Sunday Night Suds - Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds review takes a seasonal tone (as well as a cue from last week's Simpsons) and looks at Blue Moon's fall offering - Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale.

Before you ask me - what ever possessed anyone to experiment with pumpkin added to the brew process, I simply don't know. I can hypothesize that some creative brewmaster may have thought -- people like pumpkin pie and people like beer, let's try to spice a beer to taste like pumpkin pie.

Beer Advocate explains the genre of pumpkin beer as follows:

Often released as a fall seasonal, Pumpkin Ales are quite varied. Some brewers opt to add hand-cut pumpkins and drop them in the mash, while others use puree or pumpkin flavoring. These beers also tend to be spiced with pumpkin pie spices, like: ground ginger, nutmeg, cloves, cinnamon, and all spice. Pumpkin Ales are typically mild, with little to no bitterness, a malty backbone, with some spice often taking the lead. Many will contain a starchy, slightly thick-ish, mouthfeel too. In our opinion, best versions use real pumpkin, while roasting the pumpkin can also add tremendous depth of character for even better results, though both methods are time-consuming and tend to drive brewmasters insane.

The Harvest Moon pumkin ale which I tried this evening poured a rich orange color with quite a bit of lacing and a smell of cloves and nutmeg which hit me before the glass had reached my lips. If you are looking for a beer that is "parve" (basic lager) this is definitly not for you. However, if you want to try a beer which carries the seasoning of the fall, this would be worth a shot. The beer goes well with strong meat dishes (steaks, chops) or as a companion to a warm piece of pumpkin pie after dinner.

Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale is under the kashruth supervision of the Orthodox Union, as are all other beer produced by parent Coors Brewing Co. of Golden, Colorado. For the experts take on Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/306/100 .

As always, please remember to drink responsibly and to never waste good beer unless there is no designated driver.

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

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Lech Lecha

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

The Medrash notes that the words "Lech Lecha" appear twice in the Torah. The first occurrence is in this week's parsha where Hashem instructs Avraham Avinu to go to Eretz Kina'an. The second time that the words are used is in conjunction with the akeidah where Avraham is told in Bereishis 22:2 to take Yitzchak "V'Lech Lecha el Eretz HaMoriah." R' Levi then says that he does not know which of the two directives which Avraham obeyed are more dear to Hashem.

Rashi answers the question posed by R' Levi, stating that Avraham's act of going up to bring Yitzchak as a sacrifice was the act which was more dear to Hashem.

Many times it seems to the casual observer that Rashi is stating the obvious, but on further review there is a deeper level which demonstrates Rashi's genius. In the matter at hand, Rashi's answer seems obvious - of course the act of potentially sacrificing one's child is a greater act then merely leaving the land of one's birthplace.

In answering this question, R' Frand made reference to a series of halachos mentioned by the Rambam in Hilchos Avodas Kochavim (1: 1-3). In describing how man sunk to the depths of worshiping idols, the Rambam explains that people originally wanted to show honor to the sun, moon or stars because they recognized that they were performing tasks designated by Hashem. However, people lost sight of the fact that these objects were merely carrying out jobs assigned by Hashem and instead the people began to worship the objects. Avraham realized that the world had to have been created by a being which created the order of the universe. At the time, Avraham did not have a Rabbi/teacher to explain things to him as he was stuck living in Ur Kasdim among the idol worshipers. Nevertheless, Avraham developed his understanding of Hashem and began to influence others. This earned the ire of the king who had Avraham thrown in a fiery furnace. Of course, Avraham survived and subsequently left Ur Kasdim and began to travel the area explaining the concept of Hashem and bringing people to understand Hashem's role in the world.

Given this preface, ask yourself about the following scenario. A Rabbi goes to a small city where there are few observant Jews and he begins to bring those who have drifted away back to Judaism. He becomes very successful at his task and suddenly people are coming to synagogue and he begins to influence non-observant Jews in surrounding communities to also return to the fold. After some time, the Rabbi receives a call from a large Jewish community which has learned of the Rabbi's talents and would like him to come and become the Rabbi in their metropolis. What should he do?

