kippur. However, the parsha does not begin with Moshe instructing Aharon on the laws of the avodah (this comes in the second pasuk). Instead the parsha recites that Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of two of Aharon's sons who had died after they came close to Hashem.

Rashi asks - why is the avodah is prefaced with the mentioning of the death of Aharon's sons. Rashi answers by citing to R' Elazar Ben Azaryah who compares it to a doctor who warns a patient - don't eat cold food or sleep in a damp place, while another is warned that he should not do the same since "so and so died" when he ignored those instructions. The second warning is clearly more efficacious as it is linked to the threat of death - so too Hashem links this to the death of Aharon's sons so that he is aware that he should not enter the kodesh hakadashim in an improper manner.

Rabbi Frand then asked - but the reasons for Aharon's sons' deaths were inapplicable to Aharon. It is explained that they died because they took an aish zara - a foreign fire, or because they refused to marry or have children. These were not issues for Aharon!

Rabbi Frand answered by citing the sefer Tiferes L'Shlomo who writes that they died "b'karvasam lifnei Hashem" when they attempted to draw close to Hashem. The problem with their actions was they wanted to chart their own course as to how to come close to Hashem and not through the norms which applied to everyone else. They saw the fire was to come from the outer mizbeyach which belonged to the commoners, but they did not want to be like everyone else and instead they brought their own fire. They also chose not to marry or have children as this was like everyone else and they felt that they could come closer to Hashem by not being like the proletariat.

Hashem's message to Aharon was don't be like Nadav and Avihu because the kohain gadol comes to the kodesh hakadashim one time per year - as the emissary of the nation. The reason that the kohain gadol comes into the kodesh hakadashim on Yom Kippur is that the Jews have become pure through their day of fasting and deprivation and this enables him to enter the holiest place on Earth.

Rabbi Frand then quoted to a gemara in Yoma which recites that when the kohain gadol left the kodesh hakadashim he would say a short prayer. The prayer included three elements: (1) that the Jews should never be subservient or beholden to an outside nation; (2) the Jewish people should always have parnassah and won't need to be dependent one on the other for financial support, and (3) that Hashem should not accept the prayers of the travelers on the road.

The obvious question is why the kohain gadol lumps in the pedestrian (no pun intended) third request with the other two lofty prayers?

Rabbi Frand answered by quoting the sefer Bei Chiyah who cites the sefer Divrei Yechezkel on Tehillim. The Divrei Yechezkel notes that Tehillim contains the sentence "Rachok M'Yishuasi Divrei Sha'agasi" - far from salvation are the words I am crying for. This is a lesson that people often times cry out for things that they don't really need when there are more pressing or urgent things to daven for. People may not understand what it is that they truly need and instead make minor things the focus of their tefillos. When the kohain gadol davens after he has left the kodesh hakadashim he is asking Hashem to ignore the trivial aspects of the prayers and give the Jews what they really need.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ 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 - Sanhedrin 67

Sanhedrin 67 continues the discussion of acts which earn the death penalty under Jewish law. I would like to focus on one of the actors in this post.

It is well established in halacha that for the purposes of testimony in court, there is a requirement that two witnesses must observe the act for which the testimony is offered. Additionally, there is a general principle that a person who is subject to the death penalty must have been warned by the witnesses prior to his actions.

With these concepts in mind lets look at the mishna on Sanhedrin 67a. The mishna first discusses a meysis - a person who attempts to convince others to worship idols. The mishna states that while all other types of actors who are subjected to the death penalty cannot be entrapped, the meysis can be entrapped. The mishna offers the example of a meysis who has made his incriminatory statement in front of one witness. Since the meysis cannot be put to death based on the testimony of only one witness, the witness then sets up the meysis by hiding additional witnesses behind a fence. The witness then tells the meysis - repeat what you had said previously to me. Once the meysis has repeated his statement, the witness then states to the meysis - how can we abandon Hashem? If the meysis recants, then all is good. However if he continues to advocate for avodah zara he is taken out and killed.

Further down the daf, the gemara on Sanhedrin 67a repeats the above scenario with some minor differences. The original witness lures the meysis to a lit inner chamber and prearranges to have the additional witness observe from the dark outer room. Rashi explains that the witnesses need to actually see the meysis rather than just hear his testimony as otherwise he can argue that he was not the person who was overheard by the witnesses. The rest of the example mirrors the mishna's scenario as the witness gives the meysis the opportunity to recant and only if he continues to proselytize is he subjected to the death penalty.

During our daf session we debated whether the opportunity to recant was a type of due process protection where the meysis is at least forewarned that his speech was improper. The problem with this explanation is that the meysis is not given any form of warning prior to being subjected to the death penalty if he initially proselytizes before two witnesses.

