Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Netzavim

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 Devarim 29:18, the Torah states וְהָיָ֡ה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ֩ אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֨י הָֽאָלָ֜ה הַזֹּ֗את וְהִתְבָּרֵ֨ךְ בִּלְבָב֤וֹ לֵאמֹר֙ שָׁל֣וֹם יִֽהְיֶה־לִּ֔י כִּ֛י בִּשְׁרִר֥וּת לִבִּ֖י אֵלֵ֑ךְ לְמַ֛עַן סְפ֥וֹת הָֽרָוָ֖ה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָֽה.

R' Frand focused on the end of the pasuk where the brazen person who says that he will do as we wishes has "thereby adding the watered upon the thirsty." R' Frand remarked that the language is difficult to understand (even with that Artscroll translation). 

R' Frand quoted Rashi's explanation that the person had previously sinned out of desire - like one who is thirsty. Now, the person sins because he thinks that he can do whatever he wants, and not because of simply being overcome. The person who does so will have his unintentional sins punished in the same way as his intentional acts. 

R' Frand then quoted the Gemara in Sanhedrin 66 which states that a person who returns the lost object of an Akum is the subject of the end of this pasuk - that there is no mitzvah to return the object and the person will not be forgiven by Hashem (the beginning of Devarim 29:19). If a person returns the object because he wants to be seen as having a good heart (בִּשְׁרִר֥וּת לִבִּ֖י אֵלֵ֑ךְ), it is a sign that he does mitzvos not because he was commanded to, but because it feels good in his heart.

Rashi on the Gemara ties this back into the language of the pasuk, remarking that the one who is not thirsty is the Akum who does not desire mitzvos. The person who is thirsty and wants to be closer to Hashem should do mitzvos out of a desire to draw closer to Hashem.

R' Frand tied this thought into the Rambam on Shofar who explains that the purpose of the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah is to awaken a person who is involved in worldly pleasures (havalim) to do teshuva. For this reason a person does teshuva during the ten days of repentance by doing mitzvos - between man and Hashem and between man and man and does additional learning and gives charity.

R' Frand asked - what is the connection between the havalim and the Shofar and since when does one do teshuva on Rosh Hashanah? There are no Al Cheit which are struck. So why does the Rambam call this a day of teshuva?

R' Frand answered by quoting R' Moshe Shapiro who says that a person does do teshuva on Rosh Hashanah and it is different than the remainder of the ten days. The other days are the days of teshuva for what a person did over the past year. But on Rosh Hashanah we do teshuva by removing the worldly pleasures and think about what we can do to live a life without the physical pleasures - it is this that the Shofar inspires us to do.

R' Frand closed the vort by noting that all year people may eat bread of an Akum baker (of course under supervision) but during the ten days of teshuva a "Ba'al Nefesh" should be stringent. But what is a Ba'al Nefesh? 

R' Frand quoted the Tolner Rebbi, who explains that term means a person who thinks about his nefesh. All year long a person thinks about the body - am I exercising enough? Do I make enough money? But during these days he should think about his nefesh and this is the purpose of the Shofar - to awaken 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

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Ki Savo

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha last year (there was a replacement Rav this week and I did not get a chance to hear him). 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 the vort by noting that the first mitzva in the parsha is the bringing of the bikkurim (first fruits) to the Beis Hamikdash and the recitation of the mikra bikkurim. This recitation is more than just a thanking of Hashem for the bountiful harvest, it actually contains a historical recitation of events which track back to the Jews being saved from Egypt. 

R' Frand further observed that many of the pesukim in this section of the parsha are incorporated in the maggid section of the Hagaddah on Pesach. But why did the Ba'al Hagaddah choose to use these pesukim from Parshas Ki Savo when he had the entire parshios of Shemos, Va'era, Bo and Beshalach to work with? R' Frand answered by quoting R' Finkel who explains that those parshios are historical in nature. Meanwhile, the mikra bikkurim recitation of the events from Egypt is a HaKaras HaTov, a recognition of the good that Hashem has done for us, and mentioning it at the seder is appropriate. This is not to say that there is no discussion or citation from Shemos-Beshalach as there are many references which are punctuated by "K'mo Shenemar" --as it is written. 

R' Frand noted that in Devarim 26:3 the words V'Amarta Eilav (literally - say to him) are explained by Rashi as being purposed to not be a Kafui Tov - rejector of the good that Hashem has done for him. R' Frand then asked - but why not say that it is done to recognize the good that Hashem does? He answered that we cannot possibly sufficiently praise Hashem for all that He does for us, we can only hope not to be a rejector by not praising him. R' Frand linked this to the Ilu Finu pasuk in the Nishmas in which we state on Shabbos and that there is no way to properly praise Hashem for all that He does for us.

