Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Emor

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 inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

The end of Parshas Emor contains a discussion of the mikallel - one who curses G-d. The Torah recites at Vayikra 24:10 that a man who was the son of a Jewish woman "went out" and cursed Hashem. Rashi asks where did the mikallel go out from? Rashi answers by citing R' Brachya (as recited in the medrash) who states that the man went out from viewing the Lechem HaPanim - the "shewbread" (described above at Vayikra 24:5-9). The man expressed skepticism - a king should eat fresh baked bread daily, how is that Hashem has bread which sits before him for up to nine days after it was baked? Since the mikallel could not understand ,he wound up cursing Hashem.

The Imrei Emes (Gerrer Rebbi) asks - how can the mikallel have questioned the Lechem HaPanim as being stale, old bread? The bread was miraculous as it stayed fresh and warm the entire time that it was on the table. Indeed, we learn from the the Gemara in Chaggiga that when those who had been oleh regel to Yerushalayim were leaving, the Kohanim would pick up the table which had the Lechem HaPanim on it in order to show those leaving the great miracle of the Lechem HaPanim. The Gemara states that when the Kohanim picked up the table they remarked to those who were leaving - see how dear you are to Hashem.

In light of the above - how do we understand the confusion of the mikallel which led him to ultimately curse Hashem?

The Imrei Emes answers that the Lechem HaPanim was given that name because it reflected the views of the person who looked at it. Rabbi Frand quoted a pasuk in Mishlei which states "Kamayim panim l'panim, ken lev ha'adam l'adam" - translated as - like the water of the face to the face, so too is the heart of a man to a man. Rabbi Frand explained that the way a person looks at another person, that person will look back at him. If a person scowls or looks skeptically at another, that person will return the look or the feeling which was emoted.

In the same way, the Lechem HaPanim would reflect back the look of the person who gazed at it. If the person looked at the Lechem HaPanim in awe (like the oleh regel) the Lechem HaPanim would appear to be the miracle that it was. However, if a person looked at the Lechem HaPanim skeptically, it would reflect back as stale old bread.

This mikallel could not understand the miracle of the Lechem HaPanim and was in all likelihood frustrated by the reverence shown by all of the other Jews to the bread. This frustration was only amplified when he looked at the bread skeptically and it only appeared to him to be old bread.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ 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 - Are Banks Truly Exempt From Criminal Usury

This week's weird but true legal case looks at the question of when a bank can be exempted from New York's criminal usury laws.

I can recall from my early days in the trenches of the District Courts of Nassau County, well before the great recession and credit crunch, listening to a pro se individual arguing that it was unfair that his credit card issuer was exempt from New York's criminal usury laws merely because it claimed to be from South Dakota.

For those of you who may be unaware, under New York Penal Law sec 190.40, it is illegal to charge interest in excess of 25%. Although this law may have been useful to prevent loansharking, it has proved useless to prevent consumers from being subjected to incomprehensible interest rates charged by the big banks. This is because the large banks claim to be national banks and therefore exempt from the local usury laws.

In Citibank v. Hansen, 2010 WL 1641151 (Dist Nass Cty Apr 23, 2010) a pro se defendant challenged his bank's assessment of a 29.99% interest rate based on his default in payment on a credit line.

As noted by Judge Ciaffa in his decision:

The monthly statements sent to defendant regarding his “CitiFlex Line” account advised him that the annual percentage rate of interest on the account could be increased if he failed to make certain required monthly payments toward his indebtedness.But there is nothing in the papers submitted that explains why Citibank should be entitled to a monetary judgment that includes interest rates and fees that significantly exceed New York's criminal usury rate of 25% (P.L. § 190.40), and which effectively double the permissible civil rate on loans and debts subject to New York law. Are such otherwise “usurious” interest charges properly recoverable in a District Court proceeding brought by a national bank against a New York resident debtor?