One of the members of our group offered the explanation of the Yad Ramah (cited in an Artscroll footnote) that the meysis must initiate the topic of conversation in order to be subjected to the death penalty. As such, the single witness (after first evoking a repetition of the prior statement) opens the floor for a new statement by suggesting that the meysis should not act in this manner. When the meysis offers new argument, he has signed his own death warrant.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Monday Musings on Sports - We like Ike over Mike, but will Daniel take a hike?

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. Although Max resigned from 1050 almost one year ago, I have tried to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

Late this afternoon, the news came that the NY Mets has recalled prize first base prospect Ike Davis and that he would be starting for the Mets against the Cubs this evening. The story was not a big surprise as the Mets had announced on Sunday that they had designated Mike Jacobs for assignment. Perhaps the bigger surprise was that it took the Mets so long to make the move.

As masochists (read Mets fans) may recall, last year the Mets were forced to experiment with playing Daniel Murphy at first base after brittle Carlos Delgado went down for the final time (yes he is still saying that he will come back, but the man can't walk!). Murphy was not a natural first baseman and had come up through the Mets farm system as a third baseman, before making his major league debut as an outfielder.

Despite Murphy's history and largely because the Mets did not want to spend money on bringing in a free agent or absorbing a contract, the Mets auditioned Murphy at first base. Although his fielding was raw, he did add a bat to the lineup, so they kept him at the position for the year.

Fast forward to 2010 spring training and Ike Davis is tearing the cover off the ball. This thrills my family to no end as last summer on Camp M visiting day I took the kids to see the Binghamton Mets play at NYSEG stadium. We saw future Mets Ruben Tejada, Josh Thole and Ike Davis play along with some other prospects who may or may not pan out. I don't recall Davis hitting for power, but I do remember being impressed with his fielding.

Towards the end of spring training, Daniel Murphy was injured while running the bases and the media began clamoring for Ike to make the team. The Mets were not inclined to start the season with Davis on the major league squad and decided to send Davis down to AAA Buffalo. As such, the Mets began the season with a platoon of Mike Jacobs and Fernando Tatis as their first basemen. However, Jacobs did not begin the season well and the team decided to cut their losses by designating Jacobs for assignment.

While driving in the car this afternoon, I heard an interesting discussion between Brandon Tierney and Jody Mac as to what should happen to Ike Davis when Daniel Murphy returns from injury. (Great move adding Jody Mac to the BT show - listening to Tierney without a co-host is more painful than root canal without anesthesia).

The discussion between Tierney and Jody Mac focused on Ike's production and what he would need to do in order to keep the starting job on Murphy's return. However, the conversation on this show did not involve the old sports adage "you can't lose your job because of injury." The reason could be because Murphy has never distinguished himself, or because there have been so many Wally Pipp exceptions.

The aforementioned sports injury conversation always makes me think about the gemara in Yoma which discusses a kohain gadol (high priest) who is temporarily unable to serve. There are multiple reasons for this, including if he became unintentionally impure through exposure to a dead body, or his wife had passed away (he must be married to represent the tzibur on Yom Kippur). Since there must be a kohain gadol, there is another appointed to take his place. However, when the kohain gadol becomes eligible, what happens to the replacement? The gemara indicates that the substitute does not keep the job, nor does he return to his previous lower level of service. Instead he is continued to be treated with respect, while the former kohain gadol returns to his position.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Sunday Night Suds - Brooklyn Monster Ale

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Brooklyn Brewery's Monster Ale.

So what is a monster ale? No, to borrow a line from the Addams Family movie (circa 1991) it is not a beer brewed with real monsters. It is a very strong beer (alcohol 10.8% abv) brewed by Brooklyn Brewery in the English Barleywine style.

As defined by the good folks at BA, an English Barleywine is:

Lively and fruity, sometimes sweet, sometimes bittersweet, but always alcoholic. A brew of this strength and complexity can be a challenge to the palate. Expect anything from an amber to dark brown colored beer, with aromas ranging from intense fruits to intense hops. Body is typically thick, alcohol will definitely be perceived, and flavors can range from dominant fruits to palate smacking, resiny hops.

English varieties are quite different from the American efforts, what sets them apart is usually the American versions are insanely hopped to make for a more bitter and hop flavored brew, typically using American high alpha oil hops. English version tend to be more rounded and balanced between malt and hops, with a slightly lower alcohol content, though this is not always the case.

The Brooklyn Monster Ale is amber in color and has a good amount of froth which was retained in my glass for quite some time. The beer was thick with a taste of some fruit which barely was able to mask some of the alcohol flavor. Although Brooklyn call this an ale, I did not taste the hops at all.

