Maxless Monday Musings

As some of you may be aware, last Monday marked Max Kellerman's last show on 1050 ESPN radio for the forseeable future. As I had gone to court in the City in the early morning and knew that I was not going to do a post last Monday night (due to Purim starting that evening) I did not listen to the show. As such, I don't know if there were any on-air hints that it was going to be his last show.

I first realized that Max was not on 1050 when I turned on the radio on Wednesday at 10 AM and heard the program referred to as the Brandon Tierney show. This was disturbing to me for two reasons: (1) I had grown attached to the Max Kellerman show as background while I worked and (2) Brandon Tierney is difficult to listen to for more than a segment or two at a time. Why do I feel that way about Brandon? Very simply he butchers the English language (some prime Brandon invented idioms include "throwing a match on a pile of gasoline" and that a team had some "imminently winnable games"). Also, he often times will reverse his stance within the same segment, usually about things like statistics - he will quote a stat and then when a caller disagrees he will say that you can make statistics say anything. As has been noted in print, Brandon seems more interested in showing that he is slick than actually covering the issues. When he was doing the night shift there were at least Knick and Ranger games which cut into his slot. Now that he is doing the AM slot on a temporary fill in basis for Max Kellerman, I find myself listening to the National feed on my computer.

Why did Max leave? The sports media writers in the local newspapers have attributed it to one of two things: (1) Max being upset that 1050 cut Robin Lundberg and Louie Gold and (2) the network's decision to cut Max's show back from 3 hours a day to 2 hours (like it was when he first took the slot). I can't profess to having any knowledge as to whether either reason is correct, and Max also does not seem to be publicly commenting about it (his Max Kellerman army page only has listener comments and nothing from him).

So when will I next do a Max post and what will I do with Mondays? As to the former, this will depend on whether he gets another radio gig. The tabloids have been saying that he may join Mike Francesca on 660 WFAN. As a professor of mine in law school once said, we'll jump off that bridge when we get there. However, until then I will use this post to try to link daily sports issues to Torah, much the way that the Max Kellerman show always had a link to Torah thought.

My thought for today asks -- does professional sports stimulate more negative than positive thought? When rooting for a college team in the big dance, an alum will hope that his team wins every game. Unlike the regular season, what another team does is irrelevant, since the first time your team loses it is out of the tournament. However, if it never loses the team takes home the trophy.

In contrast, in the world of professional sports where no team goes undefeated, the average sports fan not only roots for his own team, he also actively roots against other teams. In some cases this is taken to the extreme as I have heard that Boston station sports reports contain daily Yankee updates. I can recall growing up as a Ranger fan in Long Island, after hearing the Ranger score, my first question was did the Islanders lose. (More recently it has not been as much of an issue since the Islanders haven't been competitive for a decade, but I digress).

So how does this link to Torah? Pirkei Avos teaches that one who is wealthy is happy with his portion. This can be contrasted with the teachings of the baalei mussar that one should not be jealous of another person since in so doing he openly questions Hashem's decision as to how resources should be distributed. To draw a parallel, a sports fan must take this approach if his rooting interest is healthy. Root for your team and focus on its results. If the team accomplishes, then great. But don't spend your time watching and rooting against the other team as this will not accomplish anything other than accumulate negative energy and frustration.

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 - Saranac Pale Ale

This week's Sunday Night Suds review looks at one of my all time favorite beers - Saranac Pale Ale.

I have often heard people review this beer as a gateway beer for those wishing to expand their palates from macros into the world of craft beer. Not long after my friend Yehuda F moved to West Hempstead from Brooklyn, we were walking home from shul on Friday Night talking about the perfect cholent beers, when he mentioned that he had once had a Saranac Pale Ale, but could never find it again. Yes, I remarked, this is the perfect cholent beer and I could definitely find a few six packs for you. A friendship began and now periodically I drop off six packs beer at his house so that there is always something available for cholent.

