Sunday Night Suds - Samuel Adams Light

Tonight's Sunday Night beer review looks at Samuel Adams Light, a lighter version of their traditional Boston Lager.

People who judge their beers based solely on the TV advertisements for light beers might be surprised when they taste a Samuel Adams Light. It seems like the most competitive market on TV (in terms of alcohol) is the "lite" beer market with an over saturation of ads from Bud Light, Miller Lite, Coors Light (a.k.a. the "Silver Bullet"), Michelob Light ("anything else is just a light") and more recently Michelob Ultra, Amstel Light and Heineken Light. These beers "promise" great taste and low calories or carbohydrates, but tend to deliver little taste and an extremely low alcohol content.

What are the characteristics of light lagers? The sages at Beer Advocate explain:

The Light Lager is generally a lighter version of a breweries premium lager, some are lower in alcohol but all are lower in calories and carbohydrates compared to other beers. Typically a high amount of cereal adjuncts like rice or corn are used to help lighten the beer as much as possible. Very low in malt flavor with a light and dry body. The hop character is low and should only balance with no signs of flavor or aroma. European versions are about half the alcohol (2.5-3.5% abv) as their regular beer yet show more flavor (some use 100% malt) then the American counterparts. For the most part this style has the least amount of flavor than any other style of beer.

With this background in mind, I decided to review the Samuel Adams Light for this week's Sunday Night Suds. Why? Well, my aishes chayil Sarah suggested that people might be a little full from the holiday weekend eating, so why not review a light beer. I decided to follow her advice (yes, I know I am bound to follow Sarah's advice as noted in Vayera - kol asher tomar eilecha sarah, shma b'kola).

As far as light beers go, Samuel Adams is one of those which are closer to the original then a watered down version. The beer itself has a decent semblance of the regular lager and also retains most of the alcohol. A traditional regular beer will have about a 5% abv (the SA Boston Lager has a 4.9% abv), while the SA Light has 4% abv.

I enjoyed my Sam Adams Light by itself this evening, but this smooth drinking light beer will not conflict with most dishes. All in all, a good light beer, just keep in mind that unlike most light beers, the SA Light's alcohol content is close to regular beer.

Samuel Adams Light is under the kashruth supervision of the Star-K.For the experts take on Samuel Adams Light, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/35/1503.

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!

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Kiddushin 48

Kiddushin 48 continues an analysis of whether or not the forgiveness of a debt alone is sufficient in order to be mikadesh. As part of this discussion, the gemara explains the laws of payment for work performed by a craftsman at one's request.

The gemara begins (48a) with the assumption that all agree that when one gives work to a craftsman for him to perform over a period of time, the craftsman earns his wages with each step in the creative process (yeshna l'schirus mi'techila v'ad sof) and thus when he is paid at completion it as if a retroactive loan is being paid back. This later becomes the subject of debate.

On 48b, the gemara states that there is a dispute as to whether a craftsman acquires an interest in the product he is fashioning. As a way of explanation, the gemara is dealing with a situation where the craftsman has been given precious metal and was told to fashion jewelry out of the metal. The gemara then states that according to R' Meir (as explained by Rashi), the craftsman is not being paid on a daily basis and is paid for the project, thus when he completes the project he has acquired ownership of the improvement in the metal and when he gives the finished product in exchange for payment, he is actually selling his interest in the object. The chachamim do not agree with the principal and treat him like a employee who is paid in exchange for his labor.

Later on 48b, the gemara deals with a person who attempts to be mikdesh a woman by handing her a cup of liquid. The gemara says that: T'1 says that when he offers the cup he is offering the cup and its contents; T'2 says that he is only offering the cup and T'3 says that she is only receiving the contents of the cup and not the cup itself. The gemara then states (without connecting the lines) that one of the T's is talking about a cup of water, one is talking about a cup of wine and one is talking about a fish brine which was used over a number days as a dip for bread.

Rashi explains that T'1 (cup+contents) is dealing with the fish brine; T'2 (cup alone) is dealing with a cup of water and T'3 (contents only) is dealing with a cup of wine. Tosafos is bothered by this as the explanation of the contents of the cup which Rashi uses is out of order since the first liquid discussed in the gemara is water. Tosafos (d'h "ha bimaya") attempts to track the parallel language in the gemara before stating that the order is not important.

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 XXXII - Priority is a matter of perspective

In my opinion, today's Max Kellerman show had a subliminal message for NY sports fans. Although the casual listener might have thought that the show was even handed in its treatment of the Jets and Giants, a not too subtle hint dropped at the beginning of the show may lead one to an opposite conclusion.

[Before getting into today's show, I would just like to respond in relation to last week's non-posting of the "musings" on Monday, November 17. I apologize for not making a post, however this was partially due to the fact that Max did not host the show on 11/17 and partially because the day itself was a little too hectic for me to do a "my musings" supplemental post. To those who were disappointed, I apologize.]

