Thursday's Purim Tidbits

Due to the late running fast, Rabbi Frand did not give a live shiur this evening. However, the TCN network did provide a previously recorded R' Frand shiur on various aspects of the Megillah. Rather than go without divrei torah tonight, I have reproduced some of the vorts said over by R' Frand and have tied them together with a vort I heard from R' Mansour on learntorah.com. Usual rules apply - I have attempted to reproduce the vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistencies are the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiurim and should not be attributed to the maggidei shiur.

The gemara in Chullin 139 asks - where do we see Haman in the Torah? The gemara answers by quoting a pasuk in Bereishis (3:11) where Hashem asks Adam "Hamin Ha'etz" - did you eat from the tree (the Eitz HaDa'as).

There is an obvious connection between Haman and Adam (as pointed out by my daughter Yael) as Haman met his end on the tree and Adam became mortal because of the tree. But R' Mansour had a deeper connection between the two stories.

R' Mansour explained that when looking at Adam we see that his downfall came because he was not satisfied with what he had. When Adam and Chava were living in the Gan it was just the two of them. There were animals and fields and trees and it was all theirs to do with as they saw fit. But there was one small rule - they could not eat from one specific tree. But notwithstanding their status as masters of the whole garden and the attempt to self legislate laws to keep themselves away from even touching the tree, they could not help themselves and they were evicted from the Gan because they had to eat from the tree.

We see a similar theme with Haman. The gemara in Megilla teaches that Haman was fabulously wealthy. Haman also had many children and was second only to the King in status. The King even made a law that required everyone to bow down to Haman. But all of this was not good enough for Haman. He was bothered by the fact that Mordechai, the Jew in the corner, would not bow down to him. Haman even verbalizes how this is not good enough for him as he says in Esther 5:13 "V'Chul Zeh Einenu Shoveh Li" - all this is not good enough for me. Similar to Adam, Haman's downfall came from his desire to control and possess all.

R' Frand also cited to this pasuk in Megillas Esther and contrasted Adam with Avraham Avinu. Although Haman had to own everything, Avraham was happy with what he had and expressed this to Hashem when Hashem told him that he and Sarah were going to have a child.

In Parshas Lech Lecha, Hashem tells Avraham that he will no longer be called Avram and that Sarah will not be called Sarai any longer. Next, He tells Avraham that although he is 99 and Sarah is 89, they will have a son. Although Avraham is finally going to have a child with Sarah after so many years together, Avraham does not react the way that one would expect. Instead, Avraham says to Hashem - "Lu Yishmael Yichyeh Lefanecha." Rashi explains that Avraham says to Hashem, I am not worthy of having another son, even having Yishmael would be enough.

This is the kind of person that Avraham was - the polar opposite of Haman. Avraham was thrilled just to have Yishmael and did not feel worthy (let alone harbor dreams) of another child.

We see a similar message at the end of the Megilla. The very last pasuk begins with the word "Ki" which is commonly translated as "because." But because is an answer, so what is the question?

R' Frand answered by quoting R' Shlomo Alkabetz' sefer Manos Levi which explains that the Ki is an answer to why the Jews did not harbor ill feelings for Mordechai. After all, if Mordechai had bowed down to Haman, they would not have been the subject of the evil decree. But the Jews did not have any hatred for Mordechai. Why? Because he was "Ratsui" to most of his brethren and was "Doresh Tov" to his nation. The Jews saw that Mordechai genuinely cared about all of them and that he did not act for himself, he acted for the good of the Jewish nation.

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!

Purim 2014/5774 Kosher Beers List

As a community service, Kosher Beers publishes a list twice a year of the beers which are known to be certified kosher. The list will be updated periodically until the next edition (Labor Day 2014). For the Purim 2014 edition, I will again be using scribd to upload and maintain the list. Furthermore, all newly added beers are in bold.

Kosher Beers List Purim 2014

Sunday Night Suds - Boulevard Amber Ale

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Boulevard Amber Ale.

The American Amber Ale variety is more of a catch all term than a clearly defined category. As explained by the experts at BA, American Amber beers are:

[A]ny beer less than a Dark Ale in color, ranging from amber (duh) to deep red hues. This style of beer tends to focus on the malts, but hop character can range from low to high. Expect a balanced beer, with toasted malt characters and a light fruitiness in most examples. The range can run from a basic ale, to American brewers who brew faux-Oktoberfest style beers that are actually ales instead of lagers.

The beer pours a rich amber (shocking, I know) with mild carbonation, notwithstanding the fact that this beer claims to be bottle conditioned. There was also a small amount of foam at the top of the glass, with very little lacing.

The Boulevard Amber Ale is heavier in malt and decidedly light on hops. The malt gives the beer a slight sweet tang, almost like a light Bock. There is not much development of flavor, but if you are looking to go with something light to pair with fish or complex dairy dishes, you could do significantly worse than this.

Boulevard Amber Ale is under the Kosher Supervision of the Va'ad of Kansas City, but the bottle I purchased did not have the certification mark on the label. If you would like the LOC from the Va'ad, please let me know and I will email it to you.

To see what the experts on Beer Advocate think about this brew, please follow this link -http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/423/58605.

