Monday's Musings on Sports, Munich, London and Pieces of Cake

A sports story which has touched me deeply and continues to fester is the issue of the moment of silence at the Olympic Games.

As most of the world is aware, in 1972, eleven Israeli athletes and coaches were killed after being attacked by Palestinian terrorists in the Olympic Village during the Summer Olympics in Munich. As this was the forty year anniversary of the tragedy, a movement began to convince the International Olympic Committee to hold a moment of silence during the 2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony. This movement was supported by politicians in the United States, Israel and Germany. However, the President of the IOC, Frenchman Jacques Rogge, refused to allow the moment of silence as it was either "an inappropriate time" and he had planned an alternative to remember the Israelis. Despite numerous high profile requests, including a petition with 100,000 signatures, calls from some of the widows of Munich and a request by President Obama, Rogge was unwilling to yield.

I was unaware of the history of the request for a moment of silence, but apparently there have been numerous requests which have fallen on deaf ears. As reported by the AP, at Montreal (1976) the families were told no because the Arabs would leave. At Barcelona (1992) they were told that the IOC was unwilling to bring politics to the games. At Atlanta (1996), the reason was protocol. At Athens (2004), organizers said it was not the appropriate time.

In defiance of the IOC, Bob Costas of NBC held his own moment of silence during the Opening Ceremonies. Even more impressive was the fact that he announced that he was going to do it and NBC did not convince him to refrain from doing so.

Although the IOC was unwilling to change its position on the moment of silence, the body which governs the judo competition at the Olympics had no issue with changing their stripes when they were pressured by the Arab bloc.

For the first time, Saudi Arabia sent female athletes to the Olympic games, including Wojdan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shaherkani, a woman who competes in the 172 pound Judo weight class. When she first announced that she would only compete if she was allowed to wear a hijab, the ruling was that she could not wear it because it was dangerous. However at the very beginning of the Games, the ruling was reversed and she was permitted to wear the hijab.

Rogge's refusal to allow the moment of silence because it was an "inappropriate time" simply cannot be reconciled with the permission for the wearing of the hijab, notwithstanding it being dangerous. While Rogge can claim that he is observing tradition, in reality he is using it as a shield to protect the IOC from doing something unpopular - showing compassion for Jews who were killed for being Jewish.

Rogge is hardly the first person to have ulterior motives for his action or inaction, but it reminded me of a vort I heard in a Rabbi Mansour shiur about Og, the King of Bashaan. The Torah recounts in Sefer Bereishis that Palit came and told Avraham that Lot had been taken captive. Avraham went to war and saved Lot from death. Later in Sefer Devarim, Moshe is concerned about going to war with Og because Moshe is aware that Og had zechus (merit) because he informed Avraham of the Lot kidnapping.

R' Mansour asked - why did Og's name change from Palit to Og? He answered (I don't recall his source) that Og told Avraham about Lot because Og was interested in Sarah and hoped that Avraham would be killed in battle. He is then called Og because he is like Oogah - cake. A cake is not bread and those who work dough cakes in order to make them into matza must constantly remind themselves that they are making them for the purpose of matza. If done for the wrong reason, the matza will not be proper for the Seder. Much like Og who acted like he was doing things for a legitimate reason, Rogge has pretended like he was observing tradition, but it is fairly obvious that he refused the moment of silence for nefarious reasons.

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!

Belated Sunday Night Suds - Lakefront Riverwest Stein Beer

This week's belated Sunday Night Suds looks at Lakefront's Riverwest Stein Beer, an all malt amber lager.

Yes SNS fans, I did not have a beer after the Tisha B'Av fast ended. Nor did I make havdalah on beer, although because Tisha B'Av was a nidhe this year, no one was required to use beer for havdalah since wine and grape juice were acceptable due to the shifting of the fast from Shabbos to Sunday.

Instead, I waited until I got home this evening to try the highly regarded Lakefront Riverwest Stein Beer. While waiting for a beer is hardly ever an endeavor that can be deemed worth it (except perhaps the first post Pesach beer), this rare visitor to NY was certainly enjoyable.

For those who are unfamiliar with Lakefront brews, there is good reason for your lack of experience with Lakefront --- these beers don't generally find their way to the East Coast. Indeed, I have seen these beers on rare occasions in some of the beer beer stores like Shoreline, Beverage Barn (Garden City Park), Peekskill Beverage and American Beer on Court Street, but usually a few styles and often with older vintages.

To my surprise, I have now seen Lakefront in the 8 count mix pack available in a number of places including DeCicco's in Brewster and the hidden gem of a beer store - Sam the Beer Man in Binghamton.