This was the quandary facing Avraham. He had managed to bring many people back from idolatry and was teaching them the meaning of Hashem. Suddenly, Hashem tells him to leave this geographic area and all that he accomplished there and move to Eretz Kina'an. Avraham looks at all this and asks - should I leave this behind? This is the meaning of the question in the medrash and why we need Rashi to answer the question.

A proof can be found in the first pasuk of Vayera. The Torah recites that Avraham was at Elonei Mamreh. Why is the area named after Mamreh? Because when Hashem told Avraham to give himself a bris millah, Avraham wondered whether he should follow the order and he asked Mamreh for guidance. Mamreh told him to follow the command of Hashem. As a result, Mamreh is rewarded.

The questioning by Avraham seems bizarre - did he really not know whether he should listen? When viewed in the light of the above Medrash, we can have a better understanding of the question. Avraham was commanded to perform a bris which would forever mark him as different from all others. If he performed the bris in a public way, he thought, maybe the people I am trying to influence will view me as different and they will be less likely to listen when I tell them about Hashem. Faced with this question, he went to Mamreh for advice.

One final example of Avraham's work before he left for Eretz Kina'an can be seen from the gemara in Avodah Zarah. The gemara explain that the world will last up to 6,000 years. The first two thousand will be tohu, the second two thousand will be Torah and the third will be the time of Moshiach. When does the era of Torah start? When Avraham begins to be mikarev people. [It is known that Avraham was born in 1948 and that he recognized Hashem at 40].

R' Weiss asks on this gemara - but there was Torah before Avraham. Indeed, Noach observed laws and there even were the Yeshivos of Shem and Aver. He answers by mentioning the Kesef Mishneh who says that there was Torah, but Avraham was the first to bring the masses in to learn it. The yeshivos of Shem and Aver existed for those who traveled there to learn. Avraham went out to teach, thus he is credited with commencing the era of Torah.

With this understanding, we can see the dilemma facing Avraham when he was told "Lech Lecha" and why the Medrash's question does not have such an obvious answer.

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

Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol. XXX

Tonight's weird (but true) case examines a legal challenge to the voter residency rule. This post was inspired by news stories about people who attempted to register to vote in Ohio based on its thirty day residency rule, as well as other stories involving people who attempted (or possibly succeeded) to vote multiple times by registering as students where they went to school as well as in their hometown.

In Wit v. Berman, 306 F.3d 1256 (2d Cir. 2002) individuals who owned homes in New York City and the Hamptons, challenged New York's residency rule, arguing that they should be entitled to vote in local elections in both communities. The plaintiffs maintained homes in NY City for more than forty years, paid income and property taxes to NY City and met the voter registration requirement for NY City. However, the plaintiffs also had homes in the Hamptons and had registered to vote in Suffolk County. Based on these registrations, the plaintiffs were barred from voting in NY City.

In June 2000, the Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the pertinent provisions of the Election Law and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief permitting them to register to vote in local elections in New York City while maintaining the right to vote in the Hamptons. As noted by the Second Circuit:

The complaint claims that the Election Law, as written and enforced, violates the Equal Protection Clause because it denies appellants the right to register to vote in elections in New York City even though, save for New York defining residency for voting purposes as the location of one's single permanent home-“that place”-they possess the same indicia of residency as those residents of New York City who are deemed qualified to register to vote. The complaint also asserts that the Election Law infringes on appellants' federal constitutional rights to due process of law and intrastate travel as well as their rights under various provisions of the New York Constitution.

Like many (if not all) states, New York has a residency rule for elections. The court explained:

Under New York law, one must be a resident of an electoral district to register as a voter in that district. “Residence” is defined in the Election Law as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he, wherever temporarily located, always intends to return.” N.Y. Elec. Law § 1-104(22) (emphasis added). Section 17-104 of the Election Law provides that any person who “[r]egisters or attempts to register as an elector in more than one election district for the same election” is guilty of a felony. N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-104(2), (5). Other sections of the Election Law also impose felony penalties on those who knowingly attempt to register “when not qualified” and on those who attempt to vote in an election “more than once.” N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-132(1), (3), (9).