R' Frand also remarked that there is no way to properly recognize all the good that our parents have done for us (and he is right, not that he needs my approbation).

R' Frand also quoted the Brisker Rav on the pasuk in Ha'azinu (Devarim 32:6) in which we are described as Naval --translated as vile by Artscroll. What is a Naval? When an animal dies without shechita it is a neveilah - it loses its status as an animal and is just a disgusting piece of meat. Similarly, a person may have a defect such as being quick to anger or miserly, but he is still a person, just with a defect. But if he is a minuval, he loses his status as a person altogether.

R' Frand told two stories about Rabbis being makir tov. One involved R' Yaakov Kaminetsky who when he was told that a boy was being thrown out of the dorm because he consistently missed minyan asked to have the boy brought to him. When the boy came to see his Rosh Yeshiva, he was asked - where will you sleep? The boy had no answer. R' Kamietsky said --you will stay in my house, because when I was a bachur learning in the Kovno Yeshiva, your grandfather supported the yeshiva.

R' Frand told another story about R' Shach. One day R' Shach called his grandson and told him that he needed a cab to take him to a funeral in Haifa. They traveled together and arrived at a funeral of an older lady. There were very few attendees and it was a cold and rainy day. When the funeral ended, R' Shach went to the cemetery with the mourners and stayed outside in the rain and said the graveside Kaddish. When everyone left, he stayed outside in the rain a little longer, before getting back in the car with his grandson.

The grandson had never heard of the woman and after waiting as long as he could, he asked why R' Shach went to the funeral in Haifa. R' Shach answered that when he was in Yeshiva in Lithuania it was based in a shul. The boys lived in the shul and slept there as well, but because they were so poor. the sleeping arrangements were limited and only the older boys slept on benches. As one of the youngest boys, R' Shach slept on the cold floor. And it was really cold.

One day R' Shach got a letter from an uncle who wanted to leave his business to Rav Shach and asked him to come, because he had no children. R' Shach determined that he would leave the next day, but later in the same day a woman came to Yeshiva. She told them that she had just gotten up from Shiva for her husband who owned a blanket factory and she wanted to know if anyone needed blankets. R' Shach took blankets to use a mattress and on top of him and the floor became tolerable.

R' Shach told his grandson that without those blankets he would not have stayed in Yeshiva and become R' Shach. So he kept tabs on the woman and when she passed he went to the levaya.

The grandson asked - but why did you stay outside at the cemetery after all others had left? R' Shach responded, because I wanted to remember what it was like to be cold.

R' Frand closed the vort by stating  --the greater the Tzaddik, the greater his capacity to be makir tov.

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 Night Suds - Samuel Adams Kosmic Sour

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Samuel Adams Kosmic Sour.

Its been a while since I sampled a new Samuel Adams product, but during a recent trip to the beer store to buy beer for a Sheva Berachos I happened across this and figured that I would give it a shot.

I'm not big on sour beers in general as the "interesting" yeasts that they introduce are just funky in my opinion. The Samuel Adams people call this beer a "tart and wild ale." The tart ale is not really a style, but the Wild Ale is a defined beer style, which the experts at BA reclassify as an American Wild Ale and define it as:

Sometimes Belgian influenced, American Wild Ales are beers that are introduced to "wild" yeast or bacteria, such as Brettanomyces (Brettanomyces Bruxellensis, Brettanomyces Lambicus or Brettanomyces Anomolus), Pediococcus, or Lactobacillus. This introduction may occur from oak barrels that have been previously inoculated, pitching into the beer, or gained from various "sour mash" techniques. Regardless of the method, these yeast and/or bacteria leave a mark that should be noticeable to strong, and often contribute a sour and/or funky, wild note. Mixed-fermentation examples will display a range of aromatics, rather than a single dominant character.

The beer poured a rich cloudy orange/yellow with decent carbonation and some lacing. I shared some with Mrs KB who found this beer delicious (that makes one of us). The beer had some sweet and tart so I could see why she liked it, but there were no hops and the breadiness just made me wonder why they bothered. At 4.6% abv the beer is not high on the alcohol scale and the alcohol flavor is not strong, but I have no idea what if anything this would pair with.

