Thursday, January 31, 2019

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Mishpatim

The following is a brief summary of some of 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.

R' Frand began by noting that Thursday was the 25th of Shvat which was R' Yisrael Salanter's yahrtzeit. He stated that in the year that R' Yisrael died, the 25th of Shvat fell on erev Shabbos of Parshas Mishpatim, but because R' Yisrael died close to Shabbos, the burial was on Sunday - the first day of the week of Parshas Terumah.

R' Frand quoted the Alter M'Kelem who stated that it was fitting that R' Yisrael died during that week, because Mishpatim is filled with mitzvos ben adam l'chavero, and R' Yisrael had taught that the mitzvos between man and fellow man are no less important than the mitzvos between man and Hashem.

R' Frand also quoted R' Hutner in Pachad Yitzchak who noted that in Shemos 20:1, when the Torah states that Hashem spoke "all these statements", Rashi states that Hashem said all ten of the commandments at one time.  But why would Hashem say all of them at once, if people cannot understand them that way? R' Hutner explained that they were all said together because both the 5 of the ben adam l'Makom and the 5 which are ben adam l'chavero are equally important.

R' Frand next quoted R' Matisyahu Solomon who observed that the first 5 commandments are much more verbose than the second 5 commandments, although they each occupied the same amount of space on the tablets. He theorized that it must have been that the second 5 were written much larger. Why? Because both came from Sinai and both are equally important.

R' Frand next quoted R' Hutner who noted that at the end of Mishpatim (Shemos 24:6), Moshe threw half the blood on the altar and half on the people. Rashi explains that the blood was split equally by an angel. But why was an angel needed to make the split? Because a mortal could not make a precise 50/50 split and it was important that half went to Hashem and half went to the people, because just as the laws of ben adam l'Makom are from Sinai, so are the laws ben adam l'chavero.

R' Frand told a story about the funeral of the Altar M'Slobodka, whereat R' Gordon noted that the parsha of Mishpatim has many laws between man and fellow man, but begins with the laws of how to treat an Eved Ivri. But this man is someone who became a slave because he stole from a fellow Jew. Why is he mentioned first in a parsha about ben adam l'chavero? He explained that the lesson is that all Jews are created in the image of Hashem, even the thief.

R' Frand next told a story which R' Ruderman told in a shmooze about how he never forgot when he was a young boy, seeing in shul on Hoshana Rabbah how the gabbai was harangued for forgetting to have a kittel ready for the Ba'al Mussaf. As if the affront of forgetting the kittel justified embarrassing him. He also told a story about R' Shraga Feivel Mendelovich who once accompanied a man home on Friday evening. When the man arrived he found his wife dozing in a chair, but the challos were uncovered. He yelled at his wife over this, but R' Shraga said to him - why do we cover the challos? So they wont be embarrassed when we skip over their priority in Berachos. But what about avoiding causing your wife embarrassment?



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, January 27, 2019

Sunday Night Suds - Shapiro Brewery Pale Ale


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

After landing in Tel Aviv late Sunday we drove to Jerusalem where we reunited with Yael (who is studying in Israel for the year) and had dinner, but other than davening Ma'ariv we did not do much, having been on flights for most of the last day. But Monday was a new day and after visiting the Old City and the "Cry-Wall" we made our way to Shuk Machane Yehuda where I stopped in at Beer Bazaar to mix a six pack of IPAs and Pale Ales.

Of the beers that I purchased that day the Shapiro seemed the most promising, but it was the least satisfying of the four that I tried this week. Although the beer poured the right color for a Pale Ale, that was where the resemblance stopped. This beer was bready and malty and the hops were almost muted. The beer is 5% abv, but there was little alcohol flavor and the carbonation was also on the light side.

The Shapiro Pale Ale is under the Rabbanut of Bet Shemesh and there is a hashgacha on the back of the bottle. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about the Shapiro Pale Ale (yes, it is reviewed on BA), click here https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/36568/136376.

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!

Friday, January 25, 2019

Belated Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Yisro

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha Thursday evening (as I have been visiting in Israel with my family this is being blogged on Friday as the live shiur in the US would have been live here at 4AM). 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.

It is well known that Yisro was a Kohen Midyan and yet he gave up his stature to convert to Judaism. R' Frand asked - what made him tick? What caused him to convert?

The Ramban states that there is a machlokes about whether Yisro came before or after Matan Torah. The Ramban then asks - why does the Gemara (quoted by Rashi) state only that Yisro heard about Krias Yam Suf and the war with Amalek and not about Matan Torah? This was an incredible event - that Hashem spoke to 600,000 people at once, no one had ever been witness to this!

R' Frand quoted R' Elya Svei who quotes the famous Gemara in Sotah which discussed Pharaoh's plan to kill the Jews. The Gemara notes 3 people were involved with the plan - Yisro, Bilaam and Iyov. Iyov was quiet and was punished for this while Yisro ran away and as a result was zoche to have his grandchildren sit in the Sanhedrin.

