Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Bamidbar

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.

Parshas Bamidbar begins with a series of "countings" of the Jews in the desert. It is no great wonder that the book of Bamidbar is sometimes referred to as "Chumash Hapikudim" or as the English Bibles call it, the Book of Numbers.

Following Hashem's command to count the Jewish people, the parsha methodically performs such a count, which is set out in detail from Bamidbar 1:20-1:47. Following the listing of the count for each tribe (other than the tribe of Levi) the Torah gives a final tally of 603,550 Jews.

A number of pesukim after the end of the count, the Torah starts a discussion of how the Jews travelled in the desert. The Torah then indicates that there were four groups (one in each direction) and each group was comprised of three tribes. The Torah then again lists each tribe's individual census before indicating at Bamidbar 2:32 that in total, all of the tribes combined to have 603,550 Jews (again other than Levi).

The obvious question is, why does the Torah need to give a second tally? We know that since the Torah was written by Hashem, there are no superfluous words. Indeed, the great sages of the Gemara were able to discern meaning in seemingly excess letters in words. So why the double count?

The Medrash answers that the second count is an indication of how dear the Jewish people are to Hashem. By example, the old nursery rhyme that "the king is in his counting house, counting all his money" is indicative of how dear the money is to the King. When a person has something that is important to him, he will look to count and recount, deriving pleasure from each successive act. I recall doing the same with baseball cards as a child and I see it in my son Moshe who has 12 Transformers. He will play with them together or separately, but occasionally will count them and then announce "I have 12 Transformers." Why? Because he loves them.

The Ramban writes that the count is performed twice to show that from the day of the first count in chapter 1, through the day of the second count at the end of chapter 2, no Jew had died, despite the fact that twenty one days had passed. While I am no actuary, I'm certain that there is a mathematical computation or algorithm for figuring out how many people in a population of 603,550 will die over twenty one days. The Ramban writes that this shows that Hashem performed a great miracle.

While in fact the miracle was great, why are so many verses devoted to the topic?

R' Frand answered the question by quoting to a R' Leb Rotkin (the spelling on his name is a guess on my part) who heard it in the Yeshiva in Kletsk. R' Rotkin related that the use of so many pesukim is indicative of how valuable a Jewish life is. It is well known that a Jew may violate almost every Biblical commandment to save another Jew's life. As such, if a person is ill, he can be driven by a Jew to the hospital on the Sabbath. Similarly, while Yom Kippur is our holiest day, a person may eat if she will become ill by not doing so. Why do these rules exist? Because we believe that the life is extraordinarily valuable and that anyone who saves a Jewish life has saved an entire world. This principle is supported by the great miracle that no one died during the time period, which Hashem relates over numerous "extra" pesukim - for the purpose of demonstrating how dear each Jewish life is to Him.

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 XIII

Tonight's weird but true legal case examines the age old question of who is a Jew, albeit from the viewpoint of prison officials. In Jackson v. Mann, 196 F.3d 316 (2d Cir 1999) the Second Circuit Court of Appeals examined a lawsuit brought by an inmate who claimed that he had been deprived of kosher food in violation of (among other things) his 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion and his 8th Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. What makes this case "weird" is that Jackson was neither born a Jew nor did he undergo a ritual conversion with any Rabbi.

As discussed by the Court in its opinion, Jackson entered the NY State Penal system in 1986 and at that time he identified himself as Jewish and participated in the kosher meal programs at various prisons. In 1995, Jackson was transferred to Shawangunk, where he again listed his religious preference as Jewish and asked to be placed in the kosher diet program so that he could receive kosher meals as part of his religious practice. His request was granted pending a formal determination of his eligibility for the kosher diet program by the prison's Jewish Chaplain, Rabbi Goodman. Rabbi Goodman then told Jackson that he could approve a kosher diet only if Jackson was in fact Jewish. As Jackson was not born Jewish and had not converted, he would not be permitted to enter the program.

Jackson was not willing to accept Rabbi Goodman's answer and

claimed that he was Jewish because he read the Torah and ate kosher food. He told Rabbi Goodman that his prison records would confirm his Jewish status. The rabbi gave Jackson a Congregational Questionnaire which asked about his Jewish practices, but Jackson only partially completed it. Jackson later told Rabbi Goodman that he had indeed been born Jewish, but the rabbi was unable to reach Jackson's mother to substantiate this claim and Jackson himself declined to contact his mother for “fear of upsetting her.”