In framing the issue before the Court, Judge Ciaffa noted Citibank's status as a national bank, but noted that:

a national bank's right to exceed this state's usury limits is not established simply by alleging its status as a “national bank.” Instead, under applicable provisions of federal law, a greater showing is required. At a minimum, the bank must demonstrate, through proof in admissible form, that at least one significant non-ministerial action associated with the account took place in the bank's “home state.”

After a discussion of the relevant state and federal banking laws as applied by the Federal Courts, Judge Ciaffa observed that:

the issue presented, here, is whether Citibank has, indeed, so structured its affairs. The Court shares the concerns expressed by several of my fellow judges as to whether national banks and other credit card issuers have been literally following the letter of the law, or have been abusing it for their enrichment at the expense of our state's citizens.

After reviewing the evidence presented by Citibank, Judge Ciaffa refused to grant judgment applying the 29.99% interest rate as Citibank had failed to demonstrate that it had performed non-ministerial acts from its "home state" of South Dakota.

[I wonder if there is a CitiField (home of the NY Mets) or Citibank Park (home of the Long Island Ducks) in South Dakota].

You can find the decision here http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20144.htm .

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ 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 - Sanhedrin 74

Sanhedrin 74 is a classic daf which brings together topics which are known to people from all levels of Jewish education. There is a discussion of the "big three" - the rules which can never be broken even to save a life - adultery, taking a life and idolatry. There is also a discussion about how Queen Esther allowed herself to be with King Ahasveros and multiple levels of question on the question itself.

Although all of the above topics are deep and worthy of discussion, the lawyer in me actually was more interested in a minor point which was raised by the gemara in talking about rodef.

Simply stated, the law of rodef states that if you see someone chasing another in order to kill him, you may kill the rodef to prevent him from killing the other person (yes the gemara contemplates that if you can "wing" the attempted murderer you should do so).

What piqued my interest was the "collateral damage" portion of the discussion. Rava states that if a rodef is chasing someone and that person breaks objects to evade the rodef, the person being chased is absolved from compensating the rodef if he was the owner of the objects, but would have to make restitution to a third party, because he is making use of the third party's items to save his life.

The gemara then follows with a discussion as to someone who is chasing after the rodef to prevent him from killing another. While in the process, the chattels are broken. The gemara states that the person chasing the rodef does not have to pay for the objects, whether they are owned by the rodef, the person being chased or a third party. The gemara then observes that this is not a true rule of law, but rather that a court must absolve him of making payment because otherwise the person would not attempt to intervene to stop the rodef from killing. Thus the first "good samaritan law" was born.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Monday's Musings on Sports - Of Sacrifices and Sickos

As regular readers of this blog are aware, the Monday post was usually devoted to sports with highlights and analysis of the Max Kellerman show which formerly aired on 1050 ESPN Radio. Although Max resigned from 1050 almost one year ago, I have tried to continue the tradition of linking sports to Torah which I believe was an undercurrent of the Max Kellerman show.

This past weekend saw the unofficial start to the 2010 NFL Season. I say that because as one General Manager said on the Mike and Mike in the Morning show a few years ago - the next football season starts the day after the Super Bowl. Obviously, the general public is not privy to the post Super Bowl planning (for obvious reasons). Indeed, to many the football season does not begin until the start of training camp or the first preseason game in August. However, those who are a little more football oriented begin to pay closer attention at draft time -- when we recall our team's weaknesses from the prior year and hope that the needs will be addressed in the draft.

This year the NFL turned the draft into a three day long dog and pony show. While the draft used to be a one day affair, the NFL chose to stage it over three days, including having the first round in prime time on Thursday night. This was actually quite beneficial to me, since the Jets were picking 29th and by the time they picked I had already gotten home from the Rabbi Frand shiur.