So what is a cholent beer? No, its not beer made from cholent. It is a beer which can go well with a stew made of meat, potatoes, beans, barley and onions which has been simmering at low heat for 18-24 hours. When looking for a cholent beer it is important to not to choose one that is too sweet or too heavy. The sweet flavored beers will clash with your cholent. Meanwhile, the stouts will either drown out your cholent or fill you up. It is for this reason that I try to have pale ales, IPAs (India Pale Ale) or wheat beers with my cholent.

The Saranac Pale Ale is a year round brew which pours a rich yellow gold with a fair amount of foam. As with all Saranac products, the carbonation is perfect for drinking with a meal or just on its own. The beer itself has some bitterness, but not to the level of an IPA and there is a little bit of citrusy tone to make you want to have another sip right after finishing what's in your mouth.

Saranac Pale Ale is under the kashruth supervision of the Va'ad of Detroit, as are all other beer produced by Saranac. For the experts take on Saranac Pale Ale, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/99/914.

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, as a public service announcement, please be advised that I have received updated LOCs from the Va'ad of Detroit for Saranac, Pete's, Brooklyn and Shiner beers. I have added several new beers to the list from the pre-purim post (http://kosherbeers.blogspot.com/2009/03/sunday-night-suds-rising-moon-spring.html ) as the new LOCs added various styles which are now also under the Detroit Va'ad.

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 - Ki Sisa

The following is a brief summary of two thoughts said over by R' Frand in his shiur this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts 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 Shemos 32:1, the Torah writes "Vay'ar Ha'am Ki Boshesh Moshe Laredes Min Hahar" that the Jews saw that Moshe had delayed in descending from Mt. Sinai. Rashi explains that the word boshesh means "delayed" -- that the Jews had calculated that Moshe was going to come down by that date and he had not yet descended. The Jews were concerned that since Moshe was always precise and he had not come down, that something must have happened to him. Rashi also brings two medrashim that the Satan: (1) made the clouds swirl and the world fill with darkness and (2) showed the Jews an image of Moshe's coffin floating in the sky.

After this occurs, the Jews come running to Aharon for guidance. Aharon attempts to stall by telling them to gather up their gold. They do so and Aharon throws in a gold piece which according to one medrash has the image of a cow and as a result the Golden Calf emerges. Another medrash teaches that Aharon threw in a piece of paper with the Heavenly Name on it, leading to the same result.

R' Frand then asked two questions: (1) Why is that the Jews are punished for worshipping the Golden Calf if all of the above reasons could be interpreted as signs from above that Moshe was gone and the Calf was to be followed? (2) Why does Moshe after he has descended and seen the actions Jews, not plead with Hashem for forgiveness based on the Jews "logical" conclusion?

R' Frand answered that the lesson of the calf is that that there is never a good excuse or logical explanation or extenuating circumstance which justifies worshipping other gods. This is the reason why Moshe does not seek to explain the Jews actions, because he is aware that there is only one G-d and that there can never be justification to worship anything else.

The second vort said by Rabbi Frand was a sheva brachos vort. It is customary at Jewish weddings that the groom steps on a glass. It is usually taught that the reason for this custom is to remember that the Bais Hamikdash is no longer. Tonight R' Frand mentioned an alternate explanation, (in the name of either R' Hai or R' Saa'diah Gaon) that the glass is broken as a remembrance of Moshe breaking the luchos.

R' Frand noted that in the end of Devarim, Hashem writes the epitaph for Moshe Rabbeinu and recites his great acts in order of significance. The final pasuk ends l'eynay kol yisrael (before the eyes of all the Jews) which Rashi explains means that Moshe is being praised for breaking the luchos.

Why is this Moshe's most praiseworthy act? Because Moshe had invested so much time and effort in getting the luchos, yet he realized that the situation demanded that he give up his investment and break the luchos. It is often times difficult to abandon something that one has labored to accomplish, yet the situation demands that it be done.

R' Frand cited to last week's haftorah where Shaul tells Shmuel that he has kept Hashem's order to destroy Amelek. Shmuel responds - no! Shaul then says, I have listened to Hashem. Why? Because he finds it difficult to admit that he has not completely followed Hashem's order.

