Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Beitzah 30

On Beitzah 30b the gemara cites to a mishna which states that wood cannot be removed from a sukkah on yom tov. Initially, the gemara distinguishes between the wood which is part of the skach and wood which is part of the walls, but within the context of a yom tov other than Sukkos. However, later the gemara begins a discussion as to whether wood can be removed from the sukkah on the Sukkos holiday.

Tosafos (d"h Aval) asks whether the gemara's discussion is on a Rabbinic or Biblical level. Tosafos notes that the gemara implies that the wood cannot be removed because it is muktzeh, yet previously the gemara had compared the sukkah to the shalmei chagiga, which would imply that the prohibition is Biblical in nature.

The Sefer Sha'arim Hamitzuyanim B'Halacha offers numerous answers to this question. He first mentions that Rabbeinu Tam (as mentioned in Tosafos) states that the Biblical prohibition only applies to the two and a fraction walls which are required in order to construct a kosher sukkah. He also notes that Rosh differentiates between the skach which is Biblical in nature and the walls themselves. 

However, he also brings an opinion which interprets the Rosh as stating that it is only the minimum size of the sukkah (7 x 7) which is Biblically prohibited from use. This presents a problem (which he does not answer) in that there is no concept of bereirah for Biblical prohibitions, so how does one identify the permitted and forbidden portions of the sukkah?

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!

Monday, April 28, 2014

Monday's Musings on Sports - Pineda is not Sterling, but Neither Seem to Care

Over the course of the last week, there have been two sports news stories which have dominated the news. The first story involved Yankee pitcher Michael Pineda and the second involved LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. While I am not equating the two stories or actions, they are equally symptomatic of the phenomenon known as "Sports Chutzpah".

What is Sports Chutzpah? It is the epidemic which infects rational people, often from humble backgrounds, and turns them into self absorbed, arrogant people who believe they are above the law and society.

I was not alive during the times that people attended sporting events in jacket and ties. But I can recall how when I was growing up in the 1970s and early 80's the athlete was looked at as a role model. More importantly, the athletes themselves recognized that they were role models as well. But at some point in the 1990s, the disconnect between sports figure and role model was broken. I cannot pin down when this became the norm, but I can recall hearing Charles Barkley declare in 1993 that "I am not a role model" and thinking at the time that this was not all that outlandish. 

Although I cannot pin down when it became socially acceptable that the sports personality did not have to view himself as a role model, the theme has become so pervasive that it is rare to find a sports person who does feel some sense of social responsibility. 

Take for example the Michael Pineda story. Pineda was obtained by the NY Yankees via trade in 2012, but due to injury and poor performance, he did not pitch for the team until this season. Two weeks ago, there was some grumbling around baseball that Pineda was using a foreign substance to improve his pitching. The allegation first came up in a game against the Boston Red Sox when a dark patch was seen on his hand, but it was dismissed as "dirt." Pineda was clearly emboldened by the ease in which he was able to get away with using the illegal foreign substance. As such, two weeks later he took the mound against the same Boston Red Sox team, although this time with the substance on his neck. This time, the mark was too obvious to ignore and two innings into the game, the umpires ejected Pineda for having pine tar on his neck.

However, the story does not end with the ejection of Pineda from the game. Following the game, major league baseball suspended Pineda for ten games. But more importantly, the Yankees were not allowed to fill Pineda's spot on the 25 man roster and they will be forced to play the next ten games with only 24 players.

A much more damaging, but no less arrogant example of Sports Chutpzah took place in California. A tape has circled of a person who purportedly is Donald Sterling (owner of the LA Clippers) reportedly telling his girlfriend that she should not bring African-American friends to the team's games. I cannot fathom how a person who owns a team which is dominated by African-American athletes, which is coached by an African-American and which plays a sport which is likely the most popular sport among young African-Americans, could have articulated such a thought. But for the athletes on his team, the coach and the tens of thousands of African-Americans who attend each of the Clippers' home games, Mr. Sterling would not have a team. Instead, he would have a bankrupt franchise and an empty barn of a building which would be hemorrhaging money. Yet, because of the popularity of this African-American dominated sport which has boosted the value of a franchise that he bought for $12 million in the 1980's to an estimated $575 million, Sterling feels that he is above the need to respect the very people who made him his millions.

