Sunday Night Suds - Waterloo Dark Lager

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds beer review looks at Waterloo Dark Lager, another offering from the good folks at the Brick Brewery.

When people look at a dark beer, they generally assume that it will be heavy. I know that this shabbos when I had a Saranac Imperial Stout (reviewed here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2008/04/sunday-night-suds-saranac-imperial.html) with my cholent, I knew that there would be a thick beer to mesh with the cholent and induce a well-needed shabbos afternoon nap. Of course, the 9% ABV also may have helped too.

In contrast to most dark beers, the Waterloo Dark Lager is a true lager with its characteristic light flavor and lacking the hoppiness found in many stouts and dark ales. If you visit the Laker website (http://www.brickbeer.com/html/brick004.html), they market their beer as "looks dark, tastes light, its a dark lager!"

Having said that, there is a little more sophistication to this beer than the average Heineken/Rolling Rock lager taste. Although I am no brewmaster, I would assume that the use of the specialty malts that give the beer the dark color also lend it the sweetness that takes it out of just being a lager. I asked my wife whether she thought that the Heineken man would appreciate it, but she demurred. Perhaps I'll take one along for the sukkos trip anyway.

Waterloo Dark Lager would go well with most meat and chicken dishes. I am not sure how it would do up against a highly spiced Chinese type dish, but its flavor would complement steaks and poultry. I feel like it would also go extremely well with turkey, but have not tried it together as of yet.

Waterloo Dark Lager is certified kosher by the Kashruth Council of Canada. For the experts' take on Waterloo Dark Lager, click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/416/5196.

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

And to all those who have been mivatel zman to read my thoughts, I wish you all a chag sameach (happy holiday) a kesiva v'chasima tova (a good writing and sealing in the book of life).

Oh and by the way, if you are looking for a Rosh Hashana beer - see if your local beverage center has any Blue Moon Honey Moon. There's nothing like a honey beer on Rosh Hashana.

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 Thoughts on ... the New Year

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.

As a brief introduction, tonight's shiur did not have a vort on the parsha, but instead discussed Rosh Hashana. As the vort was quite powerful, I have chosen to summarize it here, rather than substitute a R' Frand parsha thought on Netzavim from a prior year.

R' Frand began his non-halacha part of the shiur tonight by quoting from Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau's book entitled "Al tishlach yadcha el ha na'ar" (don't touch that boy) which discusses his experiences as a five year old survivor of Bergen Belsen. R' Lau wrote that years after the holocaust, he returned to the city in Poland where his father had been the Rabbi (both of his parents were killed in the holocaust). It was Shabbas Chazon, the shabbos that precedes Tisha B'av and he was invited to give the drasha (sermon) in his father's shul. R' Lau spoke about a Medrash from Eicha in which Yirmiyahu (after the destruction of the First Beis Hamikdash) went to Ma'aras Hamachpela (the Tomb of the Patriarchs) to wake the forefathers and ask them to beg Hashem to allow the Jews to rebuild the temple.

As told by R' Lau, Yirmiyahu first woke Avraham, and after washing Avraham's hands, Avraham began to ask Hashem why the Temple was destroyed. Hashem answered Avraham and said that he would explain by using the alef beis. He first brough the Alef, but Avraham said to the Alef - how can you testify against the Jews when you stand for Anochi Hashem Elokecha and the Jews accepted Hashem as their G-d. He then brought the Beis and Avraham scolded the Beis as well, saying that the Beis stands for Bereishis Barah, that Hashem created the world based on the Torah, the same Torah that all the nations of the world rejected, but the Jews accepted without question. Avraham was eventually able to defeat the proposed testimony of all the letters.

R' Lau then mentoned a vort from R' Yitzchak Frankel (R' Lau's father in law) on the pasuk in next week's parsha (Devarim 31:21) "V'haya ki simtzena..." This verse is normally translated as "It shall be that when many evils and distresses come upon it, then this song will speak up before it as a witness, for it shall not be forgotten from the mouth of its offspring, for I know its inclination, what it does today, before I bring them to the Land that I have sworn." R' Lau said that his father in law learned the pasuk to mean that like the letters of the alef beis, the Torah itself will come and testify before the world as to how the Jews sacrificed in order to follow the Torah's laws. Examples from the holocaust include Jews sneaking off the to the forest to hear the blowing of the shofar, despite certain death if caught (more on this later); foregoing their small ration of bread on Pesach so as to not eat chametz, melting the margarine they had been given so that the resultant oil could be used on their buttons to make chanukah candles. In this, the Torah will testify about the courageous acts taken by Jews to show that they have not abandoned the Torah, against all odds.