R' Frand also quoted a Medrash on the words Hava Nischachma Lo in Shemos 1:10 wherein the Medrash notes that Pharaoh does not want to outsmart "them". Instead the Torah uses the words Lo - meaning him. Who is the him? Pharaoh wants to outsmart their G-d so that he wont punish them. They dont want to use sword because the punishment is always middah k'neged middah. They decided to use water, because they knew that Hashem had promised that He would never bring a flood again.

When Yisro leaves, he left with a question - how will Hashem punish the Egyptians? R' Elya believes that this ate away at Yisro until he heard about Krias Yam Suf. He saw that Hashem did not destroy the world with water, but He will wipe out some people with water. This is why the news of Krias Yam Suf was so motivating to him.

R' Elya said as part of shmooze to the boys in the Yeshiva - when you have a question and it eats away at you and then you find the answer - it will stay with you forever.

R' Elya also theorized that Moshe saw Yisro come into the "beis medrash" as a formed komer and say this is not right - because he saw that Moshe was exhausted. Moshe listened to Yisro because he saw that Yisro had lived the question and that it ate him up. Once Torah clicked for him, it made sense and what he said made sense to others. This is what made Yisro tick.

R' Frand also said a vort from R' Elya Boruch Finkel, who notes that when Yisro first saw Moshe, "he bowed" and then they went into the tent. But who bowed? And who asked the other Shalom? The Mechilta said that Moshe was the one that bowed and from here we learn that a person should have honor for his father in law.

But why do we need the rest of the pasuk (the bowing, embracing, etc) to teach that one should honor his father in law? The beginning of the pasuk says that Moshe went out to greet Yisro. Of course this was honor, he did not send an Uber to meet Yisro.

R' Frand quoted a Chizkuni who notes that the Maharal says that Yisro asked Moshe to come out for him and if not for him, then for his wife and children so that it looks like he is being honored. The Maharl asked - does Yisro need honor? He answers that a person does not need to be makpid on their kavod, but they do need to be makpid on their bizayon (degradation). This is because a person is in the form of Hashem. Thus going to get Yisro was a matter of not causing bizayon to Yisro, but not an honor. Thus the bowing is the extra step of honoring and this is the reason for the limud.

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, January 17, 2019

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Beshalach

The following is a brief summary of some of 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.

R' Frand began his vort by first quoting a Gemara in Chullin in which R' Pinchas Ben Yair is en route to ransom captives when he reaches a roaring river. He asked the river to split to allow him to cross. The river responded to him - we each have jobs. You are going to ransom captives and my job is to flow. You may not be successful, but there is no doubt that my job will be done,

Nonetheless, R' Pinchas Ben Yair convinced the river to split. He then saw another man on the other side of the river who needed to cross in order to bake matzos. He asked the river to split so that the man could go and bake the matzos and it did. 

There was also a non-Jewish man who accompanied them who needed to cross. R' Pinchas asked the river to split for this man too, as it would not be right that river only split for Jews. The river complied with this request as well.

An observer then said - R' Pinchas was greater than Moshe and the 600,000 Jews who left Egypt with him as the Yam Suf only split once for him. The Gemara then amended the story to say that the river split once and was open for all three people. 

R' Frand then quoted a story involving R' Tzvi Hirsch M'Ziditschov (sp?) who was a great kabbalist and was nicknamed the Sar Beis HaZohar. He once wrote down a schedule of his daily activities and gave it to Chozeh M'Lublin to review and comment as to the tasks and their times. The Chozeh looked at the list and wrote Lav Davka (not necessarily) next to every task and time slot. R' Tzvi Hirsch was confounded - how could that be for every activity? The Chozeh explained - you think that you need to this task at this time, but maybe Hashem has another plan for you at that very moment.

The Tolner Rebbi applied the story to the Gemara to explain why the river split. Even though the river's tafkid was to flow, however even for the river there is a time when Hashem needs it not to do what it is programmed to do, and that was when R' Pinchas needed to cross.

R' Frand noted that there is another version of the Pinchas Ben Yair story in the Yerushalmi in Demai. The story has an epilogue wherein R' Pinchas' students approach him and ask whether they can attempt the same miracle. He told them - if you have never harmed or embarrassed another Jew then you can achieve this, but if not you will be unsuccessful.

R' Frand quoted R' Elya Baruch Finkel who explained the Yerushalmi as dealing withe a person as a Tzelem Elokim - in the image of Hashem. A person can achieve this and cause the river to stop if he is like Hashem. However if he has harmed another then he is not like Hashem and he is not worthy of having the river stop for him.

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, January 13, 2019

Sunday Night Suds - New Belgium Mary Jane Ale


This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at New Belgium Mary Jane Ale.

Although not a new beer, the New Belgium Mary Jane Ale is new to the East Coast as it has been nationally distributed as part of the Winter Variety Pack which includes standard bearer Fat Tire (reviewed here  https://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/12/sunday-night-suds-new-belgiums-fat-tire.html); Accumulation (reviewed here https://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2015/02/sunday-night-suds-new-belgium.html) and Snow Day (reviewed here https://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2013/04/sunday-night-suds-new-belgium-snow-day.html).

