Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Masei

Normally, the Thursday night parsha post on this blog slot contains a thought said over by R' Frand in his satellite shiur. Since the shiur is now on hiatus through Elul, I will be substituting with divrei torah found in other sources. As always, if the p'shat appears to be incorrect, it is a result of my efforts to convey the thought that I found in the sefer.

In Masei 35:9-34, the Torah discusses the establishment of "Arei Miklat" - cities of refuge where people who killed b'shogeg (translated for our purposes as unintentionally) would travel to escape the goel hadam - the avenger of the blood of the deceased. The Torah devotes a great deal of time to the discussion of the establishment of the cities and to which types of acts would qualify as unintentional and allow for the killer to seek refuge. I would like to focus on three concepts in this post.

Prior to actually detailing the laws of the Arei Miklat, the Torah alludes to their establishment. In Masei 35:6, the Torah indicates that Hashem directed the Jews to set up six cities which will be Arei Miklat and that the levi'im will have an additional forty-two cities in addition to those six cities. The sefer Ohev Yisrael (as brought in the Ma'ayana Shel Torah) teaches that the six cities are in accordance with the six words which comprise the Shma Yisrael. The Ohev Yisrael then says that the words "V'aleihem Titnu" that on those six cities you should provide an additional forty-two cities (totalling 48 cities) are in accordance with the forty-eight words of the V'ahavta portion of the Shma. The Ohev Yisroel explains that the six words of the Shma and the forty-eight words of the V'ahavta are our cities of refuge, providing a place for all the Jews to seek protection, even if they committed an evil deed. By accepting Hashem through the recitation of the shma, the Jew will gain the protection from the goel hadam - the negative angels that are created as a result of his act.

The Chidushei Harim (also brought down in the Ma'ayana Shel Torah) explains the manner in which the city of refuge functioned. He states that if a person killed unintentionally and is so guilt wracked that there is nowhere that he feels comfortable due to his bitterness and self loathing over the killing, then Hashem says to the person - I have a place for you, the city of refuge will take you in. On the other hand, if the person is not distraught over the killing and is comfortable where he resides, the city of refuge will not take him in and he will not have a place in the ir miklat.

The Ma'ayana Shel Torah then brings the Sfas Emes who analogizes this concept taught by the Chidushei Harim to the high holidays. If a person feels true guilt over his misdeeds during the year and pours out his heart on Yom Kippur and accepts on himself to repent from his sins which cause him to feel that he has no place in this world, then Hashem says to the person - I have a place that can take you in -- the walls of the Sukkah will envelop you and protect you from evil.

I once heard a similar thought from R' Zev Cohen of the Adas Yeshurun in Chicago. He talked about how after the person has gone through Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur and poured out his heart, he enters the Sukkah which is Hashem's way of giving the Jews a big reassuring hug.

I would like to discuss one additional point. The Rambam in Hilchos Rotzeach 8:5 writes that the Beis Din must prepare paths to the ir miklat and widen them as required. They must also smooth out the path and prepare bridges. If the way to the ir miklat requires one to take a road that forks, the Beis Din must set up a clear sign so that the person can swiftly get to the ir miklat and escape the goel hadam.

I feel that the acts that the Beis Din does are precisely like what Hashem does for us before the High Holidays. The chazal teach us "Haba Litaher Misayin Oso" - one who wants to repent, Hashem helps him to do so. The same way that the Beis Din set up the road to allow access to one who truly agonizes over his acts and wants to seek refuge in the ir miklat, so too Hashem makes our way to teshuva accessible before Yom Kippur so that we can be enveloped in the protective hug of the sukkah.

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 XXI

Tonight's weird (but true) legal case looks at Matter of Fauntleroy v. Kelly, 4 Misc.3d 1014(A), 791 N.Y.S.2d 868 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty 2004), in which an applicant for a gun license asked the court to review the Police Commissioner's rejection of his application. The reason that his license was rejected? For this and many other interesting facts, read on...

As a brief introduction, New York law allows the licensing officer (in Nassau, Suffolk and NY City this would be the police commissioner) wide discretion to approve or reject an application for a pistol license or to cancel an existing license. If a person is aggrieved by the decision, he can appeal it to a Supreme Court Judge. Once the matter comes before the Judge the decision of the Police Commissioner is nearly always upheld, as the Judge may only reverse the decision if it is arbitrary and capricious, i.e. not based on any facts that would suggest that the applicant is unsuitable for the license.