Unwilling to accept the decision of the Rabbi, Jackson filed suit in Federal District Court in 1995. The District Court granted the prison's motion for summary judgment, accepting Rabbi Goodman's discussion on what makes a person Jewish and noting that the prison was properly restricting the kosher food program to inmates who actually are Jewish.

On appeal to the Second Circuit, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the prison. In so doing, the Court explained that in "determining whether a prisoner's particular religious beliefs are entitled to free exercise protection, the relevant inquiry is not whether, as an objective matter, the belief is “accurate or logical.” Instead, the inquiry is “whether the beliefs professed by a [claimant] are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious.” The Court further explained that "A claimant need not be a member of a particular organized religious denomination to show sincerity of belief."

Based on this logic, the Court noted that

the district court relied on Rabbi Goodman's statement that “a Jew is one who was born Jewish or has formally converted” to conclude that Jackson is not “in fact Jewish” according to the “practice of the Jewish religion.” This reasoning erroneously substituted the objective “accuracy” of Jackson's assertion that he is Jewish for the correct test-whether Jackson's beliefs are “sincerely held.”

Viewed through the prism of sincerity, Jackson has produced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his religious beliefs are “sincerely held.” He submitted prison documentation that: (1) listed his religious preference as Jewish; (2) showed his participation in kosher meal programs in several other correctional facilities; and (3) showed that he had actually gone without food for several days to avoid eating non-kosher food. He also submitted an affidavit from his mother, in which she stated that she had raised Jackson according to the Jewish faith and dietary laws.

Interestingly, the prison officials also challenged the court's ability to determine the issue as a whole, arguing that "the question of Jewish status is an 'ecclesiastical question' beyond the competence of the courts, and is best left to the prison's religious authorities." The Second Circuit did not accept this argument, "because the question whether Jackson's beliefs are entitled to Free Exercise protection turns on whether they are 'sincerely held' not on the “ecclesiastical question” whether he is in fact a Jew under Judaic law.

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 - Sotah 3

Sotah 3 continues the introduction to the rules of Sotah including the number of witnesses who are required for the various stages of the process. Within the daf are a number of aggada type references that were interesting to me, and they are summarized below.

On Sotah 3a, R' Meir relates that if a person commits a sin in private, Hashem will reveal it publicly. He quotes a pasuk from Bamidbar as his proof - that it is stated "And it will pass over him (V'avar Alav) a spirit of kinna." R' Meir states that the use of the word V'avar means that Hashem will cause the matter to be (macriz) announced. Rashi explains this by saying that Hashem is ma'avir kol (from the same "avar" root) He will cause the sound to issue.

Also on Sotah 3a, Reish Lakish states that a person only sins when a "ruach shtus" (spirit of stupidity) passes over him. He links this to the pasuk "Ish Ish Ki Sishte Ishto" - translated as "a man, a man, whose wife has gone astray." In so doing, he uses the same root for different meanings - stupidity and adultery.

On Sotah 3b, R' Shmuel Bar Nachmeni says in the name of R' Yonatan that anyone who does a mitzva in this world, the mitzva runs ahead of him before he dies and announces his presence and merits in the world to come. On the other hand, one who sins in this world, the sin wraps around him and accompanies him to judgment day.

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!

My Monday Musings on Sports - Why can't we all share (the blame)

Due to the holiday, there was no Max Kellerman and Brian Kenny show today. Instead, Mike Missinelli (who used to do the midday show with Stephen A. Smith) hosted the show on 1050. Rather than reviewing Mike's views on the weekend in Sports, I would like to give my own take on the #1 baseball topic of conversation (covered in great detail last week by Max Kellerman and Brian Kenny, along with every other sports pundit in NY) - should Willie Randolph keep his job?

The vast majority of the views expressed on air have been that Willie needs to be fired based on the Mets track record. Today, Mike Missinelli said (in the name of Louie Gold, who I assume must have drawn the short stick and had to work today) that in the last calendar year, the Mets have a sub-.500 record under Willie. This is probably true as Louie is a passionate Mets fan (and probably can do math) so I have no reason to doubt it. I have also heard a great number of radio jocks (Max and Brian included) who have criticized Willie Randolph for having a "Joe Torre like" approach to managing and that his laid back style cannot work with a team with the flaws that the Mets have. This also may be correct. But I would like for a moment to look at the other half of the equation and ask why Omar Minaya and the players don't share the blame.