R' Frand then mentioned that as a Rebbi, he is frequently approached by boys who tell him that the girl they are engaged to is a perfect match because they like all the same things. However, within a few weeks of getting married, the boys start noticing that they are not exactly like their spouses and that sometimes each may want to do something that the other does not want to do.

R Frand closed the vort by explaining that the lesson of the breaking of the luchos is that there are times when a person may feel that they are right and that things should be their way. However, the situation may demand compromise, even if this means abandoning something that you have worked very hard to create or master. The lesson of the luchos is that sometimes the correct course of action is to drop this item or position and admit that your spouse is correct.

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 XLV

Tonight's weird (but true) legal case continues the shushan purim fest in discussing a case about beer entitled, Genesee Brewing Co. v. Stroh Brewing Co., 124 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1997).

In this case, Genesee had filed suit against Stroh, seeking an injunction barring Stroh from marketing its "Red River Valley Honey Brown Ale" as it allegedly infringed Genesee's (at the time unregistered) trademark "JW Dundee Honey Brown Lager."

After first stating its holding (which I will keep to myself until the end of this post) the court began with a background on beer which was quite remarkable. The court noted:

In this era of renewed interest in quality beers, sometimes dubbed the “Renaissance of Beer,” MICHAEL JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON'S BEER COMPANION 8 (1993) [hereinafter, JACKSON, BEER COMPANION] many large brewing companies have attempted to cash in on the growing consumer demand for unique, well-made beers, by brewing specialty beers of their own. In order to conceal the identity of the producer-beer connoisseurs are typically wary of mass-produced beers-these companies market specialty beers under small-town names. See Bill McDowell, In Craft Beer, It's “Style” over Brand Substance,ADVERTISING AGE, Mar. 10, 1997, at 20 (noting that “major breweries have been ... criticized for building marketing cachet by hiding their own specialty beer efforts behind subsidiaries with faux-microbrand names”). And so it is with this case, a dispute between two of America's largest brewing companies-the Genesee Brewing Company (“Genesee”) and the Stroh Brewing Company (“Stroh”)-doing business as Highfalls Brewing Company and Northern Plains Brewing Company, respectively.

Despite extensive efforts, many large brewers have had little success in the craft- brewing business. Occasionally, however, a large brewer develops a specialty beer that becomes a popular favorite. A recent example is plaintiff Genesee's “JW Dundee's Honey Brown Lager.” Sales of that brew, which was introduced in January 1994, have climbed to over 2.5 million cases a year, making it one of the four best-selling specialty beers in the country.

Genesee refers to this beer simply as “Honey Brown.” Apparently, prior to Genesee's product, no beer had been marketed with a brand name that included those words. Genesee's labeling and advertising emphasize “Honey Brown,” and Genesee chose that title as the beer's “bar call.” Consumers have followed suit. The record is flooded with menus, fliers, and unsolicited letters that confirm 1) that a large number of beer drinkers refer to Genesee's product using only the words “Honey Brown,” and 2) that many menus list “Honey Brown” among brands of beer, like “Budweiser” and “Coors.”

The court then recited the genesis of the competing Stroh's product, explaining that "[i]n early 1996, defendant Stroh began to market “Red River Valley Honey Brown Ale,” with the conceded purpose of competing with Genesee. Stroh's label and advertising, like Genesee's, place emphasis on the words “Honey Brown.” ... Once Stroh began to produce its “Honey Brown,” other brewers introduced products with these words in their names. There are now numerous beers in the marketplace with brand names that contain the words “Honey Brown,” including “J.J. Wainwright's Evil Eye Honey Brown,” “Bank Draft Honey Brown Ale,” “Tivoli Honey Brown Lager,” and “Algonquin Honey Brown Lager.”

In the trial court, the U.S. District Court for the Western of New York denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that Genesee was not likely to succeed on its trademark claim because the term "Honey Brown" is generic and cannot be trademarked. Although the Second Circuit affirmed, it took issue with the lower court's conclusion as to why the mark was not worthy of protection.