In Fauntleroy, the applicant had previously held a pistol license which was revoked by the Police Commissioner. In July 1996, Fauntleroy was advised by police officers that someone was trying to break into his basement. Believing that his family was in danger, Fauntleroy fired several shots from his window in order to scare away the intruder. The shots were fired at the base of a tree which was on his property. Fauntleroy was arrested for reckless endangerment, but the charge was dismissed. (The intruder was convicted on the burglary charge).

Following the incident, the police department conducted an investigation which culminated in an offer that Fauntleroy agree to a six month suspension of the existing license, to be followed by a 1 year probation period. Fauntleroy disagreed and went to a hearing at which time the hearing officer recommended that he be permitted to keep his license. The commanding officer of the licensing division did not follow the recommendation and suspended Fauntleroy's license for shooting at a fleeing felon. Fauntleroy did not appeal the decision.

Approximately one year later, Fauntleroy filed a new application for a license. This was denied by the police, based on the 1997 revocation of the license. Fauntleroy challenged the denial, but the trial court and ultimately the appellate division upheld the commissioner's ability to deny the application based on the revocation less than two years prior.

In 2003, Fauntleroy filed another application which was rejected by the police. In so doing, the police informed him that “Due to the revocation of your pistol license, you are prohibit [sic] to possess a firearm as per Penal Law section 400(1)(e) [sic], 400.00(1)(e).”

Fauntleroy appealed the decision by filing an Article 78 petition challenging the denial as arbitrary, capricious and affected by errors of law. In discussing the standard of law to be applied, the court explained:

An application for a renewal is treated in the same manner as an application for a new license, and the inquiry of the court is limited to a determination of whether the record discloses circumstances which leave no possible scope for the reasonable exercise of that discretion. However, in an Article 78 proceeding, the reviewing court is not expected to act as a mere rubber stamp, but, rather, exercises a genuine judicial function and does not confirm a determination simply because it was rendered by an administrative agency. Here,the record shows that the sole basis for denial of petitioner's 2003 pistollicense application was that Respondent felt that Penal Law § 400.00(1)(e)mandated such result because of the prior revocation of his pistol license.

The court then noted that Penal Law §400.00:

does not, contrary to the position apparently taken by respondent in denying petitioner's most recent application, make any prior revocation of a pistol permit for any reason whatsoever an automatic bar to the issuance of a permit,but, rather only makes such a bar mandatory where the prior revocation was due to the issuance of a temporary or permanent order of protection pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 530.14 or Family Court Act § 842-a. It is clear that the lifetime revocation of firearms license privileges referred to in Penal Law § 400.00(1)(e) applies only to a person who has had a license revoked because of the issuance of a temporary or permanent order of protection to protect against acts of domestic violence. It is undisputed that no such order of protection was ever sought, let alone issued, against petitioner. Therefore, respondent's determination was affected by an error of law.

Since the decision was based on an error of law, the court remanded the matter back to the police department to reconsider its decision. Prior to doing so, the court noted that:

it has now been seven years since petitioner's earlier permit was revoked. Nothing has been submitted to question petitioner's good conduct or good character in the intervening seven years. This factor should be taken into account in the reconsideration of the application. If this factor is not considered, then respondent is effectively arguing that every revocation is a permanent revocation. The court has not been cited to any such rule.

If you would like to see the full text of the decision, please click this link http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2004/2004_50875.htm#1CASE.

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 - Gittin 18

Gittin 18 continues a discussion that began on daf 17b about the need for a date in a document and the ramifications of documents with dates that do not accurately reflect the date upon which an act was performed.

As part of the discussion, the gemara digresses and talks about the time of signing of a kesubah. The gemara bring Shmuel who says that a kesubah is like a finding of beis din -- just as the finding of beis din may be made during the day, but recorded at night, so too a kesubah may be written during the day and signed by the witnesses at night. The gemara then tells a story involving the kesubah of the wife or R'Hiya bar Rav that was written during the day and signed at night. Although Rav was present, he did not object to the signing at night because the sofer and witnesses were constantly involved. Rashi explains that the witness actually were ready, willing and able to sign during the day, but they were forced to wait until nightfall to sign because of the actions of the sofer.

