Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Sotah 38

Sotah 38 contains a primer on the laws of Birkat Kohanim (the priestly blessings) with at least twenty different Ein Mishpat/Ner Miztva references. For this post, I wanted a focus on just a few of the points that struck me from the daf.

The daf itself contains a pattern of laws that are proved through the device of gezeira shaveh, but then the limudim were subsequently challenged as not requiring a gezeira shaveh to support them. One interesting discussion involved whether the kohanim actually need to raise their hands when they gave the blessings. After the tanna of the braisa learned a gezeira shaveh to support the need for raising of the hands (by making reference to a different pasuk in which the Kohain Gadol raised his hands on Rosh Chodesh while making a public blessing) the gezeira shaveh was challenged by R' Yonasan who opined that since the gezeira shaveh involved the Kohain Gadol on Rosh Chodesh blessing the Tzibur, the limud should be limited to that circumstance. R' Nasan then ressurects the principle that raising of the hands is required by making a hekesh involving the words "Hu u'vanav kol hayamim" (Devarim 18:8). Rashi comments that although the same questions may be applicable to the quoted pasuk (limiting to Kohain Gadol, Rossh Chodesh and Tzibur) , we have an exigetical principle of "ein meishivim al ha hekesh" - that the use of a hekesh is a super tool and that we do not ask questions on it.

Another interesting point involved the question of whether the kohanim are called by the chazan prior to starting the blessing if there is only one kohain. Abaye teaches that where there are two (or more) kohanim, the shliach tzibur calls out "kohanim" but not if there is only one kohain, making reference to the words "emor lahem" (meaning multiple). Tosafos (d'h L'Shnayim) cites the Yerushalmi and the opinions of Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak and Rav Chisda. R' Nachman Bar Yitzchak says that if there is only one kohain the Shliach Tzibur calls out "Kohain". R' Chisda writes that even with one kohain, the Shliach Tzibur would say "Kohanim" as the reference in the calling out "Kohanim" is to the tribe, not just those who are present.

The final concept that I wanted to reference is the concept of being present in front of the kohanim when they make the blessing. I have many times seen people who try to make sure that they are directly in front of the kohanim when the blessing is made. The gemara on 38b (spilling over onto 39a) indicates that those who are at an angle from the kohanim still receive the blessing. Rashi (d'h Al Hatzdaddim on 39a) indicates that as long as the recipient is at an angle where he is in front of the kohanim he receives the blessing. However, if he is at an angle behind the kohain, he does not. Thus there is no need for people praying to come off the walls to be in the direct line of the kohanim. The gemara concludes that as long as the person's side position is not behind the kohanim, he receives the blessing. The Mishna Berurah (128:95) writes that even if the recipient is precisely aligned with the side of the kohanim, he has properly received the blessing.

***Ed note - I apologize for any typos in this post, Blogger's spell check is down and I have done the best I could to catch any errors.

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 XVI - Of Mets, Mets and more Mets, Shoes and Potential

Today's Max Kellerman show was a solo act as Brian Kenny was on vacation. There were not even any perspectives from Louie or Lundberg, who seem to have been permanently banned from public speaking. I am still at a loss to explain how Joey Salvia can comment on the Michael Kay show (and his thoughts never involve sports) , however the groundswell of support for the "Free Louie and Lundberg" movement seems to have died.

Back to my thoughts on the Max Kellerman show, today's program was baseball heavy which is to be expected at this time of year. What was surprising was the level of attention that was paid to the Mets. There were discussions about how Carlos Delgado still "sooks" despite his performance this weekend. (Max did slip a few times and had to correct himself to use the word "sook"). Of course Max is right, since a former power hitter will still feast on mistakes if a pitcher's control is off. He can't move to field anymore and has looked over matched against power pitchers since the end of '06. But its not like Mike Jacobs has better HR, RBI and OPS than he does. Oh, he does?

There were also shots taken at Jerry Manuel (Max says of Jerry that "he's always calling the Mets #2") as well as Jose Reyes (Max calls him immature and the "third best shortstop in NY"). I guess that the Yankees losing the season series to the Mets must have stung.

In fairness, Max did have some positive comments to say about the Metropolitans, including that Johan Santana has an ERA one full run below league average and that the team only needs Barry Bonds to "supplement" (my pun) the roster and they would be running away with the NL Eastern Division.

