In the Laws, Plato shows that the type of government is the cause of people's character, not the result. so while DNA and environment have been considered, the counter intuitive fact is the government affects the very character of the people growing up in it. -for better or worse.
I mean to say the USA Constitution was product of James Madison with the impute of other great thinkers. But after it is in place, it affects the nature of Americans.
The problem with the news is: People do not believe in something unless they have read it in the newspapers or seen it on TV. [President Nixon said something like that.] Thus result is that newspapers having that much power began to say what they wanted people to believe. They could create their own news and people would believe it.
But the issue is really deeper. People will believe only in the absurd. It is not as if they will believe in what is reasonable, and as a second best believe in the absurd also. Not at all. Rather to be absurd is the prerequisite of belief. So you see why the Rambam has the first of the Ten Commandments as being to know the existence of the First Cause, not to believe. Belief is the opposite of knowledge.
Socrates actually dealt with this issue in one of the shorter dialogs--I forget which. But not everything that is absurd is really absurd. Sometimes it is simply beyond reason.
Marriage nowadays seems to have devolved. There was a time it was it was a strong institution in people's souls. Nowadays it is all about business. A way for the woman to make money, for a long as it is convenient. So what I think is the approach of the concubine פילגש makes the most sense. Since we find that Caleb ben Yefuna had a few, as we see on Chronicles chapter 2 verses from around 46.
And he was the only person in Torah of whom it is stated וימלא אחרי השם He went totally after God. So this is not a sin.
At any rate, this is the Raavad, Ramban, and other Rishonim besides the Rambam.
[Women nowadays -tend to think of themselves as goddesses.-which they are not.]
Group identification is a kind of idolatry- when a persons allegiance is towards groups values instead of towards objective morality And even though objective morality is hard to know, that still is no excuse to abdicate. So while loyalty towards ones family and friends and nation are important that is far different from group identification.
I wish I would have something to say about Rav Kinyevsky. The books of his father --the set of Kehilat Yaakov were around when I was in Shar Yashuv, but I did not get a chance to learn them while I was there,-though I am sure that all the books of the great Litvak sages are important. Mainly that would be the Kehilat Yaakov, the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk, and the books of his disciples. The thing was that while I was in yeshiva, I was struggling just to get through Shas with Rashi and Tosphot and as much Maharsha as I could manage. The later achronim were just too much for meat that point. And later I did not have the merit to be able to sit and learn as I should have. חבל על דאבדין
--So if I could I would try to make up for my lack of education by getting through the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk, the Kehilat Yaakov of the father of Rav Kinyevsky. Part of the problem for me is that I tend to need a sort of Litvak Yeshiva to be able to spend the time on learning. There is a sort of energy I would get when I was in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. Without that kind of environment, it is hard to learn. Maybe that is no excuse, but that is just the way things are for me. And maybe there is a lesson to be learned here about how important it is to have a Litvak Study Hall [Beit Midrash] where one can learn. I have not had anything like that for many years.
I have been thinking about the argument between Ula and R. Yochanan. To Ula, if one has a fruit bearing tree within 16 amot [cira 16 yards] of the border of his field with his neighbor he can not bring first fruits because he is a thief. To R.Yochanan he can. At first Rav Shach said the argument is who owns the fruit. To Ula the source of the sustenance is what matters, while the tree itself is just to process the sustenance, So the fruit belong to who owns the ground. [And so in our case the roots of the tree get sustenance partly from the nearby ground partly from that of his neighbor.] To R. Yochanan the owner of the tree owns the fruit. Later Rav Shach brought a different explanation of Ula.The reason is that he shows the roots of the tree up until 16 amot are owned by the owner of the tree. This he sees as a contradiction to what he wrote before. This point has eluded me for weeks already.
If the roots are owned by the owner of the tree., what has that to do with the fruit?
I am being a bit short here, for this is really based on Rabainu Chananel
In many verses in the Old Testament it says that God helps those that trust in Him. הבוטחים בהשם כהר ציון לא ימוט לעולם.(Those that trust in God are like Mount Zion which will never be moved ) והבוטח בהשם חסד יסובבנו(He who trusts in God, kindness will surround him.).ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח בהשם (Blessed is he who trusts in God) and that last verse in Jeramiah goes into the benefits that are gained by one who trust in God. There does not seem to be any argument about if one is required also to do השתדלות (effort) also or not. For both to Ibn Pakuda [Obligations of the Hearts] and the Gra, effort is not necessary. [There is however a difference. To Ibn Pakuda, effort is not needed for one who accepts on himself the yoke of the service of God. To the Gra effort is not needed at all. One is decreed to come to you, will come whether you like it or not.]
I was at the sea and pondering the Kesef Mishna and the Gra about that argument in Gitin 47. And it occurred to me that that is the whole issue nowadays about shemitaשמיטה the seventh year. In short the question is: Is property that is owned by an idolater in Israel is obligated in truma and tithes or not? The Kesef Mishna [Rav Josef Karo] has two approaches. One is that as long as that land has not been bought back, obligations like truma and tithe (and thus also shemita) are not applicable. The Gra and the Maharit consider this answer to be a mistake. To them either יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר או אין לו כוח
Either if the idolater owns the land, the obligations on the land apply or they don't. You can not have it two ways.
This is the source of the argument between the Gra and Beit Yoseph about the meaning of יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר או אין לו כוח Either if the idolater owns the land, the obligations on the land apply or they don't.