In framing the issue raised by the Plaintiffs, the Second Circuit stated:

An Equal Protection claim must be based on impermissible differential treatment. Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 499 (2d Cir.2001). The differential treatment alleged here is that, because appellants are otherwise qualified under New York law to register in both New York City and the Hamptons, the provision of the Election Law prohibiting them from registering in two places treats them differently than the qualified voters in the election district in which they are not registered. To put it another way, appellants are not allowed to vote in New York City solely because they are registered in the Hamptons. Were they to give up their registration in the Hamptons, they could register in New York City. Therefore, they argue, they are being treated differently than others qualified to vote in the City.

In affirming the dismissal of the complaint, the Second Circuit explained:

Domicile as a rule may have its philosophical defects, therefore, but it has enormous practical advantages over the alternatives. It almost always insures that a voter has some stake in the electoral outcome in the domiciliary district and almost always does not involve large numbers of disputes over where one may vote. The domicile rule informs would-be voters where they may vote, a vital function that encourages registration and voting. Moreover, it gives voters the notice required for the enforcement of criminal laws against individuals voting in places where they are not eligible. SeeN.Y. Elec. Law § 17-132.

The New York domicile rule also provides substantially workable standards for registrars of voters as to whether would-be voters are or are not entitled to register. The vast majority of voters have a principal residence in which they have lived for thirty days. Were registrars of voters required to apply a more philosophically satisfying rule with multiple individual voting districts based on concepts such as a voter's stake in the outcome or simply the frequent presence of a voter in the district, each election would have the potential for massive disputes over registration and the legitimacy of election results. Legal bright lines will always be under- or over-inclusive, but chaos is hardly preferable.

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

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Kiddushin 27

Kiddushin 27 continues an ongoing discussion of kinyan agav karka (transactions where a movable object is transferred as part of the sale of real property).

In discussing two general rules related to shtaros, Rabba Bar Yitzchak mentions the following scenario - a person tells two people to accept property on behalf of another and draw up and give the buyer a document which will serve as documentary proof that the property was sold to him. The two people who had been instructed by the seller are then koneh the karka by way of chazakah and then draw up the shtar, but have not yet given the shtar to the buyer. Rabba Bar Yitzchak teaches that the seller may tell the two people not to give the buyer the shtar, but he cannot revoke the sale of the property once they have acquired it through chazakah.

Tosafos (d'h Chozer) asks the obvious questions - what advantage is it to the seller that he can cause the shtar not to be given to the buyer if the property is still transfered regardless? Tosafos answers that the shtar has a "kol" (voice) and that people will more readily learn that the property has been sold if a shtar is prepared. Why is this significant? Because if people learn that he is selling his assets, they may assume that he has become impoverished and will be less likely to lend him money if he needs it. Shades of the modern credit reports/scores?

In teaching the concept of gilgul shevuah on Kiddushin 27b, the gemara makes reference to the gilgul shevuah by a Sotah in which she states (in response to an instruction by the Kohen) "Amen, Amen." The gemara learns out that she is saying amen to numerous things including that: she accepts the punishment which would come had she been unfaithful; she swears that she was not unfaithful; she accepts that this applies to the man who was the subject of the kinui; she accepts that it is applicable to other men; she affirms that she was not a sotah while engaged (arusah), married (nesuah), awaiting yibum or already had undergone yibum.

Tosafos (d'h Amen) asks - since she only says amen twice, how can it apply to all these matters? Tosafos answers that that one amen covers all the eventualities which are the subject of the biblical verses - she accepts the punishment, affirms she was not unfaithful, whether with the man who was the subject of the kinui or any other man. The second amen then teaches that she accepts that the shevuah will also include the time that she was an arusah or awaiting yibum (which was not the subject of the verses).

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

Max Kellerman's Monday Musings - Vol XXX - Is Max Becoming a JETS Fan?

Today's Max Kellerman show was football focused, which is not surprising as Max does not care for hockey and the New York Knicks may finish with a worse record than the year before. [I can't even speculate as to Max's feelings about the Nets, because other then the proposed move to Brooklyn, the team does not exist to Max]. However, while Max is a diehard Giants fan, a casual listener to today's show might have believed that Max was becoming a Jets fan.