Max started the show with a line about the Jets win over the Titans on Sunday. He said that Brett Favre and the Jets' offensive line proved what he had been saying all year - that the Giants are the best team in football. As to whether this was praise for the Jets, a knock on the Titans or a little Giants home cooking, its all a matter of the approach you take to the story.

Other interesting perspective tidbits were - "Brett Favre played like he was Eli Manning." I would have loved to have heard Louie Gold's response to that one. Speaking of Louie, last week (I think that it was Friday) the guys were talking about the Dr. Theodore Atlas Foundation dinner. Louie talked about how he had met Coach Mangini and that he thought that Mangini was a great guy. Having said that, Louie still wants him fired (or at least when Max gets him stoked up, that's what comes out of Louie's mouth).

Another interesting discussion revolved around whether the Jets are the best team in the AFC. I actually heard this question asked on numerous shows including on the Michael Kay show to Chris Berman (he said that they are the best right now). Max had a similar answer, but he framed it in such a way as to also knock the BCS system. Max said that Jets are presently the best team in the AFC and that while they may not have been for the entire season, that only matters for the BCS rankings. He then followed it up with a good point - your season record determines your playoff position, but the way you are playing at the end of the season determines how far you will go in the playoffs.

Max also had an interesting perspective on the Knicks' lightning rod - Stephon Marbury. He said that Marbury is a non-issue but that he made the Knick relevant with his audacious (my word) behavior while the Knicks were playing horribly.

As part of a product endorsement (I can't remember which one) Max said that you do errands for your wife on other days so that you can watch football on Sundays. To me, this leaves my Sunday Jets game as a question of perspective. Do I perform all my tasks during the week so that I can watch the game on Sunday (making the game the priority which I am building up to)? The flip side would be -- is the game on Sunday a break which I use to recharge my batteries for the week?

The answer of course is linked to Torah. I can recall a Rebbi in school posing the same question in relation to basketball. Do the boys go out to play at recess as the highlight of the day, or as a way to release some energy so that they can then return and concentrate on their learning. Like most of Max's discussions today, it really is a matter of priority and perspective.

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 - Post Road Pumpkin Ale

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds review completes the survey of pumpkin brews currently (known by me to be) under kosher supervision by looking at Post Road Pumpkin Ale.

To frequent visitors to this site, the name Post Road may not seem familiar, but rest assured that it is produced by a well known kosher brewer. For reasons known only by its marketing division, the Brooklyn Brewery brews and bottles this ale, but chooses to brand it with a unique trade name. (The beer is actually brewed in the Utica brewery which Brooklyn shares with Pete's Wicked and Saranac).

As you may be aware, many of the larger breweries will market some of their products under other less familiar trade names (think Blue Moon for Coors, Icehouse for Miller and Landshark for Budweiser). What makes this arrangement odd is that Brooklyn is already a craft brewery, so there would be no impetus to pass off this tasty ale as anything other than a Brooklyn Brewery product. It should be noted that unlike the macrobrewers who set up separate website for their "craft beers" with no links to their parent corporations, Brooklyn Brewery makes no attempt to hide its connection with Post Road as the Pumpkin Ale is listed as one of their beers on the Brooklyn Brewery website (http://www.brooklynbrewery.com/beer/ ).

But on the brew itself. The Post Road Pumpkin Ale is spiced like all pumpkin brews. However, the addition of cinnamon which while not heavy is certainly present, makes this a special beer. They indicate on their website that they blend "hundreds of pounds" of pumpkin into the mash for every batch of the brew.

Unlike the other two pumpkin ales which I reviewed in prior Sunday Night Suds (for Blue Moon, click here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2008/11/sunday-night-suds-harvest-moon-pumpkin.html , for Saranac click here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2008/11/sunday-night-suds-saranac-pumpkin-ale.html ) this brew could blend well with Thanksgiving feast without overpowering the main course it accompanied.

Post Road Pumpkin Ale is under the kashruth supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit.For the experts take on Post Road Pumpkin Ale, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/45/74.

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 Chayei Sarah

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 24:1, the Torah recites "V'Avrahahm zakein ba bayamim..." which is translated as "Now Avraham was old, well on in years..." The Midrash states in the name of R' Yehudah, that Avraham is the first person who was called old in the Torah. He explains that Avraham requested from Hashem that he be allowed to bear the physical characteristics of his age because people could not tell the difference between him and Yitzchak as they both appeared to be the same age. Avraham reasoned that in order to allow people to show the older individual the proper respect, the human being should be permitted to show characteristics of age in order to make it obvious who was senior. The Midrash concludes that Hashem agreed with Avraham and permitted this change in the teva.