As has been his habit of late, there was at least one remark made about his unborn child. It actually was quite funny, Max referred to Erin as a centipede based on her shoe collection. He then said that one day his daughter will read about his shows and when she asks how he could say these things he will respond that this is how she got her 100 pairs of shoes. Max still has not let on the name of the baby (my money is still on Shayna), but maybe he is just superstitious...

There was some basketball talk as well, although it all revolved around the Knick fans and their booing of Danilo Gallinari. (You would have thought there would have been some conversation about the Nets dumping of Richard Jefferson, but Max knows that his listeners are overwhelmingly Knick fans). Max talked about how the Knicks "finally" made a good pick as Gallinari is a more polished player than Joe Alexander (the popular choice) and that while Alexander is a good athlete, Gallinari has upside potential.

Max's allusion to the potential for greatness and the investment in a player with the ability to star has its roots in Torah thought. In discussing how Esau was Isaac's favorite son (while Rebecca preferred Jacob) the question is frequently asked -- how could Isaac be fooled by Esau and not see that he was committing major sins on a frequent basis?

The Chasan Sofer answers that Isaac was not fooled by Esau, rather he saw in Esau the possibility to succeed if his talents were applied correctly. Indeed, there are some students with limited potential who when they apply themselves get good grades. But every once in a while there are students who are brilliant but choose to use that for alternative purposes. If a teacher is able to channel that student's energy into a positive purpose, the "cut-up" student has the potential to be even greater than the average student who merely does well because he applies himself. This was the reason that Isaac stuck with Esau according to the Chasan Sofer, because Isaac knew that if Esau could channel his energies for a positive purpose, he could have been greater than Jacob.

As correctly noted by Max, its not simply about who the best athlete is at the present. A good front office will be able to identify the player who is good at the present with skills that could be great if properly developed.

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 - Saranac Chocolate Amber Lager

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds review looks at Saranac Chocolate Amber Lager, a winter seasonal beer that is sold as part of Saranac's 12 Beers of Winter box. Yes, its late June and the temperature here in NY has been around 90 nearly every day, but I am reviewing a dark, winter beer. Why? Read on.

Last week I was rooting through one of the boxes of beer under my counter that serves as a catch all collector. Like many beer stores, occasionally I find myself with singles or pairs of beers from sixes or twelves that I have bought, but have for some reason or other not finished, before I have moved on to try something else. When this happens, the remainders go into the box (or boxes depending on my mood and what Sarah lets me keep) under the counter. In this way, I am quite different from my father-in-law, a dedicated Heineken drinker whose philosophy is - why change a good thing (in his case why try something other than Heineken). Personally, I keep trying different beers, not because I believe that there is a perfect beer out there, but because the market place of Kosher beer is rapidly evolving and I want to experience as many as I can. Indeed, I have been frequently asked since I started this blog, what are you going to do when you run out of beers to review? My answer is simple, I'll worry about it when I get there. There are so many different kosher brands and varieties out there, I can't imagine running out any time soon.

But back to Saranac, they are now somewhat back on line. Their website indicates that as of June 13th (a fortuitous date for a kosher brewer) they are packaging at another location and have recommenced giving tours and contributing to the community. For more information, click on the following link http://www.saranac.com/page/brewery-fire . If you are a fan of theirs, please click on the comments link and give them chizuk. V'Hamayvin Yavin.

Saranac Chocolate Amber Lager is a dark beer with a rich chocolaty flavor. Unlike some other Saranac beers, the flavor in the Chocolate Amber Lager is not externally influenced by additives or flavorings. The beer itself is a slow drinking beer which can be enjoyed in the comfort of a well air conditioned dining room or living room after a Friday Night supper (which is how I enjoyed mine the other night).

Saranac Chocolate Amber Lager is under the Kosher Supervision of the Vaad of Detroit as are all beers brewed by Saranac. For the experts' take on the Chocolate Amber Lager please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/99/6796 .

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 - Korach

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 Korach begins with the words "Vayicach Korach" (and Korach took). The famous question that is asked is - what did he take? Indeed, since the Torah then goes on to describe what Korach said, it should have begun with the words "Vayomer Korach (and Korach said).