The Kosmic Sour is under the Kosher Supervision of the Star-K and has a Star-K certification mark on the label. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about this brew, please follow this link - beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/432874.

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).

Lastly, 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 Ki Seitzei

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 the discussion of the "אֵ֖שֶׁת יְפַת־תֹּ֑אַר" the Torah provides that after seeing the woman, the soldier must wait " יֶ֣רַח יָמִ֑ים " (Devarim 21:13). The use of the term Yerach instead of the more traditional Chodesh in describing the month that the soldier must wait is a curious use of verbiage. R' Frand gave an explanation from a Rav from Tunisia whose name I did not catch who explained the word choice by linking it to a Levush who discusses the differences between the terms in a Kesuva and a Get.

When referring to the date of the wedding, the Kesuva says that it is the x date of Chodesh y. However the Get states that it is the x date of Yerach Y. The reason is that the term Chodesh is used when something is being brought in and the term Yerach is used when something is being separated.

R' Frand tied this into the pasuk in Shemos 2:2 where it states about Moshe " וַתִּצְפְּנֵ֖הוּ שְׁלשָׁ֥ה יְרָחִֽים" - that Yocheved hid him for three months. The reason that Yerach is used is because Yocheved knew that after the hiding period she was going to have to give Moshe up.

This is why the Torah uses the word Yerach by Eishes Yifas Toa'r - there is a hope that during the thirty day period he will realize that he does not want her and choose not to marry her.

R' Frand said a second vort on the mitzva of Shiluach HaKan. He first quoted the Avnei Nezer who asks why the mother bird must be sent away if her natural explanation is to flee from humans in the first place? He explains that the mother bird wants to protect its young and in so doing rises above the level of a creature.

R' Frand then quoted the sefer Bei Chiya which explains that in Parshas Noach, man is told that he can eat the animals and at the same time is warned about killing other humans, because man was created in the image of Hashem - "כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹהִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָֽאָדָֽם" (Bereishis 9:6). The Abarbanel explains that the word Tzelem comes from Tzel - shadow. The same way that a shadow follows a person and mimics what he does, so too we should try to emulate Hashem. 

R' Frand closed the vort by stating that when a bird protects its young, it is acting like Hashem. As such we must send the bird away so that it is not pained when we take the eggs/hatchlings.

R' Frand said a final vort which compared the mitzvos of honoring one's parents and shiluch hakan, which both have the reward of long life. The Yerushalmi states that the two have the same reward in order to show that an easy mitzva (sending away the mother bird) and a more difficult mitzva (honoring one's parents - a mitzva with no firm end and no limit) both are equally important. We should not consider the importance of the mitzva to be based on the level of difficulty, since both of these have the same reward.

R' Frand further explained that the two mitzvos are also both based on rachmanos. A person has mercy on the mother bird by sending it away so that it does not see the eggs/hatchlings being taken. Similarly, a person has mercy when a parent r'zl reaches the infirmity of old age and the child must take care of the basic needs of the parent.

R' Frand also offered a second view - based on a Vilna Gaon. The Gaon explains that our natural inclination is to believe that both mitzvos are built on compassion - if the Torah tells us how to act with little birds, it should also carry over to our actions towards people. Similarly, the showing of respect to parents when they age also appears to be based on compassion. This school of thought follows the Rambam and the Ramban who view the mitzvos as based on rachmanus.

However, there is another way of looking at the mitzva. The Gaon quotes the Zohar who explains that the mitzva shows the quality of aczarious - loosely translated as cruelty or lack of compassion. Although the mother bird is sent away, it eventually returns and sees that its nest is essentially gone. It has no hatchlings in the nest or eggs and it cries. The Zohar explains that it cries to the angel of birds and that its tears provoke Hashem's mercy and we too hope that he will have mercy on us and rebuild our nest from which we have been exiled (the Beis Hamikdash).

Under this approach to shiluach haken, the two mitzvos are from opposite ends of the spectrum - one is compassion and one is cruelty. The Gaon explains that this is why the rewards are specified - because we must know that whether the mitzva is easy or difficult or involves compassion or cruelty with a purpose - the reward is the same.

This concept equally applies to mitzvos of other kinds. A person may be predisposed to act a certain way, however to keep a mitzva, the person might have to act against their nature. A person may be shy and introverted, but the mitzva of hachnasas orchim - welcoming in guests, requires him to go against his nature.

