Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Noach

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.

In Bereishis 6:9-10, the Torah introduces us to Noach. The first pasuk of the parsha states "Eileh Toldos Noach, Noach Ish Tzadik, Tamim Haya B'Dorosav" - these are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations. The next pasuk then identifies Noach's children, explaining that he had three sons, Shem, Cham and Yafes.

The development of the parsha is curious as one would expect the Torah to have followed the statement that "these are the offspring of Noach" with an identification of the children. Instead, the Torah describes Noach's character and only afterwards states the names of his sons. Rashi explains that the the most important "offspring" of a tzadik are his good deeds, not his children.

This answer may be logical for some tzadikim, however we know that all human life on this planet came through Noach as he populated the world after the flood wiped out all those who were not on the ark. As such, shouldn't his descendants be his most important feature?

The Mahahral in his sefer, Gur Aryeh offers two answers to the above question. Initially, he notes that one's children are the product of a three way partnership involving both parents and Hashem. As such, a person is not solely responsible for the way one's children turn out. On the other hand, a person's good deeds are completely the result of the person. As such, the tzadik's good deeds are even more important because they are solely reflective of his actions.

The Maharal also offers a second explanation. He notes that one's children are other independent people. On the other hand, one's virtues and good deeds are integral parts of the person himself.

R' Yehoshua Hartman explains the meaning behind the second answer of the Maharal by making reference to another statement of the Maharal. The Maharal notes that Adam selected names for all the creatures. However, in choosing the name for man he selected Adam - because man comes from the ground (Adama). It can be asked - don't all creatures come from the ground? The Maharal explains that man is more closely connected with the earth then other creatures. When a person looks at a field waiting to be planted he sees the potential in the field - it could be a corn field or a wheat field. The same way, a person has potential within him. An animal is programmed to do the functions its nature tells it to do. A person has potential to do much more. Indeed, when a parent has a newborn child in his/her arms the parent may think - my child is cute. However, the parent also thinks about what the child can potentially accomplish.

R' Hartman explains that this is what is meant by Rashi -- the tzadik is identified by his good deeds because they represent his fulfillment of his potential. If one works on himself and accomplishes great things, they will be forever tied to the person and his legacy will be identified by these acts.

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 XXIX

Tonight's Weird (but true) legal case examines an individual Pennsylvania voter's challenge to a candidate's ability to run for office. Who was this candidate? Only the DNC's nominee for President of the United States.

In Berg v. Obama, a Pennsylvania attorney (representing himself) filed suit against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission seeking among other things, a declaration that Obama is not eligible to run for President of the United States because he is allegedly not a "natural born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution.

As summarized by the Federal District Court Judge in his decision, the relevant facts are as follows:

Plaintiff is a life-long member of the Democratic Party who fears that Defendant DNC's nomination of Defendant Obama as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for the 2008 election will result in irreparable harm to Plaintiff and other “Democratic Americans.” Obama cannot be a presidential nominee, Plaintiff contends, because Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and is therefore barred from holding the office of President by the Natural Born Citizen Clause.

Plaintiff claims that if the evidence shows that Obama is not a natural born citizen, his nomination (and presumably his election to the Presidency if he wins) will be null and void. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' collective knowledge of this fact, or their failure to assist Plaintiff in obtaining information from Obama and the DNC, has deprived Plaintiff of “liberty, property, due process of law and equal protections of the laws,” and has caused “significant disenfranchisement of the Democratic Party” generally.

Various accounts, details, and ambiguities from Obama's childhood form the basis of Plaintiff's allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter, and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff's opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama's cover-up.

It should come as no great shock that the court dismissed the lawsuit. Boiled down to its most simple explanation, the Court ruled that Berg did not have standing to sue for a violation of the Natural Born Citizens clause because he was not personally harmed by the candidacy and his status as a voter did not in any way differentiate him from the rest of the populace.

If you would like to see the full decision, please click here:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D1256P.pdf

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

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Kiddushin 20

Kiddushin 20 continues a discussion of the redemption of Jewish slaves and ways in which the redemption process can be accomplished or even expedited. As part of this discussion the gemara presents a progression of unfortunate events which can lead to a man selling himself into slavery. Repeated elsewhere in shas (Sukkah 40b and Erchin 30b as indicated in the Mesoras Hashas), the statement of R' Yosi B'R' Chanina is quite fascinating.