The problem that I had with the gemara is that our current tradition will not accept the leniency of signing the kesubah at night. As anyone who has attended a winter wedding knows, they will rush to try to get the wedding ceremony in before nightfall so as to ensure that the kesubah is given the same day that it is written. However, based on the leniencies of Gittin 18, there should be no problem if the ceremony starts after the end of the day. R' Ephraim G of my daf yomi group said in the name of R' Moshe Feinstein (I believe quoting the Dibros Moshe) that the difference was that in the times of the gemara there already was a true eirusin prior to the nissuin, so the time of the signing was not all that significant. Since we have noth erusin and nissuin during the same ceremony, we do not want to have the ceremony on a later date than the kesubah.

On the bottom of 18a, the gemara begins an analysis of R' Shimon's position in the mishna that if the get is written during the day but signed at night it is still a proper get. In so doing, the gemara mentions that Reish Lakish believed that R' Shimon would only permit the get to be signed at night if it was signed the night that immediately followed the writing of the get. Meanwhile, R' Yochanan states that according to R' Shimon the signing could be even ten days later.

In explaining Reish Lakish's reasoning, the gemara states that there is concern that if more than a day elapsed the husband and wife might reconcile (temporarily). If the get was given later, there would be a danger that the get would be a get me'ushan, thus calling into question the legitimacy of the children. Tosafos (d'h "Chaisheenan") asks - why do we not have this concern with other gittin, such as a get that is brought from overseas and delivered to the wife six months after it was written? Tosafos answers that there is no concern because in such a scenario where the witnesses have signed and all that is left is the delivery of the get, there is little danger that the parties will reconcile. Whereas before the get is signed by the witness, there would still be a danger that a temporary reconciliation could create a get me'eushan.

In discussing R' Yochanan's thinking, the gemara explains that we are unconcerned about the danger of get me'ushan during the intervening period between writing and signature, because if the parties do reconcile (even temporarily) everyone will know that they have reconciled. Rashi explains this quite literally, stating that when the couple is fighting before he commissions the get, the neighbors hear the fighting. Rashi then writes that if the couple were to reconcile the neighbors would be aware because they would not hear any more fighting. This would then become widely known and there would be no danger of a get me'ushan.

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 XX - Of Baseball and Intuition

Today's Max Kellerman show was a solo act as Brian Kenny is on vacation for the week. While the show has previously been supplemented with remarks from Louie Gold and Robin Lundberg, Max was forced to carry the show, as the only other voice from the 1050 studio belonged to the update guy - Bob Gallerstein. Its a shame that listener support to bring Robin and Louie back on the air has basically died off. I can't remember the last time I heard a free Louie and Lundberg call. Meanwhile, last week Max made a fleeting reference to the empty suits' ban on comments from the crew, saying that Ray the Board Op is the only guy that they (I can only assume that this means the empty suits at ESPN corporate) have not told Max that he may not speak to.

Max had a couple of interesting angles when he was not inflating the collective ego of the Yankee bullpen. He posed a question as to whether Mets fans wanted Manny traded by the Red Sox to a Manuel. I did not realize that Manny's previous hitting coach was (the current Phillie Manager) Charlie Manuel.

Max also asked which option New York sports fans would prefer - Brett Favre to the NY Jets or Manny Ramirez to the NY Mets. Although I am a fan of both teams and try to watch every Jet game on TV, I would still prefer the ManRam to the Mets trade since they have a better chance of winning a championship. I love my Jets, but they have little shot at winning the division and no possibility of making the Super Bowl.

The Yankee bullpen puffery continued with gems such as Jarrod Washburn being inferior to Dan Giese. I can't imagine any baseball professional who would choose a 31 year old rookie who has pitched 19 games in his career over a left handed starter who consistently gives you 200 innings and a WHIP around 1.3. Another pearl was that the Yankees "don't even need" Damasco Marte because he is the fourth best pitcher in the pen. While Edwar Ramirez and David Robertson (other than his stinker this evening) have given decent performances in limited duty, you simply cannot underestimate the value of getting a left handed reliever (the only one on the team) with a career WHIP of 1.25. Again, a pitcher with a proven track record of results would seem to be more valuable. But I can't complain too much as the discussion about getting the monument ready for Brett Gardner has died down.