The 8 pack is a great tool if you are looking to try many different varieties or if you are just looking to find one that you like without buying multiple six packs. I hope to post reviews of many of these brews over the next few months.

So why is the Riverwest Stein Beer so highly regarded? First you need to look, taste and smell the malt in the brew. The first few sips were all bready malt with a little balanced hops so that the beer's character is not forgotten. The beer is not highly carbonated but by no means flat and the lesser fizz allows the beer to be enjoyed, even when served on the colder side.

This is not a beer for a steak, but I would like to try it with some lighter stews or chicken dishes. If you have experimented with pairing this brew with food, please let me know your thoughts.

Lakefront Brewery Riverwest Stein Amber Lager is under the kosher supervision of the Star-K(there is even a Star-K on the label). For the experts' take on the Riverwest Stein Amber Lager, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/741/2219.

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).

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!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Devarim

Since there are no Rabbi Frand shiurim on the Parsha until Elul, I have continued with my usual summer practice of substituting a vort from other Rabbanim each week, rather than leaving the blog without a vort for shabbos. This week, I am attempting to repeat a vort heard from R' Eli Mansour as recorded on www.learntorah.com. Same rules as usual apply - I have attempted to reproduce the vorts 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 the maggid shiur.

R' Mansour quoted a gemara which asks why does the parsha begin with the phrase these are the words that Moshe spoke to the Jews? Are these the first words that Moshe spoke? Moshe had been speaking to the Jews for thirty nine years! Rather the gemara explains that when Moshe spoke previously, Hashem spoke through Moshe's throat. Now, Moshe was speaking on his own (albeit inspired through ru'ach hakodesh).

R' Mansour noted that previously Moshe had spoken with a lisp, but the meforshim write that Moshe's speech impediment was cured now. This was because Hashem decided that since Moshe was now going to speaking on his own, the lisp was no longer needed to remind people of the source of the statements. Therefore the pasuk states that since Moshe spoke on his own for the first time, Hashem could heal his tongue.

These first statements that Moshe made were a rebuke. Moshe learned this from Ya'akov who waited until he was on his deathbed in Parshas Vayechi to tell his sons what they had been doing wrong. While a person is still alive and well, such statements could engender harsh feelings. Ya'akov's lesson which Moshe learned, is that when a person gives tochacha at the end of his life, it will generally be much better received.

R' Mansour noted that Moshe's rebuke to the Jews was very "pareve", meaning that it was mild and not meant to embarrass anyone in particular. The first pasuk of the parsha contains numerous places or landmarks which on the surface are meant to identify where the speech took place. However, if one were to review Parshas Matos, it would become evident that none of these places exist. The pasuk identifies places such as Lavan, Chatzeiros, Di Zahav and Mul Soof, but these locations are not found elsewhere in Chumash.

R' Mansour explained that Lavan was meant to remind the Jews about their complaints about the manna which was white. Rather than lacing into the Jews and telling them in detail about how wrong they were to complain about the manna, Moshe just says "white."

The use of the term Di Zahav (enough gold) was also meant to be a subtle reminder of sin. The Jews had enough gold, but they did not save it for a positive purpose. Instead, the Jews used the gold to construct the egel - the golden calf.

Another term used by Moshe was Mul Soof - you were by the splitting of the sea. However, this was meant to remind the Jews that they cried and complained and wanted to go back to Egypt before the sea was split.

From here one sees the importance to retain respect for people. Even when giving a rebuke,a person must be careful not to make it personal and to allow the recipient a measure of self respect.

R' Mansour then hypothesized that Moshe's respectful manner of rebuking the Jews might be the reason that Devarim is read before Tisha B'Av. The second temple was destroyed for not treating fellow Jews with respect. Moshe's lesson to the Jews is to not publicly rebuke others in a way that will embarrass them.

Rabbi Mansour then tied this to the Kamtza/Bar Kamtza story. The victim in the story was a malshin - a person who would turn over Jews to the government. Yet the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because this malshin was not given a measure of self respect and was forcibly removed from the party.

R' Mansour also related this concept to the story of Korach. After Korach and his followers challenged Aharon with their own attempts at offering Ketores, two hundred and fifty people were killed. After the story ended, Hashem commanded Elazar to clean up the mess. R' Mansour asked - why Elazar and not Aharon? R' Mansour answered that if Aharon had cleaned up the mess, it would have looked like he was gloating - I lived and you died! Therefore, Elazar was commanded to clean up after the others were killed.