In discussing the lower court opinion, the Second Circuit explained:

The district court accepted Stroh's assertion that “brown beer” is a category of beer, and found that “Honey Brown” differs from this category by the addition of the descriptive word “honey”-which is not an ordinary ingredient of brown beers-and that “[t]he word ‘honey’ is a commonly used descriptive term for which there is no effective equivalent.” Accordingly, the district court concluded that “Honey Brown” is a generic mark not entitled to protection.

However, the Circuit took issue with the lower court's opinion, noting that:

The problem with the district court's analysis is that, as Genesee correctly argues, there is no such category of beer as “brown beer.” Beers have traditionally been divided into two general categories: 1) ales, which are fermented at high temperatures for short periods of time; and 2) lagers, which are fermented at low temperatures for longer periods of time. See JACKSON, BEER COMPANION, at 66 (“In modern usage, ale indicates a brew that has a warm fermentation, traditionally with strains of yeast that rise to the top of the vessel. These ‘top-fermenting’ yeasts distinguish ales from lagers, where the yeasts work at cool temperatures, at the bottom of the vessel.”). Until the development of lagering techniques in the 19th century, all beers were made with ale yeasts. See MICHAEL JACKSON, THE NEW WORLD GUIDE TO BEER 9-10 (1988) [hereinafter, JACKSON, WORLD GUIDE]. Today, most English, Irish, Scottish, and Belgian beers are ales, while most German, Czech, Austrian, and Dutch beers are lagers. See JACKSON, BEER COMPANION, at 66-67, 196-97.

The category of ales is further divided into numerous subcategories (e.g., pale ale, porter, stout), as is the category of lagers (e.g., pilsner, bock, Oktoberfest). See Joint Appendix at 596 (listing the style categories used at the 1996 Great American Beer Festival). Thus, “ale” and “lager” are to zymurgy what “plant” and “animal” are to biology-the primary taxonomic divisions, each of which is further subdivided into numerous more specific but still generic classifications.

One traditional subcategory of ale is brown ale...There is no comparable subcategory of “brown lager.” Nor is there a general category of “brown beer” that somehow encompasses both lagers and ales. See Joint Appendix at 596 (listing the style categories used at the Great American Beer Festival). Such a category would be antithetical to the fundamental notion that, absent a handful of hybrid and miscellaneous styles, all barley-based beer styles represent subcategories of the general categories of lager and ale.

Stroh asserts first that “brown ale” is a category of beer, and then that any beer that is brown and includes honey can be placed in a “honey brown” subcategory of “brown ales.” The problem with this analysis is that many beers that are using the name “Honey Brown”-including Genesee's-are not brown ales at all. They are not even ales; they are lagers. As such, it is simply not the case that Genesee's and Stroh's products both fall into the same subcategory of beer: brown ales brewed with honey. It follows that the district court's conclusion “that there is a category of ‘brown’ beers in the market place, and both plaintiff's and defendant's beers are distinct from that category in that they contain honey,” was clearly erroneous.

The court then affirmed, albeit through different logic, explaining that:

It is conceivable-though we certainly do not suggest, let alone decide-that Genesee's mark-“Honey Brown”-when applied to a lager (like its own beer) might be deemed descriptive, rather than generic. For this to be so, a court would have to find that there were ways to convey the fact that a lager is brown in color and flavored with honey without using the words “Honey Brown” (at least in the order or way that Genesee has used them to identify its lager), and that consumers at large (as opposed to the beer cognoscenti ) did not understand “brown beer” (or “brown lager”) to be a generic category of beer.