An interesting point that Max Kellerman made in relation to the Marte/Nady had to do with instinct and knowing when to make moves (such as trading assets). Max pointed out mistakes made by general managers who held onto prospects for so long that when the player finally was traded, the value had greatly diminished. Examples pointed out by Max were Aaron Heilman and Jose Tabata.

The idea of trusting one's instinct when your little voice tells you that you need to act, reminds me of a story that I recently heard from R' Burg of Israel NCSY. He talked about a woman (I believe her name was Esther) who on a Friday morning got a strong feeling that she and her husband should go visit her sister in Ashkelon for shabbos. She called her husband who tried to talk her out of going because they had already made plans that their children and grandchildren who lived nearby would walk over for Friday Night supper. As she had already been cooking up a storm, what sense did it make to go away?

Esther managed to convince her husband that they should go away for shabbos. When they returned home, they found that a kassam launched from Gaza had hit their home. R' Burg related that when he visited Esther's home, she pointed out that the rocket had entered through a second story room where her grandchildren played and then travelled down through the house (leaving shrapnel embedded in the walls of the staircase) before landing in the dining area. Had she not trusted her instincts, she and her children and grandchildren would have been home when their house was attacked and the results could have been catastrophic.

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 - Redhook ESB + 9 Days Havdalah Guide

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds beer review looks at the most common Redhook brew that can be found in the Northeast market, the ESB. The post will also provide a little direction for those wondering what to use for havdalah next Saturday night.

Redhook ESB is a bit of a misnomer - while ESB stands for Extra Special Bitter, the ESB is not a highly bitter beer and is not even the most bitter of the brews offered by Redhook (that honor is claimed by the Longhammer IPA). Redhook ESB is a medium bodied ale that has a little bit of fruitiness and is quite refreshing. It would partner well with chicken, beef dishes and I have found that it blends well with spicy Chinese or Israeli food.

Redhook ESB is under the Kosher Supervision of the Orthodox Union as are all all beers that I have seen produced by Redhook. For the experts' take on the ESB please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/153/23202 .

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

Bonus section - 9 days havdalah guide

In years past, I have been approached in shul on shabbos chazon (the saturday within the summer nine days mourning period) and asked what would be a good choice to make havdalah on. By way of introduction, on Saturday nights after the evening prayer is said, Jews have a special set of blessings that are said by which we separate between the holy shabbos and the rest of the week. There is a custom to say this prayer on a cup of wine, however this custom needs modification when the Saturday falls during the nine days of mourning. The reason for modification is that during the nine days period, Jews do not eat meat or drink wine under most circumstances unless it is shabbos. As the shabbos has just ended, the wine can not be used for the havdalah blessings. The question then becomes, how does one fulfill the havdalah requirement?

The answer in simple terms is that havdalah can be made on beverages other than wine. Indeed, my father in law will use diet soda (he's from Chicago where they call it pop, so he probably cringed when I wrote soda). I recall as a child seeing my father on one occasion use hard alcohol for havdalah. As long as the alcohol is not grape derived, it is fine for havdalah. The problem of course becomes how do you put out the havdalah candle with the contents of your cup without setting the house on fire.

The simplest answer to the havdalah dilemma (and one that is widely recommended by rabbinic authorities) is to use beer, which in the time of the talmud was called chamra d'medina - the wine of the masses. This brings the question full circle as to what I would recommend?

The number one problem with the question is that most people who ask it don't generally drink beer, so they need to have something to use for havdalah that won't have them making faces in their attempt to drink the halachic minimum level for the blessing. The second problem is that since the havdalah cup is imbibed on its own (i.e. without the benefit of food) people who might be inclined to have a beer with a meal will still have problems finishing their cup when the beer is consumed on its own.