The Mary Jane Ale is an American Pale Ale and the first sip had good pine and hops. There is a fair amount of carbonation and successive drinks over the half hour this was on my shabbos table did not disappoint. The beer was a little more bready than I expected, but the hops were present throughout. I was surprised to learn that the beer is only 4.5% abv as the taste was not weak in the slightest. This beer would be a good accompaniment to chicken dishes or light stews, but this is not strong enough for a cholent or steak.

The New Belgium Mary Jane Ale under kosher supervision by the Scroll-K/Va'ad of Denver, and their symbol is on the bottom of the mix box. However, not every brew produced by New Belgium is under kosher supervision.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about New Belgium Mary Jane Ale, click here https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/192/174734.

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, January 10, 2019

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bo

The following is a brief summary of some of 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 Shemos 12:22, the Jews are commanded that on the night of Makas Bechoros while they were eating the Karban Pesach, they should not leave their houses.

R' Frand noted that while there are many aspects of the redemption from Egypt which are reenacted in our Seder, we actually the opposite of what took place in our Seder. Whereas Sefardim have customs to carry the matzos on their backs or step over water, these are symbolic of events which took place in Egypt. But why do we open our doors for the Shefoch Chamascha piyut in the Seder?

R' Frand answered by quoting R' Bukspan who tied this into a Zohar and a number of Medrashim about biblical figures. The first Medrash applied to the pasuk dealing with jumping on mountains which the Medrash learns as Hashem saying - I did not redeem the Jews from Egypt because of their own zechus, I took them out because of the zechus of the Avos.

The second Medrash related to the sentence in the Seder which states twice "V'Omar Lach B' Damayich Chayiyi" from which the Medrash learns that because of the zechus of the Avos we were redeemed from Egypt.

The Zohar notes that besides the Jews being redeemed from Egypt based on the merit of others, there were two other instances where someone was saved not on their own zechus. Lot was saved from Sodom based upon the zechus of Avraham and Noach was saved, although he was not deserved either. The Zohar explains that each time someone is saved when they are not deserving to be saved, they should not look at others who are not being saved, as their hatzalah is not because they are any better. The Zohar referred specifically to Lot and his wife being instructed not to look back and Noach's ark not having windows to view the outside world. Neither instance was the person/people being saved because of their own merit.

Similarly, the Jews in Egypt were told - don't look or go outside, because you are not being saved due to your own merit. So why do we open the door at Shefoch Chamascha?

R' Frand answered that at this point in the Seder we are invoking the final Geula which should come speedily in our days. That redemption will iyh come based upon our own zechusim, when we have brought Moshiach. At that point we can look outside.

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, January 3, 2019

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Va'era

The following is a brief summary of some of 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.

R' Frand began his first vort by quoting the pasuk in Shemos 6:9 in which the weekday aliyah of Levi ends with the statement that the Jews did not hear Moshe because of shortness of breath and hard work.

R' Frand observed that there is a general rule which we learn from Koheles that an aliyah does not end on a negative statement. But then why do we end this aliyah with that expression of negativity?

R' Frand answered by quoting R' Shimshon Pinkus who explains based on the Vilna Gaon that this was not a negative statement. The Gaon noted that the notes on "Vayimarru Es Chayehem" (Shemos 1:14 are a kadma v'azla which translate as "got up and left". He explains that it was because of the intensity of the hard work that the Jews left Egypt early, so this was not a negative. R' Frand also spoke of the gematria of kadma v'azla which is 190 - the number of years which were deducted from the 400 which the Jews were supposed to be in Egypt. [Although R' Frand did not attribute this to him, I heard this gematria in the name of the Apter Rav a few years back in a shiur given by R' Mansour].

R' Frand also quoted the pasuk in Shemos 6:12 where Moshe asks Hashem how Pharaoh will listen to him if the Jews wont listen to him due to his speech impediment. R' Frand cited to the Rashi which states that this is one of the ten kal v'chomer (a fortiori arguments) found in the Torah, as Moshe was stating that if they wont listen, how could Pharaoh possibly listen?

However the statement that this is a kal v'chomer could be open to debate, as the pasuk itself states that the Jews would not listen due to their hard work and Pharaoh was not similarly enslaved at the time!

R' Frand proposed two answers to this question. The first came from the Siftei Chachamim who explains that Moshe's kal v'chomer was more predicated on his speech impediment than the hard work. If the Jews would not heed one of their own if he had a speech problem, why would Pharaoh?

R' Frand also quoted R' Leib Chasman who cited the Seforno in explaining that the term kotzer ruach (which I translated above as shortness of breath) could also be explained as obsession. The Jews were so obsessed with their jobs that they did not have the attention span to hear Moshe. Similarly, explained R' Chasman, Pharaoh was so obsessed with his role as an ersatz deity, that he would or could not pay attention to Moshe.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting the Mesilas Yesharim which writes that a person can be so busy that he lacks the time to sit and think. Pharaoh fomented this in Egypt by giving the Jews Avodas Parech which deprived them of a chance to contemplate what Moshe was saying, even as they were desperate to leave slavery.

R' Frand closed the vort by observing that modern culture is the same with our smartphones, in that people don't take time to think or ponder, as every moment a person has "down time" - whether on an elevator or waiting for a train, the person is looking at things on their smartphone.

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!