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 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 Vayikra

The following is a brief summary of some of the thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. 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 shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand. 

In Vayikra  5:21, the Torah states that if a person will sin "U'maala ma'al b'Hashem" (translated by Art Scroll as "commit a treachery against Hashem") by doing various acts including denying that a person entrusted him to watch a possession for him.

R' Frand asked - why is this a slight to Hashem? As mitzvos can be divided into categories of those between man and G-d, or man and his fellow man, it would seem clear that this is a mitzva that is between man and his fellow man. So why is this a "treachery against Hashem?"

R' Frand answered the question by quoting a Rashi (who in turn quotes Toras Kohanim) which explains that in general when a person loans money to another person, he writes a loan document. Similarly, when business is transacted or money is invested there is usually a document or at the very least, witnesses. 

However, when a person asks his neighbor to do him a favor and watch something for him, there is no document or witness. Indeed, it would be impractical and possibly offensive to say to the neighbor - while you are doing me the favor of watching my valuables, could you please sign a document which verifies that I gave them to you to watch?

But there is a third entity involved when a person entrusts an item to a friend for safekeeping. Hashem is watching and knows that the item has been left with the guardian. When the custodian later denies that the item was given to him, the guardian is not only rejecting his friend, he is also denying that Hashem saw the act as well.

R' Frand next quoted a mishna in Pirkei Avos wherein R' Gamliel says that the world stands on three things - judgment, truth and peace. R' Frand learned the mishna to mean that peace in the world depends on a joinder of truth and judgment.

R' Frand then quoted Rav (unclear who specifically he was referring to) who explains that the world can only exist if there is trust between men. There is simply no possibility that each action can be witnessed by neutrals. As such, when a person leaves an item with another person to watch, he puts his trust in that person. But if that person lies and disputes that the item was given to him, the amount of trust in the world is diminished.

R' Frand also injected a personal story. He said that a few years ago he was driving in Baltimore when he attempted to change lanes and hit another car which had been in his blind spot. There was some damage to the other car and R' Frand told the driver that he would take care of it. The man took his car to the dealer who quoted a price of $5,000 to fix the damage. R' Frand suggested a reputable body shop and their quote was $3,000. The man had the car repaired there and R' Frand paid the invoice. A few weeks later, R' Frand received a letter in the mail from the man who thanked him for "restoring his faith in man."

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!

Tuesday's Thoughts on the Daf - Sukkah 29

Today's daf contains the Gemara's explanation of a parable contained in a Mishna found on Sukkah 28b. The Mishna first discusses how much rain must fall before a person can leave a sukkah to finish a meal indoors. Immediately thereafter, the Mishna relates a parable that compares the rain falling on the residents of a sukkah to a slave who comes to mix wine for his master and the pitcher of water is poured out on his face.

The Gemara on 29a notes that the Mishna does not actually define who is pouring the water. Rashi explains that it could be that the servant is clumsy and winds up tripping and pouring the water on his master. However, the Gemara determines that it is the master who pours the water on the servant's face. In so doing he is saying "I do not want your service."

One of my favorite vorts on Sukkos is the Vilna Gaon's explanation on what it means if the rain falls while one is in the sukkah on the first night of Sukkos. He explains that Sukkos falls after the judgment period of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. These are times of serious judgment. After we have been judged for the good, the holiday of Sukkos comes and we rejoice that Hashem has cleansed us and taken us back.

The concept of the mixing of the wine runs parallel to the judgment/acceptance theme. The wine in the times of the Gemara was far too strong to drink undiluted. As such, they would add water to the wine in order to "sweeten" it. Once diluted with water, the wine was drinkable. However, if the water was not added, the wine was undrinkable.

The Gaon explains that if Hashem pours the water out on those sitting in the sukkah, He is in effect stating - I did not accept your teshuva and you will be subject to din, as personified by the strong wine.

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!

Sunday Night Suds - Blue Moon Gingerbread Spice Ale

This week's Sunday Night Suds looks at Blue Moon's Gingerbread Spice Ale.

As has been their trademark as of late, Blue Moon continues to introduce a special limited release seasonal beer in the Brewmasters Sampler box. Where in years past it has been the Caramel Spice Apple Ale, this year Miller/Coors has introduced a Gingerbread Spiced Ale in its place.

After buying the Brewmasters Sampler Box a week ago, I put this bottle in the fridge to chill until Friday night. The Gingerbread Spiced Ale poured a light brown in my glass with a small amount of foam at the top of the pour. As I brought it to my face, I immediately smelled the spice, but did not detect any gingerbread. As I drank the beer with Mrs KB and some friends at our Shabbos table, I noted the sweetness which was added to the brew. Although the beer was certainly sweet, it was not cloying. I could see drinking this during a meal with rich sweet foods (such as Purim or even a Sukkos meal). Having said that, I did not really pick up the ginger in the "gingerbread". However, even if the use of the "gingerbread" in the name was a marketing technique, the beer is a nice change of pace for a dessert beer.

Blue Moon Gingerbread Spiced Ale Ale is certified kosher by the Orthodox Union. For the experts take on the Blue Moon Gingerbread Spiced Ale, please click here beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/306/103720.

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 www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com/ to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!