But when applied to an ale, the mark is generic. There are numerous styles of beer in the marketplace, the names of which consist of a time-honored beer category modified by a new, creative ingredient or flavor. Examples include maple porter, pumpkin ale, nut brown ale, raspberry wheat, cranberry lambic, and oatmeal stout. In some of these new beer styles, the innovative ingredient is honey. As a result, there are honey wheats, honey porters, and honey cream ales on the market. Under the Canfield reasoning, which we have adopted, none of these names may be trademarked. Someone is always the first to sell these products, and if that brewer were granted a monopoly on the name, subsequent producers would lose the right to “describe [their] goods as what they are.”

That principle controls this case. There is a recognized category of beers in the marketplace known as “brown ales.” And Stroh's product, Red River Valley Honey Brown Ale (but not Genesee's product, JW Dundee's Honey Brown Lager) can be placed within that category, or more precisely, within a new subcategory of that category-brown ales made with honey: “honey brown ales.” Indeed, Stroh developed Red River Valley Honey Brown Ale by altering its “brown ale recipe to include honey and brown sugar which created a smoother and sweeter brown ale.” Because the addition of the word “honey” is necessary to indicate a brown ale that is brewed with honey, Stroh has the right to call its beer a “Honey Brown Ale.”.

If you would like to see the whole decision, it can be found on the (free) Findlaw website by clicking here http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/969566.html .

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 - Rising Moon Spring Ale with Purim Bonus Feature

Tonight's Sunday Night Suds review looks at the Blue Moon spring beer, Rising Moon Spring Ale.

While walking home from shul yesterday, I had an interesting conversation with a friend who was looking for a recommendation for a beer to have with his Purim seudah. The catch was, the guy is not a big fan of beer.

When making recommendations to non-beer drinkers as to which beer to experiment with, its important to know what their tastes are like. For example, someone who does not like the taste of alcohol will simply not like any beer you give him. For people like this, G-d created alcopops like Smirnoff Ice (most flavors under certification - click here http://www.crcweb.org/kosher/consumer/liquorList.html for a complete list).

Other people may like alcohol, but are not into the strong beer flavors found in stouts or even some macro lagers. For those people, it is important to find out whether their drinks of choice are wine or hard alcohol. For those who drink white wines (chardonnays, emerald rieslings, etc.), I would recommend a beer like the Rising Moon Spring Ale.

The Rising Moon Spring Ale is a flavored beer which does not contain fruit juices and does not seem to have a high sugar content (I have not verified that last observation, so diabetics should not view this as a green light). The beer itself draws its flavor from kieffer lime leaves and lime zest. As a result the amber wheat ale has a distinctive citrus flavor, but nowhere near as strong as sprite, diet sprite, 7-up or even Zima.

Rising Moon Spring Ale (like all other beers produced by Blue Moon/Coors) is certified kosher by the Orthodox Union. For the experts take on Pale Moon, please click here http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/306/40528 .

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

Finally, 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).

----------------------------
BONUS FEATURE - PURIM BEER GUIDE

As a community service, Kosher Beers is proud to provide a Purim Beer Guide for those who choose brews for their seudah.

Please note that there is no mitzvah to get stone drunk on Purim. The mitzvah is "ad d'lo yadah" which can even be accomplished through sleep (since while one is sleeping they do not know the difference between Haman and Mordechai).

Still, for those who do utilize alcohol as part of their seudah, the following is a brief guide to beers:

Does beer require a hashgacha? The major kashruth organizations utilize the chazakah that unflavored beer does not require a hashgacha as unflavored beers are made only from four ingredients: malted barley, hops, water and yeast. For a great article by Rabbi Tzvi Rosen on kashruth in alcohol, including an in depth analysis of beer making please click here http://www.star-k.com/kashrus/kk-thirst-highspirits.htm .

Trying to make sense of the different styles of beer? Click here for the Beer Advocate beer style list which breaks down the beers both by their type and country of origin: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/style .

Assuming that you are looking for a beer with a hashgacha, I have compiled a list of beers along with their certifying agency. Please note that the list below is not meant to be exhaustive as it only reflects the results of my individual research. Finally, to my friends, I have not tried every beer on this kosher beer list and merely because I list them here does not mean I recommend them for your Purim seudah. If you find a beer which looks interesting to you, please feel free to search the archive on my main page to see if I have reviewed it.