R' Frand then finished with another holocaust story from R' Tzvi Hersh Meisels (the Veitzener Rav who later settled in Chicago). R' Meisels writes in his sefer (Shaylos U'Tshuvos Mikadshei Hashem) that when he was in Auschwitz, he had a shofar with him in the camp. This fact became known to a number of students who had already been segregated for the crematorium and were scheduled to be killed on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. The boys asked R' Meisels to come blow shofar for them, despite the fact that they only had a few hours left to live. R' Meisels debated whether to go as he knew that if he was caught, he could be executed as well. His son begged him not to go, telling R' Meisels that he did not want to become an orphan. Still, R' Meisels decided that he would go, thinking to himself, how many days do I have left anyway?

When R' Meisels arrived at the barracks, the boys asked him to give a sermon before he blew the shofar. So he said a vort on the verse from Psalms 81, "Tiku Bachodesh Shofar..." which is normally translated as "Blow the shofar at the moon's renewal, at the time appointed for our festive day." In so doing he translated Bakeseh not as "at the time of" but rather using the root kisui - when it is hidden - thus rendering the verse - blow the shofar when things are hidden, when you don't understand why things are happening have faith that Hashem does everything for a positive purpose. And then he blew the shofar.

When R' Meisels finished blowing the shofar, one of the boys stood up and said - yes we should not lose hope, we must do as we must to serve Hashem for His sake. Then, together the boys screamed out the shma yisrael with fervor. And then the boys said, we are not saying thanks to you, R' Meisels for your actions, we want to give you a bracha, a blessing for long life instead.

May the sacrifices of these boys and many others who risked (and sometimes gave) their lives to worship Hashem stand for us in the Yamim Noraim and may the Torah testify as to our actions to keep it, so that we all merit a good year of life, health, good things and the coming of Moshiach.

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 XXVIII

Tonight's Weird (but true) legal case involves the New York Giants and a sportswear manufacturer who wanted to exploit the Giants' relocation to New Jersey.

In National Football League Properties v. New Jersey Giants, 637 F.Supp. 507 (D.N.J. 1986) the court considered a matter in which the NFL and the New York Giants argued that the defendant had violated §43(a) of the Lanham Act (unfair competition) and had infringed their service mark by selling merchandise branded as "New Jersey Giants" clothing.

While the case itself is not a landmark legal decision, the fact pattern borders on hysterical. As described by the Judge:

Plaintiff, the New York Football Giants, Inc., owns and operates the New York Giants, a major league professional football team which plays all of its home games in New Jersey yet eschews a New Jersey identification as resolutely as a vampire eschews the cross. Defendant, the New Jersey Giants, Inc., which is decidedly not a major league professional football team, was created and exists solely to illegally exploit the confusion engendered by the unwillingness of the team to correlate its name with the place it calls home.

The Judge was rather blunt in his characterization of the defendants, noting that their principals:

[T]estified that one of the purposes for starting the business and incorporating the name, as they had previously incorporated the name “New Jersey Cosmos”, was to sell the corporate name to the Giants' football team; that the other purpose was to sell the merchandise to fans of the Giants' football team who would associate and “no doubt” did associate that merchandise with the team; that even though in its best year the company sold but $2263.85 of merchandise and operated out of a law office, a post office box, and the back seat of the car of one of the principals, $30,000 worth of stock in the company has now been sold to three additional individuals; that two cease and desist letters were ignored with defendant, through its principals, continuing to do business and continuing to solicit business by means of radio spots which were intended to refer to the New York Giants' team and by means of advertisements in the “Giants News Weekly”, a newsletter directed to Giants' fans.

With this kind of introduction, you get an idea where the Court was going with its decision. In finding that the defendants had violated the Lanham Act, the Court based its decision in part on a marketing survey performed by the plaintiffs which demonstrated a likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source of the defendants' products. In so doing, the court explained:

Defendant's use of its trade name and the solicitation and sale of “New Jersey GIANTS” merchandise is also likely to confuse the public into believing that the New York Football Giants has changed the team's name to the New Jersey Giants or does not object to being referred to by that name. Neither is true, of course, and while one may wonder why the New York Giants resist a new name and may wish, perhaps, that it were otherwise, the fact remains that the Giants have the right to retain the long-standing goodwill and reputation they have developed in the name “ New York Giants” and efforts in that regard will be undermined were defendant's conduct permitted to continue.