As to the players, one of the most brilliant lines in this regard was uttered by Michael Kay (within the context of a different manager who was in trouble a while back) "you can't fire all the players." This is certainly correct. And I'm not about to start making fantasy-style trade suggestions since these things are great when you are playing video games or trading baseball cards or rotisserie rosters, but are not the least bit realistic. But the players who have tanked quite a few games, either for lack of talent or lack of desire (in a perfect world) should be sharing in Willie's pain as they are partly responsible too. Yes, some of them do get their share of press when the team loses, but they are safe in their positions, thanks to guaranteed contracts.

But leaving aside the players, Omar Minaya should bear the lion's share of the blame for the Mets debacle. People are quick to forget, but in 2006 (the year the Mets lost in Game 7 of the LCS to the Cards) Willie had to manage a fundamentally flawed team. When the season began, the Mets were so short on starting pitching that they had to use such gems as Jose Lima, Geremi Gonzales and Alay Soler. Somehow, Willie was able to manage them to a tremendous regular season, despite the fact that Omar had left the team without starting pitching. And before anyone blames injuries, the starting pitching depth was this low because Omar had traded away starters in the off season in exchange for relievers.

The other major roster flaw in 2006 was that the team had no outfield depth. The Mets went down the stretch in 2006 with superstars Rickey Ledee and Michael Tucker in the outfield. Somehow, Willie managed to guide them to the LCS.

Last year, the Mets did collapse and maybe Willie's lack of fire had something to do with it. I'm not saying that the man is perfect, or even that he deserves to keep his job. But a large part of the collapse was the implosion of a bullpen as most of the losses down the stretch were games that the Mets had led, before the bullpen gave it away. September 2007's pen featured allstars in the pen such as Sosa, Schoenweiss, Sele, Urdanetta and Collazo.

And this year - its just too simple to spot Omar's flaw - the team has no power. In the starting line up you have Wright, Church, Alou and Delgado who have HR power, but only Wright has managed to stay healthy. The bigger problem is the bench , if the Mets are losing by a run with a man on base in the sixth or seventh, there is no one on the bench who can hit a HR. And when someone gets hurt, the starting lineup features Raul Casanova, Gustavo Molina, Damion Easley, Brady Clark and Marlon Anderson - no speed, no power.

But for reasons that I can't explain, Omar Minaya never gets called on the carpet by the media to explain how he can sign off on mega$$$ and build $150 million+ fundamentally flawed teams. Willie may not be a great manager, but to quote a line from a movie (the name of the movie escapes me) "don't spit on my head and tell me its raining."

So what is the Torah thought in Max's show today? Well as I said when I started this post, Max did not do the show, so I can't tell you specifically how his weekend wrap up touched on Torah thought. But before signing off, I will make brief reference to the players on the Mets and tie that in to Torah. As I wrote before, some players have seemingly been dogging it on the field, while others have shone (Ryan Church and Brian Schneider in particular) because they have put in the effort. The Talmud teaches us that if a person says that they did not try hard and succeeded, they should not be believed. Similarly, if a person says that they were successful without trying don't believe them. Willie can't play instead of the players, but if they do try hard, the team can succeed, despite Omar's efforts.

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 - Brooklyn Summer Ale

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds review looks at Brooklyn Summer Ale - a relatively new addition to the Brooklyn Brewery roster of fine beers. As you may be aware, Brooklyn Brewery beers are brewed in New York, although the 12 oz bottled beers are not produced in Brooklyn. Instead, these beers are brewed at the FX Matt Brewery in Utica that also produces Saranac and Pete's Wicked Beers.

Unlike the Saranac beers, the Brooklyn brews are predominantly unflavored and draw their distinctive tastes from the various hops that are utilized by master brewer Garret Oliver. Mr. Oliver frequently participates on the chat boards at Beer Advocate and is a great source of information.

The Brooklyn Summer Ale calls itself a "modern rendition" of a British "Light Dinner Ale." Since the blurb on the website indicates that the Brits stopped making Light Dinner Ales in the 1940s, I can't comment on whether it is true to form. I can tell you that it is light in terms of alcohol content (less than 5% ABV) and while it has a nice flavor, the hops certainly do not hit you over the head. Needless to say, there is no bitterness at all in the aftertaste and the overall impression is citrus, but not nearly as much as a wheat beer.

Summer Ale would do well with salads, chicken and definitely fish. The next time that we have salmon (Sarah makes an awesome Salmon Teriyaki), I want to try it with the Summer Ale to see if the flavors work as well as I think they will.

Brooklyn Summer Ale is under the Kosher Supervision of the Vaad of Detroit as are nearly all beers brewed by Brooklyn. For the experts' take on the Summer Ale please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/45/32631.

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!

Friday's Family Photo

Yael and Moshe visit Shea Stadium

Yes, the Mets lost this game too :-(