Samuel Adams - as per Star-K, the following varieties are kosher even without a certification on the label. Please note that not every variety of Sam is on this approved list. To see the Star-K LOC for Samuel Adams, please click here - http://www.star-k.org/loc/kosher_letter_6635_bostonbeercompany.pdf .

Black Lager; Boston Ale; Boston Lager; Brown Ale; Cherry Wheat; Cranberry Lambic; Cream Stout; Double Bock; Hefeweizen; Holiday Porter; Honey Porter; Irish Red Ale; Light, Octoberfest; Old Fezziwig; Pale Ale; Summer Ale; White Ale; Winter Lager.

Brick Brewery: This Canadian Brewery only sells its fine product in Ontario. However, should you be lucky enough to find some where you are located, the following varieties are approved by the COR on their website - http://www.cor.ca/en/20177 :

Brick - Amber Dry; Anniversary Bock; Premium.
Laker - Honey; Ice; Premium Lager; Premium Light; Red; Strong.
Waterloo - Dark Lager.

Brooklyn Brewery: This beer company brews in multiple locations including Brooklyn, New York and Utica, New York. The following beers which are brewed in Utica and sold in 12 oz bottles were listed on an LOC which I received from the Va'ad of Detroit. The LOC indicated that it was subject to renewal on March 10, 2010.

Brooklyn - American Ale; Black Chocolate Stout; Brown Ale; East India Pale Ale; Lager; Monster Ale; Oktoberfest; Pennant Ale; Pilsner; Summer Ale; Weiss Beer; Winter Ale.
Post Road - Pumpkin Ale.

Coopers Brewery (Australia): The following beers are listed on the LOC from Kosher Australia which can be found by clicking here http://www.coopers.com.au/media/files/2506.pdf :

Coopers - Best Extra Stout; Dark Ale; Extra Strong Vintage Ale; Mild Ale; Original Pale Ale; Premium Ale; Premium Light Beer; Sparkling Ale; Special Old Stout.

Coors (including Blue Moon): To my knowledge, all beers produced by the Coors Brewing Company (including its Blue Moon subsidiary) are under the Orthodox Union. The beers generally have an OU on the label. The following are the varieties which I have seen with an OU.

Coors Golden Ale (aka banquet beer); Coors Light; Blue Moon; Full Moon Winter Ale; Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale; Honey Moon Summer Ale; Pale Moon Pale Ale; Rising Moon Spring Ale;

Lakefront Brewery - also certified by the Star-K. Very difficult to find outside of the Midwest, although some are available in Brooklyn at American Beverage on Court Street in Cobble Hill. The following varieties are found on the Star- K LOC which can be viewed here - http://www.star-k.org/loc/kosher_letter_8197_lakefrontbreweryinc.pdf .

Big Easy Lager; Bock dark Lager; Cattail Ale; Cherry Lager; Cream City Pale Ale; East Side Dark Lager; Fuel Coffee Stout; Holiday Spice Lager; Klisch Pilsner; New Grist Beer; Oktoberfest; Organic Barleywine; Organic ESB; Pumpkin Lager; Riverwest Stein; Snake Chaser Stout; White Beer.

FX Matt Brewing - this company brews many different brands of beer at its Utica factory. The following beers were listed on an LOC which I received from the Va'ad of Detroit by fax. The LOC indicated that it was subject to renewal on March 10, 2010.

Lake Placid: Ubu Ale; IPA; 46'er Ale.
Saranac: Adirondack Lager; Amber Wheat; Belgian Ale; Belgian White; Black Diamond Bock; Black Forest; Black & Tan; Bock; Brown Ale; Caramel Porter; Chocolate Amber; Dunkel; ESB; Golden Pilsner; Hefewiezen; Helles; High Peaks Imperial IPA; Imperial Stout; India Pale; Irish Red Ale; Kolsch; Light; Marzenbier; Mocha Stout; Mountain Ale; Oatmeal Stout; Oktoberfest; Pale Ale; Pomegranate Wheat; Pumpkin Ale; Rauchbier; Roggen Bock; Season's Best; Scotch Ale; Single Malt; Stout; Summer Ale; Summer Brew; Traditional Lager; Winter Wassail; Nut Brown Ale.
Utica Club : Light, Pilsner.