The gemara in Sanhedrin 109b, states that Korach took a "Mecach Ra" or a bad purchase. R' Frand then asked, but what was his purchase? A person can have a fool hardy transaction, such as buying land in the Everglades, but at least there is a purchase. In the parsha, there is no statement that Korach purchased anything.

The Be'er Yakov (quoting the Zayit Ra'anan) answers the question by making reference to Rashi on Korach 16:7. The Torah states that Moshe suggested a contest that the people should see whose incense will be accepted. Rashi asks, but Korach is a bright man, why would he think that his incense would be accepted, he has no better that a 1 in 250 chance? Rashi answers that Korach looked at his future generations and saw that Shmuel Hanavi and twenty four mishmaros of nevi'im would come from him. He assumed that meant that he had a great z'chus and therefore he would prevail in this contest with Moshe.

The Zayit Ra'anan then asks - if this is the case (and we know that Shmuel did come from him) then why did the z'chus not protect Korach from his fate of being swallowed alive by the earth and spending eternity in Gehinnom with a constant restart of his punishment every thirty days?

R' Frand prefaced the answer by making reference to the Alter M'Kelem. In discussing bechorim (first born children), the Alter asks, why do they have holiness? Because they were part of a great kiddush Hashem in Egypt that the first born children of the Egpytians died, while they lived. But it can asked - the bechorim did not do anything, all they did was live because Hashem allowed them to live? The answer is - yes, however Hashem rewards everyone who effectuates a kiddush Hashem, even if their role is passive as they are still the vehicle through which the kiddush Hashem has occurred.

The Zavit Ra'anan writes that Korach was zocheh to have Shmuel as a decendant, because he was responsible for the great kiddush Hashem of having Moshe established as the unchallenged leader and the Jews having proclaimed "Moshe Emes V'Soraso Emes" (Moshe is truthful and his Torah is truthful). Since he caused this great kiddush Hashem, Korach was rewarded with Shmuel and the nevi'im.

The problem was that Korach paid too large a price for the transaction of having famous descendants. Indeed, the cost of having a Shmuel come from Korach was his life and his reward in the world to come. In reality, Korach paid with his olam hazeh and olam haba and was resigned to eternity in Gehinnom in exchange for having famous descendants. This was his problem, he was able to see the future, he just did not realize that it was not the effect of his actions to date, it was a result of what he was about to cause.

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 Legal Cases - Vol XVI

Today's weird legal case asks the following question - if the Greatest American Hero fought Superman, who would win? This was the question dealt with by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Warner Bros. Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. 720 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1983). Okay, maybe that was not the exact question, but read on.

As anyone above the age of thirty may recall, in 1983 there was popular television show that ran on ABC called the Greatest American Hero. It involved the misadventures of Ralph Hinkley, an ordinary guy who was given a superhero suit in the middle of the desert by aliens. Unfortunately, he loses the instruction suit and spends many episodes trying to learn how to fly. If I recall correctly, in some of the early episodes he chooses to run because he keeps crashing when he flies. (If you want to see episodes of the show, they are not on Yahoo TV, but I have recently seen boxed sets of the 3 year series for sale on various websites).

As noted by the Second Circuit, there were a few similarities between the Greatest American Hero and Superman. The court explained that:

The Hero series contains several visual effects and lines that inevitably call Superman to mind, sometimes by way of brief imitation, sometimes by mention of Superman or another character from the Superman works, and sometimes by humorous parodying or ironic twisting of well-known Superman phrases. Hinkley's suit invests him with most of Superman's powers, and the suit, like Superman's, is a tight-fitting leotard with a chest insignia and a cape. Their outfits differ in that Superman wears a blue leotard with red briefs, boots, and cape, while Hinkley's costume is a red leotard with a tunic top, no boots, and a black cape. In one scene, as Hinkley is running at super speed, smoke emerges from his footsteps, and the sound of a locomotive is heard. A similar scene occurs in Superman I, though even without seeing the movie it would be difficult not to be reminded by the Hero scene of Superman, who is regularly described as “more powerful than a locomotive.” When Hinkley first views himself in a mirror holding his costume in front of him, he says, “It's a bird ... it's a plane ... it's Ralph Hinkley.” The youngster, Jerry, watching Hinkley's unsuccessful first effort to fly, tells him, “Superman wouldn't do it that way.” In a scene with his girlfriend, who is aware of the powers that come with the magic costume, Hinkley says, “Look at it this way ... you're already one step up on Lois Lane. She never found out who Clark Kent really was.”