R' Frand commented that in the current era, people spend billions of dollars (collectively) in an effort to avoid showing their age - from buying hair coloring agents to botox. He also mentioned in the name of R' Shimshon Pincus that even in the frum community one can see that age is protected as the elders from Europe were called the Alter M'Slobodka or the Alter M'Kelem, but in Israel they were not called the Zaken M'Kelem. Rather, the titles given were the Sabba M'Kelem to avoid the branding of age. [Ed. Note - Our connection to the host site failed at this point and I missed a few moments]

R' Frand then explained that to Avraham, age was not something to be ashamed of as he wore his senior status as a badge of honor. He explained that one who is proud of what he has achieved in life does not seek to hide his age. Only someone who feels that he has not yet accomplished what he needs to do, seeks to prevent a showing of his true age in order to give the impression that he has more time left to make something of his life. Avraham did not have this problem.

The second vort of the evening involved Avraham's instructions to Eliezer about choosing a wife for Yitzchak. In Bereishis 24:3, Avraham tells Eliezer that he wants him to swear by Hashem the G-d of the heavens and the earth that Eliezer will not take a wife for Yitzchak from the daughters of Canaan. Later in 24:7, Avraham again talks to Eliezer about Hashem, however he merely says Hashem of the heavens who took me from my homeland.

Rashi on 24:7 explains that Avraham is telling Eliezer in the latter pasuk that he has made Hashem the G-d of the earth because the people of the world did not know who Hashem was, but Avraham introduced the concept of monotheism and brought people to recognize Hashem.

R' Dov Weinberger in his sefer Shemen Hatov asks - why did Avraham need to invoke that Hashem was the G-d of the earth when giving instructions to Eliezer? He answers, that Avraham was trying to impress on Eliezer that when going to find a mate, it is vital to have the assistance of Hashem of the heavens and the earth. It is well documented in shas (and apparent in our daily lives) that it is difficult to make shidduchim. To underscore this point, Avraham says to Eliezer, you need to make sure that you have the assistance of Hashem of the earth in your quest to find a bride for my son.

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 XXXII

Tonight's weird (but true) legal case analysis looks at a recent decision from the Appellate Division, First Department in Marte v. Graber. As any lawyer will tell you, sometime the trial court makes mistakes - that's why there are appellate courts. The decision in Marte v. Graber is a horse of an entirely different color.

In this matter, the plaintiff (a non-lawyer) drafted his own complaint to sue his former attorney for malpractice. Unfortunately, the attorney died before the lawsuit was filed, thus preventing the plaintiff from filing suit. Or so one would think. As noted by the Appellate Division,

In or around July 2005, Amin Marte, incarcerated and acting pro se, filed an unsigned, undated summons and complaint alleging legal malpractice by attorney Herman Graber. Thereafter, Marte discovered that Graber had died on April 2, 2005, approximately three months before the filing of the summons and complaint. Thus the action from its inception was a nullity since it is well established that the dead cannot be sued.

Rather than recommence an action against the personal representative of Graber's estate, the Plaintiff moved for and obtained two extensions of time to serve the estate. This was the first of the trial court's errors, since it "adjudicated a nullity apparently unaware that time was not the problem in a case where the only named defendant could never be served with the summons and complaint, however long the plaintiff was given to do so."

After finding out the identity of the representative, the plaintiff (now represented by counsel) moved to substitute the representative of the estate as a defendant. As explained by the Appellate Division:

The motion court, compounding its errors, continued to adjudicate the nullity by granting the motion, and thus ignoring the requirement of CPLR 1015(a) that an action be pending for the correct application of that provision. CPLR 1015(a) provides that “[i]f a party dies and the claim for or against him is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties” (emphasis added). Moreover, CPLR 1021 provides that “[a] motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” (emphasis added). The term “party” plainly indicates that an action has already been properly commenced and is pending and thus the court may effect substitution.

In this case, since the summons and complaint were filed after the death of Herman Graber, Marte had not properly commenced an action against Graber, and so Graber was never a party in the proceeding captioned Amin Marte v. Herman I. Graber, Index No. 402200/05. Thus, there was no party for whom substitution could be effected pursuant to CPLR 1015(a).

Likewise, Marte's attempt to amend the summons pursuant to CPLR 305(c) was made in error. That provision is generally used to correct an irregularity, for example where a plaintiff is made aware of a mistake in the defendant's name or the wrong name or wrong form is used. But it is axiomatic that a motion for leave to amend follows service of process. In this case, of course, process was never served on Herman Graber (nor are we aware of any method for serving with process those who have moved beyond the vale). Thus, effectively there was no summons for amendment.

To her credit, the representative of the estate attempted to educate the trial court and moved to reargue the motion. Although the trial court allowed reargument it "ignored Sandra Graber's contention that the proceeding was a nullity from its inception. Incomprehensibly so, since the court's decision of August 14, 2007, bearing the caption of Amin Marte against Sandra Graber, clearly reflected the fact that Herman Graber had died on April 2, 2005, and that the only summons and complaint filed in this case had been filed on July 6, 2005."

To see the full text of the decision, click here http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_08552.htm .

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!