The Gaon explains that this is why both mitzvos have the same reward. A person may be a rachaman for whom chessed comes easy and sending away the mother bird is difficult. A person may be a cold person who has no issue sending away the mother bird, but cannot easily be warm and respectful of his parents' needs. The person needs to know that whether the mitzva is easy or hard for him, it has the same reward.

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 Shoftim

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 Devarim 20:3, the Torah provides the language of the Kohen in motivating the troops for battle wherein he says וְאָמַ֤ר אֲלֵהֶם֙ שְׁמַ֣ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אַתֶּ֨ם קְרֵבִ֥ים הַיּ֛וֹם לַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה עַל־אֹֽיְבֵיכֶ֑ם אַל־יֵרַ֣ךְ לְבַבְכֶ֗ם אַל־תִּֽירְא֧וּ וְאַל־תַּחְפְּז֛וּ וְאַל־תַּֽעַרְצ֖וּ מִפְּנֵיהֶֽם

Rashi quotes the Sifri who explains that this is a message to the soldiers that even if the only zechus they have is for saying Krias Shema, this will be sufficient for them to be successful in battle.

R' Frand mentioned an interesting question from the Belzer Rebbi in that the exception for proceeding to battle in a Milchemes Rishus is someone who is afraid from his sins. The Gemara in Sotah contains an opinion that this person could even be concerned that he had sinned in speaking between putting on his Tefillin Shel Yad and his Tefillin Shel Rosh, 

So how is the proper saying of Krias Shema enough of a guaranty of survival in battle, when speaking between the two aspects of tefillin can be reason enough to fear going to war?

R' Frand gave an introduction to human psychology before he answered this question. He quoted a Gemara in Nedarim who says that a person who does not visit another when he is sick in the hospital is as if he spilled his blood. Why? The meforshim explain that if he visited and prayed for the sick person, he could have saved his life. However the Netziv quotes the Sh'iltos in Nedarim which explains that the person who does not visit the person is in effect praying that he will die. The person is worried that he will see the sick man after he recuperates and will feel guilty that he did not visit. In order to avoid this embarrassment, he "prays" the man will die.

R' Frand remarks from this how we see that a person will go to great lengths to avoid having to say that he is sorry.

R' Frand also quoted the Sifri on the pasuk in Devarim 16:19 "כִּ֣י הַשֹּׁ֗חַד יְעַוֵּר֙ עֵינֵ֣י חֲכָמִ֔ים" - the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise men. The Sifri states that once a judge takes a bribe, he will not die until he has ruled correctly in judgment. R' Frand quoted R' Bukspan from Miami who found a source that explains that the judge who took the bribe made a ruling that was contrary to the law, He will then spend the rest of his days looking for a tortured explanation of the law so that he can justify the improper ruling - because he does not want to admit that he ruled incorrectly after being paid off.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting the Gerrer Rebbi who notes that R' Yossi HaGlili explains that the Gemara in Sotah who mentions the one who fears the "sins in his hands" is a person who is sinning and admits that he sins, but attempts to justify it - by stating I know its wrong to ..., but... It is akin to one who goes to mikva with a sheretz in his hand - he tries to purify himself but does not want to release his sins. This is the man who has to fear the battle. On the other hand, the person that admits that he did wrong and does teshuva, with no rationalization of his sins, even if all he has to the positive is the mitzva of Krias Shema - its enough.

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 Night Suds - Coney Island Brewing Beach Beer

For Labor Day weekend, this week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Coney Island Brewing's Beach Beer.

Its been a while since I saw a new Coney Island beer and since I have been a big fan of some of their more recent brews (see reviews of the Merman NY IPA here - https://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2018/07/sunday-night-suds-coney-island-merman.html and the Mermaid Pilsner here - https://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2016/09/sunday-night-suds-coney-island-brewery.html) I grabbed a few of these when I mixed a six at an upstate Price Chopper supermarket.

First things first - I would not think of a Kolsch being a Beach Beer, but I learned long ago that there is no rhyme or reason for why most breweries name things as they do. Then again, this brew is like most of the Kolsch style, thin and watery. I guess that might be why they call it Beach Beer, since you can drink a bunch of them at the beach and not become intoxicated. [Not legal advice - just an impartial observation of the lack of taste and the fact that the 4.6% abv measurement seems far fetched].

The beer had almost no hops, was slightly malty and seemed more like a lager then a light style ale. But I guess that works for some people.

The Coney Island Beach Beer is certified kosher by the Star-K and there is a Star-K on the can. 

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about the brew, please follow this link www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/27114/423249.

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).

Lastly, 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!