In suing ABC for copyright infringement and unfair competition, the Superman creators indicated that there were three specific instances involved with the launch of the Greatest American Hero that were purportedly infringements of the Superman franchise copyright, these included:

First, some of the “promos” show Hinkley flying (with his lantern) in outerspace, with the earth as a background; plaintiffs contend this is an attempt to copy a scene from Superman I in which Superman performs exploits in outerspace. Second, some of the “promos” show the Statue of Liberty, which plaintiffs contend is an attempt to copy a movie scene of Superman flying around the Statue. Third, in one of the “promos” Hinkley is shown watching a television set on which appears a brief clip from the television cartoon “Superfriends” showing the animated cartoon figure of Superman. In addition, plaintiffs assert that a special videotape prepared to promote the Hero series, which was shown to ABC's sponsors and affiliated stations, used excerpts from the music soundtrack of Superman I.

After the trial court granted judgment to the defendants, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit. In stating the standard to be applied to the copyright infringement claims, the court explained that "The basic issues concerning the copyright infringement claim are whether the Hero and Superman works are substantially similar so as to support an inference of copying and whether the lack of substantial similarity is so clear as to fall outside the range of reasonably disputed fact questions requiring resolution by a jury. The similarity to be assessed must concern the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves."

In applying this standard, the Second Circuit found that the Greatest American Hero was not kryptonite. OK, maybe they did not have my sense of humor. The Court did perform a detailed analysis in affirming the judgement to the defendants. I have reproduced some of the highlights below:

Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that Chief Judge Motley correctly entered summary judgment for the defendants on the claim of copyright infringement. Plaintiffs make no claim that the Hero pilot, subsequent episodes, or “promos” infringed the story of any Superman works. Their contention is that the Hero character, Ralph Hinkley, is substantially similar to Superman and that the Hero works impermissibly copied what plaintiffs call the “indicia” of Superman, a concept broad enough to include Superman's costume, his abilities, the well-known lines associated with him-in short, anything occurring in the Hero works that might remind a viewer of Superman.

The total perception of the Hinkley character is not substantially similar to that of Superman. On the contrary, it is profoundly different. Superman looks and acts like a brave, proud hero, who has dedicated his life to combating the forces of evil. Hinkley looks and acts like a timid, reluctant hero, who accepts his missions grudgingly and prefers to get on with his normal life. Superman performs his superhuman feats with skill, verve, and dash, clearly the master of his own destiny. Hinkley is perplexed by the superhuman powers his costume confers and uses them in a bumbling, comical fashion. In the genre of superheros, Hinkley follows Superman as, in the genre of detectives, Inspector Clouseau follows Sherlock Holmes.

Other interesting observations included:

An infringement claim would surely be within the range of reasonable jury fact issues if a character strongly resembled Superman but displayed some trait inconsistent with the traditional Superman image. If a second comer endowed his character with Superman's general appearance, demeanor, and skills, but portrayed him in the service of the underworld, a jury would have to make the factual determination whether the second character was Superman gone astray or a new addition to the superhero genre. In this case, however, a reasonable jury could not conclude that Hinkley is substantially similar to the Superman character with only a change of name. The overall perception of the way Hinkley looks and acts marks him as a different, non-infringing character who simply has some of the superhuman traits popularized by the Superman character and now widely shared within the superhero genre.