Another vort that R' Mansour said had to do with a pasuk from Moshe's speech to the Jews where Moshe says that Hashem has caused the Jews to multiply "Larov". R' Mansour noted that the cholam is missing from this word and it appears to be read "Larav."

R' Mansour quoted the Ben Ish Chai who explains that every night a person's soul goes up to heaven and recounts the aveirot which were performed that day. The soul is damaged by any sins committed that day and the soul tells Hashem about the acts. While a person may have performed mitzvos that day as well, the good angels created by the mitzvos don't get to speak at night as they can only testify before a Beis Din which will not open until the next day.

R' Mansour then quoted a gemara which states that if a person comes and voluntarily admits that he is liable to pay a fine, he is exempt from paying the fine. As such, when the soul testifies that the acts occurred, it exempts the person from the fine. Who is the author of this opinion in the gemara? Rav. However, Shmuel says that if the person admits the act which causes the fine and then witnesses later come, he is still responsible to pay the fine.

R' Mansour, quoting the Ben Ish Chai tied this into a statement by Bilaam where he says "mi yichyeh mi sumo (k)el." This can also be read as - who can live if Shmuel is correct. B'H, the halacha is like Rav.

R' Mansour also quoted the pasuk from Tehillim, "v'slachta lavonoseinu ki rav hu" - Hashem will forgive us because he is rav. This can also be read as we will be forgiven because the halacha is like Rav.

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 - Modelo Especial

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Modelo Especial.

Although not widely known, there are many Mexican beers which are under kosher supervision. Past Sunday Night Suds columns have reviewed some more well known Mexican brews like Corona (click here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2010/05/sunday-night-suds-corona-extra.html to see the review) and some not so well known brews like Negra Modelo (click here http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2012/05/sunday-night-suds-negra-modelo.html to see the review). The odd thing is that after Corona, the Modelo Especial is their next "best selling" beer, yet it is widely unknown outside of the Latin community.

The experts at BA have labeled the Modelo Especial an American Adjunct Lager, but I find this beer to taste less of corn or cereal filler and more like the true Pilsner which it purports to be. The beer poured a pale gold with a small amount of foam which quickly dissipated. The first few sips were quite refreshing and tasted of standard lager with a little something else which I can't really define. Maybe there is a little corn, but nothing rising to the level of Rolling Rock or Heineken in which the corn dominates all the other possible flavors of the brew.

The Modelo Especial is a good nine days beer in that it would go well with most substitute meat fare. Besides the obvious pairing with dairy nachos, refried beans or chips and salsa, I would very much consider having one of these with a spicy veggie burger or even pizza.

Modelo Especial is certified kosher by the OK laboratories as are many other beers produced by Compania Cervcera Del Tropico S.A. de CV. To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about Negra Modelo, please follow this link http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/75/1321.

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, 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!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshios Matos Masei

The following is a brief summary of two thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parshios back in 2010. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiurand should not be attributed to R' Frand.

Parshas Matos begins with Moshe telling the heads of the tribes about nedarim. This is out of the ordinary as a parsha usually begins "and Hashem told Moshe to say [to the Jews]." However in this parsha Moshe speaks directly to the roshei matos without the Torah specifying that the source was from Hashem. The language of roshei hamatos is also unique as the Torah usually describes the people as nesi'im, not as roshei hamatos.

Rabbi Frand quoted R' Alpert who cited the Rashbam in Chukas about the maa'aseh meriva. In this parsha, Moshe is told to pick up the mateh and then later told to talk to the rock. Ultimately, Moshe is punished for using the staff, rather than speaking to the rock. But why is he told to pick up the staff in the first place? The answer Rabbi Frand gave is that Hashem was trying to teach Moshe a lesson about how to interact with the Jewish people. Hashem instructs - there are two ways to interact and influence the Jews, either by speaking to them or by hitting them. This time, the lesson is that the pen (or in this case the spoken word) is mightier than the sword.

When Hashem tells Moshe to take the staff, Hashem is saying take the staff, but then go and talk to the Jews. Hashem attempts to teach Moshe a lesson that every leader and Rebbi or Rov must know - you don't need the stick. You can have as much impact by speaking.

Matos is a parsha about speech - nedarim. A person can have a Rabbinically certified kosher meat sandwich, but if he has sworn that that he will not eat meat, then it is as great a sin to eat the sandwich as if he has eaten not kosher food. This is the power of speech. Therefore the parsha begins with Moshe telling the roshei hamatos, because Moshe has learned the power of speech and he can then instruct the leaders of sticks that they can lead with power or with speech, but leading with speech is much more effective.