Pete's Brewing Company:The following beers were listed on an LOC which I received from the Va'ad of Detroit. The LOC indicated that it was subject to renewal on March 10, 2010.

Pete's Wicked Ale; Rally Cap Ale; Strawberry Blonde; Wanderlust.

Redhook Brewery: This brewery produces beer on both the East Coast (New Hampshire) and West Coast (Woodinville, Washington). Both breweries produce beers which are under the kashruth supervision of the OU (all Redhook bottles which I have seen have the OU on the label) including:

Blonde, Copperhook Spring Ale, ESB, Longhammer IPA, Winterhook Winter Ale.

Spoetzel Brewery: This small town Texas brewery has a cult like following among those who have tried its product. The following beers were listed on an LOC which I received from the Va'ad of Detroit by fax. The LOC indicated that it was subject to renewal on December 31, 2009.

Shiner : Blonde; Bock; Bohemian Black Lager; Hefeweizen; Holiday Cheer; Kolsch; Kosmos Reserve; Light; 99 Helles; 100 Commemorator; Spezial Leicht.

I cannot stress enough, if you have been drinking on Purim (or any other day) please do not get behind the wheel of a car. Its a day of simcha and should never be marred by the tragedy of DWI.

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 Megillah Tidbits

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. [Note - this week, Rabbi Frand said both parsha and megilla vorts. I have chosen to reproduce the Megillah vort in this post].

The last pasuk of Megillas Esther (10:3) begins with the word "Ki" which is generally translated as "because." The pasuk states that "Because Mordechai the Jew was an assistant to King Ahasverus, he was a great man to the Jews and was accepted by most of his brothers, he sought good things for his people and was concerned for all of their offspring."

R' Frand quoted the sefer Manos Levi (written by R' Shlomo Alkabetz and distributed by him with his shalach manos) who asked why was this the final pasuk of the megillah? Additionally, why does the pasuk begin with the word "ki" which is the answer to a question - what was the question that it is answering?

R' Frand then said that he had seen (but could not remember where) a pshat that the Jews logically should not have accepted Mordechai and followed his counsel to fast and daven for Esther. After all, Mordechai was the reason that the Jews found themselves as targets of the king's decree, since Mordechai's refual to bow down to Haman was the impetus for the decree. So why did the Jews follow Mordechai at all?

R' Frand answered this last question by borrowing from chumash. He quoted a vort in the name of the Ponovitzher Rav in relation to Yaakov and his interaction with the shepherds at the well, prior to his meeting Rachel (Bereishis 29:1-8). The Torah details that Yaakov essentially said to the shepherds - why are you bringing the sheep in now, its not the end of the day. Rabbi Frand then stopped and said to the audience - you try going to a construction site or road project and ask the workers why they are all standing around the hole. Still, the shepherds did not react negatively to Yaakov. Why? Because he used the language "Achai" - "my brothers." Yaakov was able to demonstrate to the shepherds through the conversation that he genuinely cared about them and their well being.

Similarly, Mordechai was able to interact with the Jews of Paras and Madai and convince them to follow him in fast and prayer because he demonstrated that he genuinely cared about them. It is for this reason that the Megillah uses the language "because" to start the last pasuk and it is for the same reason that the pasuk contains vivid descriptions of how Mordechai was accepted by his brothers ("Echav") because he was genuinely concerned about them. How was the Purim miracle accomplished? Because Mordechai caused the Jews to come together and fast and daven to Hashem. As a result, Hashem put into play the miracle which saved the Jews of Paras and Madai.

It is my hope that our fast and prayers next week can accomplish the same form of achdus and caring for one and other so that we can hasten the ultimate redemption.

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!