The lack of respect for others and the feeling that one can do what they want when they want with no fear of repercussion is not unique to sports. But it just seems like the rational, normal sports persona becomes irrational and corrupted based on a feeling of entitlement. A parallel to this can be seen in the story of Korach. The gemara teaches that Korach was very bright and also very wealthy. Chazal teach that there were two incredibly wealthy people, Korach and Haman. There is even a yiddish expression "Rich as Korach." Rashi states that Korach even had prestige as he was one of the carriers of the aron kodesh.

But Korach's wealth and power led to his downfall as he challenged Moshe with silly questions because he felt a sense of entitlement to more. As a result of his arrogance and over inflated sense of self worth, Korach harangued Moshe to the point that Hashem caused the Earth to open and swallow him alive.

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!

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Sunday Night Suds - New Belgium Snapshot Wheat Ale



This week's Sunday Night Suds beer review looks at New Belgium Snapshot Wheat Ale.

It happens every year. At some point during the Pesach holiday, someone will approach me and ask, is it tough to go eight+ days without a beer? And every year, I respond, no its not hard - I can go without the beer. But then over the last days of Pesach, I will begin to think of which beer I would like to buy after Pesach to celebrate the end of the turnover process.

This year, the post Pesach beer buying was a little more challenging as we were in Chicago for Pesach and had a flight out at 1030AM the next morning. Because YT ended so late, I was unable to get to Binny's before they closed, so I (along with hundreds of other Jews in Chicago) went to Jewel on Howard to buy chometz after Peach ended. However, unlike most other shoppers who were loading their carts with cereal, bread and other leavened nosh, I spent my time in the beer aisle, looking for non-East Cost beer varieties that I could mix in a six pack. I settled on a few different New Belgium products, including the Snapshot Wheat Ale.

After proper chilling, I poured the Snapshot and observed that it was quite pale, even for an American Wheat Ale. The beer had some initial foam which quickly dissipated and there was little to no lacing on the glass. The Snapshot is an unfiltered wheat ale, but it did not have much in the way of "floaters" nor spice notes. It did have a bit of tartness/sour flavor which I have not decided whether I am a fan of. It is not an artificial lemon additive flavor, but it does not seem to belong in a wheat beer either. 

New Belgium Snapshot under the Kosher Supervision of the Scroll-K of Colorado. Although the beer does not bear the kosher symbol on the label, I have verified its kashruth with the Scroll-K and it is listed on the LOC. Please note that not every brew produced by New Belgium is under kosher supervision. For a list of the New Belgium brews currently under supervision, please click on the link on the left side of my home page for my latest Kosher Beer List.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about New Belgium Snapshot, please follow this link beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/192/110447. 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 www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Kedoshim

The following is a brief summary of some of the thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand. 

In Parshas Kedoshim, the Torah mentions many different laws which are punishable by lashes, including the law of a man who has an improper relationship with a married shifra charufah. The Torah states in Vayikra 19:20 that there shall be an investigation ("Bikores") but no one is put to death as there is a punishment of bringing a korban asham and lashes.

Rashi on this pasuk states that we learn from the word Bikores that when a person receives lashes, there is a requirement that the Beis Din say a pasuk from the tochacha in Ki Savo while the lashes are administered. 

R' Frand's first question was - why is this the source for the law that Beis Din must recite a pasuk from the tochacha while lashing the sinner?

R' Frand next quoted a gemara in Kerisus wherein one opinion states that Beis Din must first estimate how many lashes a person and reduce the number so that the recipient does not die from the punishment.

R' Frand quoted the Tolner Rebbi who asks why the law is learned from shifra charufa? Most laws of lashes are learned from the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it plows. And if we do not learn from there, why not teach the concept in conjunction with the first transgression that is punishable by lashes which is mentioned in the parsha.

The Tolner Rebbi quoted the Aruch Laneir who explains that Beis Din makes an individual assessment of how many lashes a person can take and then before each lash, must reevaluate that the person can withstand the remaining lashes. Why is this the source?

The Tolner Rebbi further quoted the Maharsha who explains that the purpose of reading the pasuk from the tochacha is to teach that the lashes are an easy punishment because there are much more severe punishments that are alluded to in the tochacha. Again, the Tolner Rebbi asks - why is this learned from the law of shifra charufa?