Some quick thoughts from Max which could be construed as indicia of his changing of allegiances including:

This season has taught us that any given Sunday any professional team could beat another NFL team (examples being the Bengals winning this Sunday and the Jets beating the Bills). Max followed this up with a statement that you can't circle games on the schedule in advance anymore. [If true, this would doom Michael Kay's famous "win,loss,win,loss,win" game].

Max also observed that Jets fans are "furious" that they won the game (a not too subtle shot at Louie the Call Screener). He said later that Jets fans are "polarizing" him into liking Brett Favre.

Max analyzed the Jets chances of making it to and advancing in the playoffs, stating that 8-8 teams are on the bubble and with a little luck an 8-8 team could be 10-6 and make a playoff run or with a little bad luck the team could go 6-10. This rant got the attention of the ad people at 1050 as I already heard a replay of the spiel as a Max Kellerman show promo later in the day.

Max also had specific praise for certain members of the Jets including D. Revis as "the best corner in the NFL", Kerry Rhodes "may be the best safety" and Kris Jenkins is "the best nose tackle in football." In fairness, Max did say later that Justin Tuck may be the best defensive player in football, but this was in response to a caller and not a spontaneous Max statement.

Of course, Max may also be trying to give the Jets an ayin hara, since every team that he has boasted about during the season has tanked (see 2008 Yankees, 2007-2008 Knicks and possibly the 2008-2009 Knicks). Indeed, the one constant of last year's Giants run was Max's playing down of the team and its chances to succeed. There was never a proclamation that the Giants defensive line or running back core was the "greatest of all time." Contrast that with recent statements about the Yankees bullpen or Eddy Curry, Zack Randolph, Randolph Morris or any other Knick.

Max's statement about playoff bubble teams and the ability to get on a run and succeed or run into bad luck and fail finds its roots in Torah thought. The Talmud is replete with references to a person's mazal (luck) and its ability to influence results. The Talmud even warns against antagonizing or confronting a rosha when it is obvious that his mazal is causing him to succeed. So yes Max is correct, sometimes the difference between 8-8 and 10-6 or 6-10 is that little bit of mazal.

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

Sunday Night Suds - Shiner Hefeweizen

This week's Sunday Night Suds beer review takes one last sentimental look at summer beer by reviewing Shiner Hefeweizen.

Shortly before Rosh Hashana, I was contacted by a Rabbi with a question about a certain style of beer. In order to properly answer his question, I needed to verify a certain beer with the Va'ad of Detroit. Since I was corresponding with them anyway, I decided to ask whether any new brands were now under their supervision. To my surprise, I learned that Shiner beers, brewed at the Spoetzel Brewery in Shiner, Texas, were now under the supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit.

Armed with this knowledge, I set out to find Shiner beer. The Shiner website indicated that it was not sold in NY (although I did a little digging and found that at least one BBQ joint in the Village carried it). However, the website did indicate that it was being sold in Illinois. Well, I checked the Sam's website and they indicated that they did carry a number of varieties, so I reserved a six pack of the Hefeweizen and another sixer of the Blonde in advance of our Sukkos trip.

The nice thing about Sam's is that they have a world class selection of beer, wine and spirits in an easily accessible location. Their prices are more than fair and the staff is helpful enough, but also knows when to leave you alone. They even ship by mail (warning, the ship charge is pretty steep, I priced three six packs and the ship charge was $29).

We brought the Shiner brews back to my inlaws and tried them in the sukkah. The Hefeweizen was a solid double, light tasting with some sweetness. Having said that, it did not taste like a classic hefeweizen as the banana-type flavors were not there and there were no floaters. It also did not taste like an American wheat beer either. Still, if I had a case of these I could definitely knock back a couple on a hot summer day.

Shiner Hefeweizen is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit, although the brew does not bear the Va'ad symbol on its label. If you would like me to e-mail you the Va'ad LOC for Shiner, send me an e-mail and I will gladly oblige.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Shiner Hefeweizen, please follow this link

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/143/1552 .

As always, please remember to drink responsibly and to never waste good beer unless there is no designated driver.

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