What would I pair this beer with? I think that it would go well with fish, or even fruit. Yes, I know that it might sound odd, but think a very strong chardonnay and then try to pair it in your mind with grapes or pineapple or even peaches.

Of course you could just drink this on its own...

Brooklyn Monster Ale is under the Kosher Supervision of the Vaad of Detroit as are all beers brewed by Brooklyn in 12 oz bottles only. I am unaware of any large (magnum size) bottle of Brooklyn beer which are under kosher supervision.

For the experts' take on the Monster Ale please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/45/2231.

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, if you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Tazria Metzora

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

In Parshios Tazria and Metzora, the Torah goes into detail about various forms of tzara'as (loosely translated as leporosy) and how they are treated. The Torah writes about three categories of tzara'as - those occurring on houses, clothing and on the body.

Chazal write that the affliction is not a physical illness. Instead, it is a sign of a spiritual problem which manifests itself as a physical ailment. Rabbi Frand stated that the "disease" actually develops in stages - first on the home, then on the clothes and finally on the body.

In Vayikra 14:33-57, the Torah discusses the malady of tzara'as of the house. In so doing, the Torah states at 14:35 that the homeowner comes to the Kohain and tells him "K'nega Neera Li BaBayis" - like an affliction has appeared to me in the house.

Rashi (quoting a mishna in Negaim 12:5) writes that the person tells the Kohain that it appears to be a nega even if the homeowner is an expert in determining whether a spot is tzara'as.

Tosafos Yom Tov asks on the mishna in Negaim - if he is a talmid chacham, why does he not simply state - this is a nega?

Tosafos Yom Tov gives four answers. The first answer (said in the name of R' Eliyahu Mizrachi) is that a person should teach his tongue to say "I don't know" - that a person should not always believe that he knows it all. The second answer was that a person should show derech eretz to the Kohain. The third answer given is that the homeowner should not attempt to influence the Kohain's decision. The final answer given by the Tosafos Yom Tov is that the homeowner should not be "poteach peh l'satan" - not give the satan an opening to allow bad things to happen.

Rabbi Frand then asked two more questions. The first (in the name of the Tosafos Yom Tov) question was - why is this taught only in negai batim? The second question (which was asked in the name of the Tolner Rav) was why is this rule not equally applicable to other halachic questions? When a person asks his rav a shaila about kashrus or taharas hamishpacha, he is not prevented from giving his own opinion as part of the conversation!

The Tolner Rav answers the questions by explaining that the nega on the house is an indication that there is something wrong with the way that the children in the house are being raised. The Tolner Rav then teaches each of the Tosafos Yom Tov's four answers as applicable to this scenario.

The first cause of the nega could be because the parents give the impression that they know everything. Children should be taught that there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" and that their parents do not know everything.

The second possible cause of the nega could be because the parent does not show respect towards others who are lower in stature or intelligence. This is also not a proper atmosphere to raise children.

The third possible cause of the nega could be that the parents are too dominating in their personalities and they do not allow the children to grow and assert themselves.

The fourth possible cause of the nega could be that the parents are always looking at the negative possibility - assuming the worst and making the children feel that there is no hope -thus allowing their very fears to come true.

This is the reason that the lesson only appears by negai batim - because a person needs to know that he must carefully examine the education of the children in the home.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Monday Musings on Sports - Life Lessons Learned from Golf

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. Although Max resigned from 1050 almost one year ago, I have tried to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

As a prelude to this blog post, I must reaffirm that I still agree with Max that golf is not truly a sport. I do not form this belief because of Max's rationale that golf is "a culture of the sewer" because it is racist and exclusionary. My belief springs from the fact that there is no athleticism involved in golf, since other than the first shot off the tee, the remainder of golf is like billiards, but played outside.

Leaving aside the question of whether golf is a sport, this past weekend's drama at the Masters taught a valuable lesson. When the tournament began on Thursday, the media and most of the world's attention was focused on Tiger Woods and how he would perform after his self imposed exile. As if there was not enough drama in Tiger's return, Nike Golf ran a commercial which made it appear that Tiger's late father Earl Woods was lecturing him.

By the time the event ended on Sunday, the focus had shifted away from Tiger and his inability to obey the rules of the Fidelity Bank and Trust Company. Instead, the drama which played out involved Phil Mickelson, the anti-Tiger in so many ways. For those who are unaware, Mickelson's wife has been battling cancer and had been unable to attend the tournament until Sunday. After Mickelson won the Masters, he shared a hug with his wife while his three young children looked on. As a pundit later commented, the only greater story would have been if Tiger had won the Masters and his wife had greeted him with a hug on the 18th hole.