R' Frand answered these questions by explaining that there is a hierarchy of people running from the great elders of the generation to the dregs of society. The shifra charufa in on one of the lowest pegs, but from this person we learn how to give lashes. We consider whether she can take the lashes and don't just assume that since she is of low status it does not matter whether she can sustain the punishment and live. Similarly, the shifra charufa teaches that even someone of this lowly status is given the encouragement that the punishment is light and will make the sinner better.

R' Frand then said - this is perhaps why the law is taught during sefirah - when the students of R' Akiva died because they did not show respect for each other. The lesson of shifra charufa is that even the lowest of the low must be treated with the utmost respect.

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, April 10, 2014

Thursday's Matza Crumbs II

Traditionally, R' Frand does not give his Thursday Night Shiur on the last Thursday Night before Pesach. Rather than repost a prior year's shiur on Acharei Mos, I have blogged of some of a thoughts said over by R' Mansour on his www.learntorah.com website. (Those desiring to see prior vorts on Parshas Acharei Mos can search the blog for prior posts on the parsha). Same rules as usual apply - I have attempted to reproduce these thoughts 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' Mansour.

The Medrash writes that the day that Yaakov "stole" the brachos from Esav was Pesach. There are clues to this within the story as it is related in Parshas Toldos.

In Bereishis 27:9 Rivka tells Yaakov to take two young goats which she would make for Yitzchak. Rashi asks - did Yaakov usually eat two goats? He answers that it was the night of Pesach and the goats served two purposes - one for the Karban Pesach and one for the Karban Chagigah.

R' Mansour next quoted the Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer who explains that Rivka told Yaakov - tonight is a special night, the most special night of the year. It is the night of Pesach and a night of blessings below and in heavens. Don't waste the night, go and get the blessing tonight.

We see that the beracha that Yaakov received had an allusion to receiving "the dew of the heavens" (Bereishis 27:28). This is remembered the following day (the first day of Pesach) when we say Tefillas Tal.

In Bereishis 27:25 we see that not only did Yaakov follow his mother's advice to bring the goats, but he also brought his father wine. This was not among the instructions from Rivka, but it was necessary - as taught by the Baa'al Megaleh Amukos, Yaakov brought wine because it was the night of Pesach and his father needed to drink the four cups.

Later in Bereishis 27:35 Esav comes to his father and asks for a beracha, and Yitzchak responds - "ba achicha b'mirma" - your brother came in cleverness and took your blessing. R' Mansour noted that the gematria of b'mirma is 287, which is the same gematria as afikoman. Yitzchak tells his son Esav - it is halacha that one cannot eat after consuming the afikoman - so I cannot eat from your food, nor give you the beracha that you desire.

(I have heard it said this is also the reason that the children "steal" the afikoman at the seder - in order to remember that Yaakov "stole" the beracha on this night).

R' Mansour noted that Yaakov came to Yitzchak dressed as Esav. This signifies that even someone who looks like an Esav on the outside can be a good Jew on the inside and can merit receiving a beracha. The seder describes the four sons who come to the seder and this includes the evil one. Because after his teeth are blunted, he too can absorb the berachos, because inside he is a good Jew.

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!

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Sunday Night Suds - Shiner Ryes & Shiner Rye Lager


With Pesach on the near horizon, what better beer to send you off with than a true chametz brew - Shiner's Ryes & Shine Rye Lager!

You are probably thinking, what is a Rye Lager? Is it a beer made with rye bread? Not exactly, but that's not so far off either. As explained by the folks at BA, a Rye Beer is:

Not to be confused with a German Roggenbier, beers that fall into this category contain a notable amount of rye grain in the grist bill. Bitterness tends to be moderate, to allow the often spicy and sour-like rye characteristics to pull through.

The Shiner Ryes & Shine is neither sour nor overly spicy. It also falls at the low end of the spectrum for Rye beers as it is only 4.9% abv. Having said that, the beer is a nicely balanced lager with a little bit of bite on the back end. 

I have only seen the Shiner Ryes & Shiner Lager in Shiner Family mix packs and have not seen it sold in six or twelve packs. I consumed my only bottle of the Ryes & Shine with shabbos leftovers this evening and did not find that it was obtrusive or overly well paired. If I had a few more of these I might experiment with some lighter pairing. 