When the draft eventually ends there are always two types of stories which make the headlines. One of these stories usually involves a player who came from a poor upbringing and now that he has made it big he will buy a house, car (small island?) for his family. The other type of story involves a collegiate athlete who was not taken in the draft due to various reasons (injury, failed drug test, etc...). Occasionally, an undrafted player will make an NFL roster either as a free agent or after performing exceptionally in a secondary league (AFL, XFL, CFL), but usually things don't turn out well for those people as undrafted players rarely become NFL stars.

On Sunday night a story broke about Scott Sicko (yes that really is his name - here is a link to an article about him http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Scott-Sicko-will-take-his-ball-and-go-home?urn=nfl,236491). Scott had decided that since he was not drafted by any NFL team, he would pursue a post graduate degree in history. In so doing, Scott turned down a few teams who tried to get him to join as an undrafted free agent. To me, Scott's act of declining the offer indicated one of two things: (1) that he was unwilling to make the sacrifice required of undrafted free agents who are generally cannon fodder in training camp, or (2) that he was willing to sacrifice the dream of an NFL career in order to move on with his life.

The varying perspectives on what constitutes a sacrifice reminded of a vort which I heard from Rabbi Mansour on the two goats which are offered on Yom Kippur. The Torah teaches us that on Yom Kippur, the kohain gadol took two goats and held a lottery. One goat was sacrificed on the altar in the Beis Hamikdash. The other goat (the seir l'azazel) was taken to a mountain and thrown off a cliff.

R' Mansour cited R' Shimshon Rafael Hirsch who theorized what the seir l'azazel was thinking during this process. The goat sees the lottery and thinks - there must be a winner and a loser. He then sees that the other goat is slaughtered, flayed, dismembered and finally burnt on the altar. The seir l'azazel thinks - I must be the winner of this lottery.

Not long after the other goat is brought as a sacrifice, the seir l'azazel is led out of the Beis Hamikdash with an entourage in tow. He is accompanied out of Yerushalayim and up a mountain which allows him to see the whole city. The goat now thinks to himself - I really am the winner in this lottery. Of course this is the last thing that the goat thinks before he tumbles down the mountain to his death.

R' Mansour then connected the two goats to people's perspectives on Judaism. To an outsider, a religious Jew seems to be the one making sacrifices - he can't eat whatever he wants. He can't work on Saturday. He has to get up early and go to prayers every morning.

However, the religious Jew does not feel that he is making sacrifices. Instead he recognizes the value of his actions and sees the positive that comes from the "sacrifice." By way of example, when I was in my first year of law school everyone studied until late into the night every night as we were competing for grades on the bell curve. A classmate once remarked to me - I'm jealous of you that you have shabbos when you are not killing yourself to study. This still holds true today as I value my shabbos and look forward to its coming as I know that I won't be working that day. Is it a sacrifice not to work on shabbos? Or is everyone else worse off for not having one? Its all a matter of perspective.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Sunday Night Suds - Kirkland Signature German Style Lager

This week's belated Sunday Night Suds review looks at Kirkland's Signature German Style Lager. (More on the reason for the tardiness of the column at the bottom of the post).

I tried this beer last night with some take out Japanese food (yes there are kosher Japanese restaurants, but you need to go to Brooklyn or Manhattan to find them). Although Costco classifies this as a "German Style" lager, I could not tell from the taste which of the various styles of German beers they were trying to imitate. The BA website lists thirteen different kinds of German lagers including: Bock, Dopplebock, Eisbock, Helles Lager, Dunkel Lager, Oktoberfest, Rauchbier, Schwarzbier and Vienna Lager, all of which I have tasted and most of which I have reviewed on the blog.

The BA website classifies the German Style Lager as a Marzen/Oktoberfest although I don't have a clue why. The beer was not brewed in March (maybe I'm being too critical) but it also does not taste like an Oktoberfest either.

So what did the beer taste like? Not much, I'm afraid. The beer poured an orange color with a small amount of foam on top. The beer did not taste of hops or malts and was rather thin on body. Maybe that's why they called it a lager as opposed to the other three ales which come in the 24 count mix box.