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 74

Gittin 74 is an interesting daf as it has ramifications well beyond the sugyos that are discussed on the amud. I would like to briefly discuss a few points which I found interesting.

One interesting point has to do with the mechanism of a tenai (condition). On 74a, the gemara mentions the dispute between R' Huna and R' Yehuda in connection to a person who gives a get on condition that the wife pay him money. The gemara then quotes another gemara in Kiddushin (60a) where a man tells a woman that they will be married upon his payment to her of a sum of money. In each circumstance, R' Huna holds that once the condition is fulfilled, the transaction (either marriage or divorce) is effective retroactive to the date that the statement was made. Tosafos (d'h R' Huna) comments that the halacha follows this line of thinking (like Rebbi) that any time a transaction is effectuated with a condition that must be fulfilled, the completion of the condition renders the transaction effective, retroactive to the original date.

There is also an interesting discussion on 74b in which the gemara attempts to tie togther a machlokes as to whether a condition being fulfilled by an act of Hashem (an owner tells the aris to water the field four times and he will have a greater share of the produce, but then it rains before the fourth watering, thus rendering it unnecessary) with a machlokes about whether a man who requires that his wife give him a definite object in order for the divorce to be effectuated and she pays him money instead of the object. In trying to line up the disputes, the gemara says that perhaps Rabbah (who says that the aris gets paid despite not having watered four times) holds like R' Shimon Ben Gamliel (who says that she can substitute money for the object). In rejecting this logic, the gemara notes that it is impossible because while the halacha is like Rabbah when he disputes R' Yosef (except in three unrelated matters) , the halacha is not like R' Shimon Ben Gamliel when he disputes the Rabanan (except in three other unrelated matters). As such, the arguments cannot be aligned as it would violate one of the rules of discourse.

A final thought has to do with Rabbah and his position in relation to the aris (who gets paid despite the fact that he has not watered the 4th time). Tosafos (d'h Rabbah) writes that one should not ask from the situation in Baba Metziah (77a) where a farmer hires a worker to water for one day and the rains come and the worker does not water the field. Tosafos writes that the one day worker goes unpaid, since he was hired for one purpose. On the other hand, this worker was hired for the year and had performed all the other tasks (including watering three other times), so he has earned a portion in the field and is entitled to the heightened wage from the moment that the owner mentioned the need for a fourth watering, regardless of whether the rain renders that chore unnecessary.

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 XXVII - Of Life Experiences and Today Derek Jeter is a Fountain Pen

Today's Max Kellerman show was a somber one, with proper deference given to the last game having been played at Yankee Stadium and the Yankees looming departure from the post season picture. But before getting to the topics discussed today, a little housekeeping is in order.

To address a number of e-mails that I received, yes the show is now just the Max Kellerman show (again). I am unaware of why Brian Kenny is no longer on the show, but one e-mailer mentioned that the separation was "amicable." Based on their long term friendship, I would hope so. If the change in format was mentioned on the air, then I missed it, but I haven't been able to spend that much time listening to the show over the last week, so its possible that it was discussed.

Another change is that the muzzle has been lifted from Louie and Lundberg. Late last week I began hearing Max asking them (along with the board op) to introduce themselves. I don't know if this was in conjunction with the loss of Brian Kenny, the result of lobbying by listeners or staff, or simply Max thumbing his nose at the empty suits at Disney/ABC.

The timing of letting Louie speak is quite suspect. When Louie Gold was gagged by the network, the Mets went on a winning streak and retook First Place in the NL East. Now that Louie has been permitted to speak again, the Mets are sinking into collapse version 2.0. I don't think that it is a direct result of Louie being permitted to speak, but I'm sure that Max is enjoying having Louie publicly expose his self-loathing for being a Met fan.

I guess that I should discuss the show's topics as well, so here goes. During the limited time that I listened today, I heard Max express his displeasure for R. Cano and M. Cabrera. It was interesting to hear Max say that he did not want to see Cano get game winning hits now and celebrate his accomplishments since (in Max's words) had Melky and Cano produced at a Major League level, the Yankees would not be out if it, despite the injuries that they suffered this year.

Max's take on the farewell ceremonies at the Stadium was overly cynical even for Max. His first though (that I heard) was that the Yankees' elimination from post season play made the ceremony ring hollow. Strong words! Max then said that Derek Jeter's speech after the game was "like a secular bar-mitzva speech" because it was all about tradition.