Bottom line - if you are looking for a lager with a little more body than a macro this will fill your bill. 

Shiner Ryes & Shine Rye Lager is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit although there is no symbol on the the bottle. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about the Ryes & Shine Rye Lager, please follow this link  beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/143/77570.

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, 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, April 3, 2014

Thursday's Matza Crumbs

Because of the proximity to Pesach, R' Frand did not speak on the parsha after he finished the halachic portion of the shiur this evening and instead spoke on the Haggadah. As such, I have blogged of some of the thoughts said over by R' Frand on the Haggadah this evening. Those desiring to see prior R' Frand vorts on Parshas Metzorah can search the blog for prior posts on Metzorah. Same rules as usual apply - I have attempted to reproduce these thoughts 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. 

R' Frand began the vort by noting that right before the Maggid portion of the seder, we break the middle matza as Yachatz. A portion of the matza is left in the matza stack, while the other portion is reserved as the afikoman. R' Frand quoted the Chassam Sofer, who asked why we do Yachatz? 

He answered that the seder is an experience which transforms us from slaves to free men. A slave will hoard food because he is afraid that there will not be any food to eat tomorrow. As we begin the seder, we have the slave's mentality, so we break the matza and hide some to eat later. Similarly, slaves will steal items because they need them to survive. 

The Chassam Sofer explains that this is the reason that we encourage the children to hunt for and steal the afikoman. 

As the Jews began their transformation from slave nation to free men while they traveled in the desert, Hashem gave the Jews manna to eat. The manna fell every day (except Shabbos) and the Jews would gather what they needed each day and no more. If more manna than the person needed was collected, it would rot. But the question is why? Couldn't the manna fall once a week or once a month? 

R' Frand answered that the reason that the manna fell every day is that Hashem was trying to teach the Jews that they were no longer slaves and they did not need to hoard food out of fear that there would be nothing to eat tomorrow. 

When we reach the tzafun stage of the seder and ask the children to return the afikoman so that it can be eaten, we demonstrate that we are now free men and have learned that food does not need to be hoarded. This is the meaning of the word afikoman - bring the manna! 

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!

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Beitzah 2

Tonight the Daf cycle began the study of Meseches Beitzah, or as I informed the chabura its time for Shabbos Part II. The daf had many interesting topics, but I wanted to focus on the wisdom of Rashi and more specifically two comments that he made on the daf.

The first Rashi is found on Beitzah 2b and is in the midst of a discussion as to R' Nachman's deference to the "stam" mishna in explaining the root of the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel as to whether the egg which was laid on Yom Tov can be eaten. The gemara asks a rhetorical question - who was the person who decided to make the mishna stam (translated either as sealed or anonymous).

Rashi explains that when Rebbi compiled the mishna, he chose to record certain mishnayos with anonymous opinions. In not divulging the author of the "stam" mishna, Rebbi made the mishna more authoritative and precluded the possibility of criticism that the opinion was that of a single person and should not be followed.

When I gave the daf shiur tonight, the majority of the attendees were lawyers. I reminded them that in writing a brief, often a lawyer will write that a concept is "black letter law" or "well established" before citing to one or two cases that illustrate the point. The purpose of writing the prefatory phrase of either "black letter law" or "well established" prior to citing to the one or two cases, is to give the impression that the principle of law is firmly in your corner, even if you only have one or two cases that support the position.

The second Rashi was on also on Beitzah 2b and dealt with why the gemara chose the example of the egg as opposed to a chicken to introduce the concept of nolad. The gemara gave a suggestion that maybe the mishna should have offered the other view as Koach D'Heteira Adif - the power of taking a lenient position is greater.

Rashi comments on this line that it is easier to take the position that something is forbidden than to allow it to be performed. Since the lenient position had firm support in halacha, it would have better to use that as an example.

The genius of Rashi is how he used the concept to lend an insight on life. It is easy to say no - that is forbidden.  Or even to say no - that task cannot be accomplished today or we don't have enough (fill in the blank - time, resources, manpower, etc.) to fulfill the request. But when the person speaking has the power of his convictions or in the case of the gemara, is on firm halachic standing to say that something is permissible, this is the greater power.

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!