Kirkland Signature German Style Lager is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit and bears the Va'ad logo on the bottom right corner of the front label. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Kirkland Signature German Style Lager, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/21516/48521.

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

If you've tried this beer or any others which have been reviewed on the kosher beers site, please feel free to post your comments (anonymous comments are acceptable).

Finally, the reason for the lateness of the this post is that I was present at an OU program this evening where there was a panel of mashgichim who spoke on various topics. Yes, there was a mashgiach who spoke on beer (thank you Rabbi M for alerting me to this program). I spoke with the mashgiach and found to my delight that there will soon be a large block of micro and macros beers which will be under hashgacha. As soon as I have confirmation as to their kashrus I will release the list on the site.

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

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Acharei Mos - Kedoshim

The following is a brief summary of a thought said over by R' Frand in his parsha 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 Acahrei Mos is perhaps most well known for being read on Yom Kippur, as the beginning of the parsha contains a description of the avodah performed by the kohain gadol on Yom Kippur. However, the parsha does not begin with Moshe instructing Aharon on the laws of the avodah (this comes in the second pasuk). Instead the parsha recites that Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of two of Aharon's sons who had died after they came close to Hashem.

Rashi asks - why is the avodah is prefaced with the mentioning of the death of Aharon's sons. Rashi answers by citing to R' Elazar Ben Azaryah who compares it to a doctor who warns a patient - don't eat cold food or sleep in a damp place, while another is warned that he should not do the same since "so and so died" when he ignored those instructions. The second warning is clearly more efficacious as it is linked to the threat of death - so too Hashem links this to the death of Aharon's sons so that he is aware that he should not enter the kodesh hakadashim in an improper manner.

Rabbi Frand then asked - but the reasons for Aharon's sons' deaths were inapplicable to Aharon. It is explained that they died because they took an aish zara - a foreign fire, or because they refused to marry or have children. These were not issues for Aharon!

Rabbi Frand answered by citing the sefer Tiferes L'Shlomo who writes that they died "b'karvasam lifnei Hashem" when they attempted to draw close to Hashem. The problem with their actions was they wanted to chart their own course as to how to come close to Hashem and not through the norms which applied to everyone else. They saw the fire was to come from the outer mizbeyach which belonged to the commoners, but they did not want to be like everyone else and instead they brought their own fire. They also chose not to marry or have children as this was like everyone else and they felt that they could come closer to Hashem by not being like the proletariat.

Hashem's message to Aharon was don't be like Nadav and Avihu because the kohain gadol comes to the kodesh hakadashim one time per year - as the emissary of the nation. The reason that the kohain gadol comes into the kodesh hakadashim on Yom Kippur is that the Jews have become pure through their day of fasting and deprivation and this enables him to enter the holiest place on Earth.

Rabbi Frand then quoted to a gemara in Yoma which recites that when the kohain gadol left the kodesh hakadashim he would say a short prayer. The prayer included three elements: (1) that the Jews should never be subservient or beholden to an outside nation; (2) the Jewish people should always have parnassah and won't need to be dependent one on the other for financial support, and (3) that Hashem should not accept the prayers of the travelers on the road.

The obvious question is why the kohain gadol lumps in the pedestrian (no pun intended) third request with the other two lofty prayers?

Rabbi Frand answered by quoting the sefer Bei Chiyah who cites the sefer Divrei Yechezkel on Tehillim. The Divrei Yechezkel notes that Tehillim contains the sentence "Rachok M'Yishuasi Divrei Sha'agasi" - far from salvation are the words I am crying for. This is a lesson that people often times cry out for things that they don't really need when there are more pressing or urgent things to daven for. People may not understand what it is that they truly need and instead make minor things the focus of their tefillos. When the kohain gadol davens after he has left the kodesh hakadashim he is asking Hashem to ignore the trivial aspects of the prayers and give the Jews what they really need.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!