Max also utilized more of his idol's (Howard Stern) teachings, by incorporating his personal life in to the show. Max talked about how he was working with his wife on building their daughter's crib and changing table. He expressed frustration (well known to those who have tried to do these things, but new to Max) as to the instructions provided by the manufacturer. I can remember building the crib with Sarah and almost being done, before realizing that it was upside down. Max said on the show that he had remarked to Erin - does Jay-Z build his own changing table/crib? But then Max let out his human side by saying that by spending the time with his wife building the baby's furniture, he realized that "it turns out that Erin is OK."

Max's last thought on the issue was that he realized that this was something that his mother would have told him - that you miss out on something if you don't do it yourself.

Well, mother Kellerman's views are certainly rooted in Torah thought. Indeed, many Torah concepts teach the value of actually performing the task at hand. By example, in last week's parsha, the Torah teaches about bikurim, the first fruits of the year that are brought by the farmer up to the Temple in Jerusalem in an elaborate ceremony. The Ramban teaches that the minimum amount of fruit that can be brought up for the ceremony is one fig. Why? Because if we personally take the one fruit up to the temple, we show that we appreciate all that hashem does for us. This is valued by Hashem who appeciates our actions in taking the time to bring the bikurim personally and we are ensured a reward for our personal 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 - Samuel Adams Honey Porter

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds looks at Samuel Adams Honey Porter, a beer which recently came under the supervision of the Star-K.

Before you all start to jump to e-mail me, yes I know that Samuel Adams has been under the Star-k for some time. However, just because a company produces one product which bears a hashgacha, does not mean that all products that are made by that company are all under supervision. A prime example would be the Miller family of beers. While Miller Genuine Draft (a.k.a MGD), Miller Lite (tastes great/less filling) and Miller Genuine Draft Light are all under the OK laboratories, there is no kosher supervision for Miller Lime Chill which the CRC goes out of its way in its most recent kosher list to indicate is not certified kosher.

The Samuel Adams products have an interesting history of kashrus. For reasons that I have never totally understood, some of the Sam Adams beers have a star-k on the label while others do not. Meanwhile, not all the Sam Adams flavors are under the star-k, so you need to check the Sam Adams LOC (letter of certification) on the Star-k website (click here http://www.star-k.org/loc/kosher_letter_6635_bostonbeercompany.pdf ) to find out which brews are approved by the star-k.

This of course leads me back to the Honey Porter. I first saw this beer in a local beer store in January 2007. I bought it and brought it home and only then checked the Star-K LOC and found out that it was not on it. I contacted the Star-K and after a few emails and messages I was able to speak to Rabbi Rosen (the dean of flavored alcoholic beverages and a great resource for information) who told me that he would look into it and that I could not drink it at the time.

Well, eighteen months later Honey Porter is now on the approved list, so I went out and purchased another sixer (the last one was poured down the toilet when I could not get a yes/no before it passed its prime). Was it worth the wait? It depends on how you like your beer.

Porters as a general rule are heavy dark beers and this is no exception. Beer advocate describes the classic English porter as:

Porter is said to have been popular with transportation workers of Central London, hence the name. Most traditional British brewing documentation from the 1700’s state that Porter was a blend of three different styles: an old ale (stale or soured), a new ale (brown or pale ale) and a weak one (mild ale), with various combinations of blending and staleness. The end result was also commonly known as "Entire Butt" or "Three Threads" and had a pleasing taste of neither new nor old. It was the first truly engineered beer, catering to the publics taste, playing a critical role in quenching the thirst of the UK’s Industrial Revolution and lending an arm in building the mega-breweries of today.

Porter saw a comeback during the homebrewing and micro-brewery revolution of the late 1970’s and early 80’s, in the US. Modern-day Porters are typically brewed using a pale malt base with the addition of black malt, crystal, chocolate or smoked brown malt. The addition of roasted malt is uncommon, but used occasionally. Some brewers will also age their beers after inoculation with live bacteria to create an authentic taste. Hop bitterness is moderate on the whole and colour ranges from brown to black. Overall they remain very complex and interesting beers.

The Samuel Adams Honey Porter pours a rich brown color with quite a bit of stick foam. It is certainly dark, but has an interesting sweetness that may derive from the honey that is used in the brew process, but may also be a result of the hops used as well. If you are not a serious beer aficionado, I would not have this as summer beer as it better balanced for long winter nights. If you are looking for a honey product to ring in the new year as a shana tova u'metukah, stick with the Blue Moon Honey Moon (reviewed here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2008/05/sunday-night-suds-blue-moon-honey-moon.html) if you can still find it in stores.

Samuel Adams Honey Porter is under the Kosher Supervision of the Star-K. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Honey Porter, please follow this link - http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/2684.

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!