The gemara explains that the inital downfall begins when a person makes business transaction concerning shmittah produce. If a person violates the rule and sells the produce (rather than making the permitted use of eating it), eventually he will wind up in debt and will need to sell his personal property. If he does not recognize the error of his ways, this will not be sufficient and he will then need to sell his fields, followed by his home. The next item he will sacrifice is his daughter who he will sell as an amah ivri'ah. This of course will not be enough and he will wind up borrowing money on interest and then ultimately he will sell himself into slavery to pay the debts.

On Gittin 20b, R' Huna B'R' Hinna asks whether a Jewish slave can be redeemed through partial payment. As part of his question, R' Huna asks whether the answer can be derived through a gezera shava comparing this redemption with the law of redemption of ancestral fields. He then completes his question by theorizing whether the gezera shava can only be applied leniently (to allow a partial buyout of the slave) but not when it would result in a hardship.

Tosafos (d'h Geulaso) comments in the name of Rabbenu Tam that this would not be a complete gezera shava because we don't pick our spots in applying a gezera shava. It either applies l'kula and l'chumra or not at all. Tosafos indicates that the limud would really be just a gilui miltsa b'alma.

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 XXIX - Giants, Jets and Roses

Although I am sure that today's Max Kellerman show focused on more than just football, the limited portions which I was able to listen to were dominated by football. With this in mind, I'll give you my two cents on some of the points Max made on today's show.

Max had a recurring theme which compared the 2008 Giants with Muhammad Ali and his fight with Sonny Liston. Max noted that the Giants have been tested since they lost their top two defensive ends (one to injury and one to retirement) and have been utilizing a wide receiver (Plaxico Burress) who is a prima donna. Max compared this to Ali's getting some of the liniment from Liston's gloves in his eyes and being forced to overcome "blindness" in beating Liston. Max theorized that the same way that Ali needed to adapt to deal with the blindness, the Giants were dealing with adversity thrown their way this season. (More on that later).

Max also had some kind words for Jets fans. Although the Jets did win their game against the hapless Kansas City Chiefs, Brett put up another stinker of a game as he threw three interceptions. Max remarked that the Jets fans who were upset with Brett Favre's performance should wake up and smell the roses, "you need some fertilizer at first to grow nice roses." Max's line was cute, but Louie was more on point with his everyman's analysis of the game. Bottom line, two eminently winnable games against AFC bottom feeders and the Jets come away with a loss and a last second victory. No one can explain why after turning Leon Washington loose on the first scoring drive, the Jets went with pass play after pass play. Yes, Thomas Jones did pick up a TD with some power running at the goal line, but against a poor run defense (and especially when leading in the fourth quarter) the Jets were thinking pass first. One has to wonder whether Brett Favre or Brian Schottenheimer is calling the plays out there.

This of course is not to absolve the defensive coordinator. After the Chiefs lost their "starting" running back (I put this term in quotes since Charles was a back up who was forced into a starting role when the Chiefs deactivated Larry Johnson), everyone but the Jets defensive coordinator knew that the Chiefs were going to be passing on nearly every play (they only ran the ball eight times in the second half). Still, the Jets were putting eight men in the box on most plays. Why? Beats me.

Max also had his usual moment when (in deference to Howard Stern) he let the listeners in on some personal factoid. I know its just me, but I would have rather heard about Erin's birthing classes then find out that Max has facial dandruff.

As usual, the Max Kellerman show had an element of Torah thought. In discussing the issue of overcoming adversity and working with a problem to make something better out of the situation, Max reminded me of a story which I recently read about R' Moshe Feinstein. When R' Moshe was living under the communists in Russia, he was the Chief Rabbi of the Town of Luban. Obviously, the communist leaders made it difficult for Jews to observe their religion. Still, when R' Moshe heard about a project being proposed by the local party leaders he was able to turn it into an asset for the Jewish community.

When the local party bosses wanted to build a large sanitary facility for the residents to use for bathing, R' Moshe convinced the laborers that it should be built in such a manner so that it could also function as a mikva (ritual bathhouse). R' Moshe then addressed the local party leaders and explained that although the State was providing such a wonderful resource, there were some older Jews who might resist using the bathhouse if there were not some times with separate hours for men and women. The local leaders obliged R' Moshe and did set some separate times. Not long after, the local leaders were praised for the efficiency of their bathhouse and the fact that women from many far off towns were travelling great distances to use the facility.

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 Irish Red

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds review looks at one of the Boston Beer Company's newest offerings - Samuel Adams Irish Red.