The easiest solution is not to have beer, but instead to make havdalah on what is commonly called alcopop. These are malt beverage drinks with some similarities to beer and a beer-like 5% alcohol content by volume, but do not have the beer taste. Some examples are the Boston Beer Company (aka Sam Adams) Twisted Teas and the Zima beverages produced by Coors. Another example would be the Smirnoff Twisted V/Twisted Ice line. However, caution is urged as not every flavor is certified Kosher. For the complete list of those Smirnoff products approved by the CRC, please click here http://www.crcweb.org/kosher/consumer/liquorList.html#Beer .

If you do like beer, or would like to drink something that is more manly than alcopop, the next step up would be an American wheat beer (such as the Blue Moon line, Saranac's Hefewiezen or Pomegranate Wheat) or some of the better Summer Ales such as Brooklyn Brewery's or Sam Adams' Summer Ale. Many of these beers have been reviewed on the pages of this blog and you can search through prior Sunday Night Suds reviews to find one that might appeal to you.

If you are a beer aficionado, you obviously won't need this post to tell you which ale or lager you should crack open for havdalah.

May the world have a tikkun from our three weeks/nine days observances and may tisha b'av soon be transformed to the holiday that the gemara tells it will be in the times of moshiach bimheira biyamenu.

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 - Matos

Normally, the Thursday night parsha post on this blog slot contains a thought said over by R' Frand in his satellite shiur. Since the shiur is now on hiatus through Elul, I will be substituting with divrei torah found in other sources. As always, if the p'shat appears to be incorrect, it is a result of my efforts to convey the thought that I found in the sefer.

In Matos 31:2, Moshe is told by Hashem to take revenge against the people of Midyan. Rashi brings the Sifri who explains the reason the Jews were told to take revenge against the people of Midyan and not the people of Moab. The Sifri explains that the people of Moab had a reason to go to war against the Jews, since they were concerned that the Jews were going to make life difficult for them. Meanwhile, the people of Midyan got involved in a feud that had nothing to do with them, so Hashem instructed the Jews to go to war against them.

The Yalkut Lekach Tov cites the Orchos Chayim (by way of the sefer Zichron Mayir) to explain the lowliness of of someone who gets involved in someone else's argument. When people fight, it is usually in relation to a specific item or problem. If down the road they resolve the issue, the relationship can be similarly mended. On the other hand, if there was never a basis for involvement in the feud there is no easy way to resolve the dispute, as we cannot say that now that the problem is solved, go back to the way things were.

This problem of fighting or hating for no reason (sinas chinam) is viewed as a destructive force. The gemara in Shabbos 32a writes that because one hates for no reason, a person will then have feuds within their own home, one's wife will have miscarriages and children will die.

The Yalkut Lekach Tov brings another proof to how seriously sinas chinam is viewed. In the Yom Kippur davening, after Modim we say a prayer that begins "Avinu Malkeinu Z'chor Rachamecha" (our father, our king, remember your mercy). As part of this prayer, we ask Hashem to remove an exhaustive list of problems from our midst, including pestilence, war, destruction... The last item in the list is sinas chinam. It is known from the gemara in Bava Basra 8b that lists generally go from light to heavy - thus showing how seriously sinas chinam is viewed.

In order to remedy the problem of sinas chinam, the sages instruct us to engage in ahavas chinam, to love one's neighbor - not because you admire any one of his qualities, just because he is a fellow Jew. Occasionally, you will meet people who radiate ahavas chinam - the person that comes to mind as the modern day icon of ahavas chinam is R' Meir Schuster of the Heritage House in Jerusalem.

The interplay of sinas chinam and ahavas chinam can be seen in the Shoshanas Ya'acov prayer read after the megilla on Purim. The Yalkut Lecach Tov discusses how the prayer contrasts opposites - but in so doing seems to be terse. Within the prayer we say cursed is Haman who sought to destroy us, blessed is Mordechai the Jew. Why does the prayer augment Haman while merely praising Mordechai for being jewish? The answer is that even to hate a Haman (like the Midyanites in the parsha) there needs to be a reason - because he sought to destroy us. On the other hand there is no specific reason needed to justify blessing Mordechai - we should do so simply because he is a Jew, notwithstanding his admirable feats.

In this time of sorrow (as we have commenced the three weeks of mourning) we can learn from the way that Midyanites are treated and try to engage in ahavas chinam.

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!