A second vort was said over about Parshas Masei. R' Frand again quoted R' Alpert who remarks that the parsha recites the 42 stops which appear to be ancient history and almost irrelevant. So why are the mas'aos mentioned? Indeed, many of the locations mentioned were mile markers where things did not go well for the Jews. Chazal teach that Refidim marked the location where the Jews washed their hands of Torah (rafu yideihem) and therefore they were attacked by Amalek.

Another location was Kivros HaTavah where they complained about the food they were eating.R' Frand asked - how do people look back on their less than stellar past? They usually try to forget it. The Torah however tells us, remember your past that you did not act properly, but you were able to pull yourselves out of it and move on. The Torah then teaches 42 locations to show that there were glorious moments and not so stellar times. The message is that the Jews should be aware of their mistakes, not repeat them and at the same time see how they overcame them.

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!

Monday's Musings on Sports - Why Life is LeGrand and the Pinchas Perspective

While driving down from Camp M, I spent an engaging few hours listening to the Mike & Mike in the morning program. Unlike most of the last few weeks, the show was actually hosted by Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic, instead of one and occasionally two, fill in hosts.

The show had a couple of interesting discussion points, including the Monday 4PM deadline for signing franchise players to multi-year deals. The guys debated which of the marquee players were worth mega buck long term contracts and whether a player would pass up the franchise year salary and sit out the year in order to avoid possible injury and its possible impact on his ability to cash in down the road.

There was also an interesting discussion about the Jeremy Lin saga and whether the NY Knicks would be willing to match the Houston Rockets offer sheet for Lin. The Mikes correctly noted that while the purported sticking point was the third year of the deal and the luxury tax penalty, the Knicks should not have been worried about it because: (a) if Lin was performing at All-Star level in the 3rd year he would be worth the money; (b) the Knicks would still be raking in merchandise dollars, even if Lin turned out to be only a slightly above average player. and (c) if Lin turned out to be a bust in the expensive third year, he could still be a valuable trade chip as teams desire expiring contracts and the Knicks could move Lin at that time for a more useful player.

But the discussion from the show which I really would like to focus on involved Eric LeGrand and kickoffs. For those who are unaware of LeGrand, he was a Rutgers college football player who suffered a devastating spinal injury and is currently unable to walk. The injury occurred during a play when LeGrand was covering a kickoff and fractured two vertebrae while attempting to make tackle. Although he was paralyzed from the waist down, he has now been able to sit up and has vowed that one day he will walk again. He has also recently publicly stated that when he does walk, he will go back to the spot at New Meadowlands stadium where he was injured, lie down and then stand up again.

Besides discussing his rehab and future plans, LeGrand also discussed his views on kickoffs. Although unrelated to LeGrand, last year the NFL moved the location of the kickoff up 5 yards to reduce the number of kickoff returns and minimize player injury. There has since been a movement to further limit or possibly eliminate kickoffs altogether.

Last week, LeGrand voiced his opposition to changing kickoffs and even to the 5 yard movement from the previous fall. LeGrand opined that for some players, the coverage team is their only way to earn a spot on the team. He also stated that the old form of kickoffs was more exciting.

The fact that nearly two years post accident, LeGrand could look back on his injury and express an opinion that kickoffs should go back to the way they were pre-2011 changes made me think about the Torah reading for the last two weeks and what I will call the Pinchas principle.

Although last week's parsha was called Pinchas and contained a description of his reward for bravery, it was not the beginning of the Pinchas story. Rather, the story began in the last part of Parshas Balak, where the Torah recites that Pinchas killed Cozbi and Zimri. The question asked by many meforshim is, why does the Torah wait until the next parsha to discuss Pinchas' reward? Couldn't the Torah finish the story in Parshas Balak with a description of the reward.

The answer which I heard in a Rabbi Mansour shiur which I downloaded from www.learntorah.com is that the Torah intentionally waited for the following parsha to discuss the reward in order to demonstrate that some actions must be judged before determining whether they were proper. It would be easy to jump to conclusions and call Pinchas a hothead for his act. By waiting until the next parsha to discuss the reward, the Torah shows that in order to properly consider whether a person has acted for the sake of heave, one needs to step back and analyze the acts taken.

To my mind, there is no way that in the weeks and months immediately post injury, LeGrand could have made the statement that kickoffs should not be altered in the name of player safety. However, now that he has commenced rehab and had time to consider the injury, LeGrand can step back and properly review and comment on the play.

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!