I found this brew in a Brewmasters Collection box which I purchased at Sam's in downtown Chicago. The box contained two bottles of this interesting beer along with two bottles of five other varieties (I'll save those for another time). I put one of these in the 'fridge in Chicago to enjoy over the first days of Sukkos and saved the other to bring home.

During the first days of yom tov we were fortunate to have many meals in the sukkah with my wife's extended family. When my sister-in-law Naomi asked whether we had any darker beers, I wasn't sure whether she was humoring me or whether there was hope that some of the family might drink something other than lagers. After I poured it for her and she began to rave about it I tried it and was forced to concur - this is simply one of the best beers ever produced by the Sam Adams brewers.

The beer itself is a classic Irish ale, I found it somewhat reminiscent of Bass Ale, although a little richer in color and after taste. It went very well with YT roasted beef dishes and equally well with the chicken and pasta stew that my wife made on the eve of Hoshana Rabbah. I tried to find sixers of this at a few of my local beer stores over the last week, but was unsuccessful. If I could find more I would try it again and again with an eye on adding it to my all time top 10.

Samuel Adams Irish Red is under the Kosher Supervision of the Star-K. Please note that although the Irish Red does not bear a Star-k on the label (for reasons that I have never understood, only some of the kosher Sam Adams products carry the Star-k on the label), it is under the Star-k. (To see the Star-K LOC indicating which Sam Adams products are under supervision, please click here - http://www.star-k.org/loc/kosher_letter_6635_bostonbeercompany.pdf ).

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Irish Red, please follow this link - http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/38365.

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

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

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bereishis

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.

In Bereishis 2:4-5, the Torah discusses how Hashem had made the heavens and the earth, but the trees of the fields and the grasses and flowers had not yet sprouted, because Hashem had not yet sent the rain on the fields and there was no man yet to work the fields.

Rashi on pasuk 5 explains that the reason that the trees and grass and flowers had not yet sprouted and lay dormant below the surface was because there was no rain. Why? Because there was no man yet to work the land who would recognize the blessing of the rain.

The Maharal in Gur Aryeh asks - why didn't Hashem bring the rain even without man being present to appreciate its goodness? The Maharal answers that a tovah cannot be done for someone who is unable to appreciate it. If a person is capable of appreciating the gift that will be bestowed upon him, then Hashem will grant him the gift. Where there is no one capable of appreciating the present, the gift will be withheld until such time as someone can appreciate it.

Rabbi Frand then mentioned the end of the Rashi on 2:5 in which Rashi notes that once man was created and recognized the goodness of the rain and the need to pray for it, then Hashem sent the rain and permitted the vegetation to rise above the surface of the earth. R' Shimshon Pincus in his sefer Sh'arim B'tefillah explains that all the trees and flowers were there waiting for Adam Harishon to pray for them and the rain needed to stimulate their growth. This follows along the prior thought that Hashem wants to give us good things, we just need to pray for them and they will be granted.

Finally, Rabbi Frand made reference to another pasuk in Bereishis and told a vort which (in the words of my friend Adam W.) would be appropriate for a sheva brochos. The Torah states at Bereishis 2:24 "Al kein ya'azav ish es aviv v'es imo, v'davak b'ishto v'hayu l'vasar echad." This is translated generally as - therefore a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife.

Rabbi Frand (quoting R' Lau in the name of his father in law - Rav Frenkel) asked - why did the Torah need to specifically say that a groom will leave his parents? It is more than obvious that the child will leave home when he starts his new life with his bride. If anything, it is already painful for the parents - after all, at weddings the children are beaming and the parents are crying. Why? Partly out of joy, but also for recognition that the child has left the home and that this stage of their life is done.

So if it is obvious and possibly painful that the child is leaving his parents, why does the Torah need to mention it explicitly?

R' Lau in his sefer "Al Tishlach Yadcha El HaNa'ar" states that R' Frenkel explains that the verb "Azav" has more than one meaning. The word can be used as "leave." However, there is another Hebrew word - "Izavon" which means inheritance. Using this connotation, the Torah is explaining that the son entering the marriage will bring with him an inheritance from his father and mother of what he saw in their home. He will pass on the values of treating spouses and children with respect, of being kind to strangers and charitable to the poor. In so doing, the Torah is explaining that when the husband and wife enter the marriage they do so with the inheritance of their individual parents' values and will use those lessons to build their new life together.

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!