The same considerations make evident the correctness of Chief Judge Motley's ruling that the “promos” for the Hero series present no jury issue concerning infringement of the Superman character. By aggregating the total number of viewer impressions made by all the showings of the thirteen basic “promos” and their minor variations, appellants imply, and we agree, that the visual impact of the series of “promos” should be primarily assessed. A viewer of an adequate sampling of the “promos” would necessarily be exposed to the Hinkley characteristics that distinguish him from Superman. In six of the thirteen basic “promos” Hinkley either flies out of control, crash lands, or cringes in cowardly fashion at the firing of bullets. In six other “promos” his flying, though uneventful, is aided (either for vision or balance) by carrying in one hand a large lantern. It may be that within a series of generally non-infringing “promos” a single “promo” could be so substantially similar to a copyrighted character as to establish infringement or at least create a fair factual issue for jury consideration. Here, however, no single “promo” is that similar to the Superman character, and whatever recollections of Superman may be stirred by the “promos” showing Hinkley flying without incident are quickly dispelled by the remainder of the series in which his flying skills are decidedly not super. Nor does infringement arise because one “promo” shows the Statue of Liberty and another shows Hinkley flying in outerspace with the earth in the background. Appellants' claim that these shots infringe scenes from Superman I is too extravagant to be maintained. The Statue of Liberty is a widely recognized symbol of the United States, available for portrayal in any fictional work, and Superman has no monopoly among fictional heroes on self-propelled flight in outerspace.

Finally, the Court gave credit to the viewers of the program and their ability to discern the difference between Superman and William Katt, stating:

That leaves for consideration on the infringement claim the use in the Hero episodes and “promos” of lines that either mention Superman and other characters from the Superman saga or incorporate phrases associated with Superman. The use of such lines is manifestly not infringement. In each instance the lines are used, not to create a similarity with the Superman works, but to highlight the differences, often to a humorous effect. Appellants acknowledge the contrasting point made by some of the Hero lines, but insist nevertheless that the point may not be appreciated by some of the viewers, especially young viewers who make up a significant share of the television audience for the Hero series. Appellants were prepared to offer expert testimony to show that some children would not perceive the negatives when the announcer says that Hinkley “may be unable to leap tall buildings in a single bound,”“may be slower than a speeding bullet,” and “may be less powerful than a locomotive.” We do not doubt that some viewers may miss the point, but their misunderstanding does not establish infringement. Perhaps if Hero were a children's series, aired on Saturday mornings among the cartoon programs, we would have greater concern for the risk that lines intended to contrast Hinkley with Superman might be mistakenly understood to suggest that Hero was a Superman program. Cf. Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu, Ltd., 261 F.Supp. 238, 241-42 (S.D.N.Y.1966) (children's perception of television commercial for dolls). But when a work is presented to a general audience of evening television viewers, the possible misperception of some young viewers cannot prevent that audience from seeing a program that will readily be recognized by the “average lay observer,” Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd., 360 F.2d 1021, 1022 (2d Cir.1966), as poking fun at, rather than copying, a copyrighted work.

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 31

Sotah 31a begins with a discussion of R' Yehoshua ben Hurkenus' teaching about Job and how he worshipped Hashem out of fear. The gemara then attempts to learn that Job worshipped out of love in the same way that Avraham did, as R' Meir taught that it says Yirei Elokim by Avraham and by Job. Since the mention by Avraham indicates that his actions were borne out of love, so too were Job's actions borne out of love for Hashem.

The gemara then asks - what is the difference between one who follows Hashem's commandments out of fear of punishment and one who follows the laws because of his love of Hashem. The gemara answers that one who does so out of love receives a greater reward as the merits of his actions stand to protect his future generations for two thousand generations.

In defining the concept of what constitutes worship from love, the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 10:2) explains that one who worships from love learns Torah, does mitzvot and walks in the path of wisdom, not for a particular worldly purpose or because of fear of punishment or in order to receive a reward, rather he does these true acts because they are what need to be done and whatever goodness comes as a result will come.

Tosafos on the daf (d'h Gadol) does not refer to the discourse in the gemara at all. Rather, the Tosafos retells the story brought down in the Yerushalmi in Berachos in which R' Akiva was summoned for trial before Turnus Rufus. While awaiting trial, he read Shema at the proper time and then smiled. Turnus Rufus then said to him, "old man, old man" are you a cheresh or do you enjoy pain? R' Akiva responded that he was neither a cheresh nor did he enjoy pain. Rather, he indicated that he had previously recited the line in the Shema that "you shall love Hashem with all your heart, all your soul and all your resources." R' Akiva said that he had been able to fulfill worshipping with all his heart and all his resources, but not with all his soul. Now that he was awaiting trial before Turnus Rufus, he could fulfill loving Hashem with all his soul by publicly reciting the Shema at its proper time. It is taught that upon finishing this statement, R' Akiva's soul ascended to heaven.

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!