After winning the Masters, Mickelson made a comment which taken in conjunction with his feelings at the time, personifies a mishna in Meseches Berachos. Mickelson commented "In the last year we've been through a lot. It's been tough. To be on the other end and feel this jubilation and share it with the family is great."

The Mishna in the last perek of Berachos teaches that one should at the same time be thankful to Hashem for what He has given you and call out for Him to help in the future. This is a difficult concept as one usually either feels one or the other emotion - a need for help with something that is troublesome or a sense of thanks for something completed. However, Phil Mickelson was able to demonstrate both concepts - he gave thanks for his winning the Masters, while obviously emoting that he hoped that his wife would continue her recovery from cancer.

Lastly, on the topic of giving thanks, I would like to give thanks to Hashem for giving me the strength to write this blog, to all who have visited my blog over the last eleven months, pushing my hit counter over 20,000 and special thanks to my wonderful family for giving me the inspiration and having the tolerance to allow me to pursue this hobby.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Sunday Night Suds - Samuel Adams Pale Ale

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Samuel Adams Pale Ale.

When I showed this brew to Mrs Kosher Beers this evening she could not believe that I had not reviewed the Samuel Adams Pale Ale before. I assured her that due to the magic of Google I could confirm that I had never reviewed this beer. Furthermore, this actually may be the first time that I had even seen it.

In New York we have periodic interruptions in the free flow of certain beers.(No pun intended. OK maybe partial pun intended). Sometime the interruption is due to the brewery, but often times it is the middleman which does not supply certain brews in parts of the New York market. For example, due to a territorial battle between two middlemen who shall remain nameless, for a number of years it was impossible to get Samuel Adams Irish Red in Nassau or Suffolk Counties. On the rare occasions that it could be found on Long Island it had been trucked in by the beer stores who bought it retail in the five boros and then transported it to Long Island for sale.

The Samuel Adams Pale Ale pours a golden yellow, much like a pilsner, but its taste is true Pale Ale. The beer tastes like hops, which is great for those who like a little bitter in their bitters. The beer was perfect following a long Sunday of little league games, house cleaning and barbecuing.

Samuel Adams Pale Ale is under the Kosher Supervision of the Star-K. Unlike many other Samuel Adams brews, this bottle which does not have the certification mark on the label.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about the Pale Ale, please follow this link - http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/833 .

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).

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Shemini

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

In Vayikra 9:6 the Torah recites that Moshe told Aharon "zeh hadavar" - this is thing that Hashem has commanded you to do and then the Kvod Hashem will appear to you.

The Sifri asks what was it that they needed to do? They had already prepared for and built the mishkan, which was inaugurated at the end of Tzav?

The Sifri answers that the thing which must be accomplished is to get rid of that yezer hara and once this is accomplished, the Jews can be united together in one group before Hashem.

Rabbi Frand pointed out that the Sifri is also an enigma as he does not define which yetzer hara should be eradicated.

Rabbi Frand answered his question by first citing the Netziv who states that people should not invent their own type of avodah of Hashem. Instead people should stick to the rules as laid down by Hashem in the Torah and not chase their own inclination to create new ways to serve Hashem.

Rabbi Frand then quoted a proof brought by the Netziv that after this part of the parsha there is a story of Nadav and Avihu who were killed after they brought an aish zara - a foreign fire before Hashem. Had Nadav and Avihu merely stuck with the regular service they would not have been killed.

Rabbi Frand then quoted the Tumim (in sefer Panim Yafos) that the yetzer hara is ga'ava - becoming haughty and letting one's acts go to one's head (as my father would say - reading your press clippings).

Rabbi Frand next quoted the Imre Emes (a prior Gerrer Rebbi) who says that the yezter hara is machlokes - fighting or arguing with each other. People may have worked together to build the mishkan, but now people will argue. The Imre Emes supports this explanation by referring to the language of the Sifri where he writes that if they destroy the yezter hara they will be united as one group before Hashem.

A more recent Gerrer Rebbi (the Beis Yisrael) asks - why didn't the Sifri explain which yetzer hara he was referring to? The Sifri knew how to be specific!

The Beis Yisrael answers that the yetzer hara changes from generation to generation. This can be seen on both an individual and group level. Each person will have different weaknesses and desires which need to be conquered. A person may have a desire for money which he will have to overcome in order to be charitable. Another person may have a desire for recognition.

In the same way, each generation will have its own yetzer hara to overcome. Over one hundred years ago at the end of the 19th century there was a yezter hara for the pursuit of philosophy which is not present today. Other generations may have had a yetzer hara for worship of other religions. Since the yezter hara changes from generation to generation the Sifri did not want to define it. The Sifri's message is that once you have accomplished big things such as building a shul, the generation still needs to keep an eye out for the yetzer hara which comes upon the generation.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!