According to one of the great Litvak sages, Naftali Troup,(חידושי הגרנ''ט) the commandment of honor your father and mother is positive command that has attached to it the punishment of death when not obeyed as in the case of the rebellious son. He brings this directly from the Rambam. You can see why in the religious world this commandment is ignored because religious leaders want the authority to dictate what the Torah commands us.
[Honor of one's parents--to listen and obey them-has a death penalty attached to it as we see in the case of the rebellious son בן סורר ומורה in Deuteronomy. The laws about it are brought in Sanhedrin in the chapter "The rebellious son". Sadly enough I never got to learn this subject in depth with my learning partner. We got close to it by learning to the end of the previous chapter, but then we switched to some other subject--I forget which.]
The religious world however has all values the opposite from Torah. They want to be in charge of you. They want that you should listen to their leaders, not your parents. They are also against family values. They want your wife to listen to them, not to her husband. The religious world is sadly enough, one terrible fraud.
[Later note] It s not that every time your father tells you something, that there is the death penalty for disobeying. Rather the condition of the rebellious son are much harder to get to. Still in essence the idea is the same, though one can not be held liable legally.
But what people do not take into consideration is that even the most simple act of not listening to one's father --or mother--even one time is a component of the death penalty. It is like --for example if one picks up an object in a private domain and puts his hand into a public domain and someone else picks the object out of his hand. He has done half of what it takes to be liable. I realize this is a hard lesson to swallow, but it is true. Next time your mother or father tell you something, and you do not listen, you ought to think twice.
Danny Frederick was one of the most insightful thinkers of the last generation in political and philosophical thought. Libertarian. While Michael Huemer is great at coming up with great ideas or synthesizing great ideas from the past, Frederick was great as seeing the flaws in arguments.
Someone ought to collect his writings and publish them. It is just too rare in philosophy to have people with genius combined with common sense.
r65 midi file This was written in Uman in May of 2016.I was at the time learning with my learning partner, David Bronson, somewhere in Shas. [All that learning eventually became a second little book]
You might ask why did he not write anything? The reason is he never thought he had any great insights. His questions and insights on Tosphot or Gemara were to him completely obvious. But I was familiar with the learning done in the great Litvak yeshivot and realized tat his insights were anything but common. I figured if I did not write them down along with my own input, they would be lost forever.
[I should mention that my actual learning time was small. He did all the work on the subject before I got to the tziun of Rav Nahman where we were learning. And the actual learning session was just one hour.]
e64 Music File [in midi format]This I think was written around 2011 for that was the end of writing the e series.
That was the time I was learning Bava Metzia with my learning partner David Bronson. I still regret leaving that period for we were nearing the end of perek HaMkabel and I was writing down the ideas we were developing together and writing them down in the little booklet Ideas in Bava Metzia עיוני בבא מציעא
After a year we started again [on general ideas in Shas], but that Bava Mezia thing was never finished. I still wonder what amazing idea I would have heard from him if we had continued on in Bava Metzia.
I hate to be critical of Rav Nahman of Breslov who was great tzadik, but I think that to merit to Torah one needs to be in a Litvak Yeshiva based on the Gra. And you can see this in the writings of Rav Nahman himself who said that before Abraham anyone could come close to God. But after Avraham, one needed to come to God through the path of Avraham. Same with Isaac and Jacob. And then Moses. So after the tzadik has come into the world, the path towards God is through that tzadik. So the path of Torah is through the Gra. But one may obtain great and important advice from Rav Nahman, but to get to Torah is through the Gra.
The reason this is important is that there is something about the Litvish environment that is wholesome and clean. So even if not for oneself, it is good for one's children.
In the Scroll of Ester you can see the decree of the king could not be changed. He told Ester that she could send another letter, but not change the original decree. So she wrote that Israel could defend themselves. But the enemies still had the original decree, plus almost a full year of warning. So did they defend themselves? From the Scroll itself all you see is that the enemies of Israel were wiped out. Did no one defend themselves? Apparently the ones that were the most afraid decided to convert. But that is about it.
I wanted to mention that this אחשוורוש is Xerxes [that is how Xerxes is said in Persian] of the 300 Spartans. So if you look in Herodotus you will see an event with an advisor of Xerxes. The name looks suspiciously like Mordechai. [ The king was having second thoughts about invading Greece. He was warned from heaven that he must go ahead. Then he put Mordechai on his throne at night to see if he would have the same dream. He did.]
One is required to hear every word of the Scroll of Ester. The interesting fact about this is that in the Mir in NY the person that read the scroll was from the old Mir in Europe. But he read in such away that you could barely hear him. Even if someone coughed or scratched their shoe, you lost the whole thing. So instead of going through that, I went to Rav Avigdor Miller's place next door. In the meantime people complained to Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, that few people could fulfill their obligation. But year after year, Rav Shmuel refused to replace that fellow. Why? So as not to hurt his feelings. [Or in Litvish jargon שלא לפגוע בכבודו של בן אדם
Of course this was an important maxim at the Mir, but this is just one example.
Yu might ask, in a completely justified way, "How was that permitted?"I would imagine that it comes from גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה."Great is the honor of creatures for it pushes away even a prohibition of the Torah." Plus: אונאת דברים היא לאו דאורייתא "Hurting with words is a prohibition of the Torah."
שלא להתעקש על שום דבר שבעולם Not to be stubborn about anything in the world. This I noticed last night in the book "The Life of Rav Nahman". He brings there that this is like when a teacher telling the child "Remember! Remember!" Eventually the child begins to think the proper translation is "Remember."
Still one must have a hierarchy of values. What is the thing to emphasize and which ones are the things not to to be stubborn about.
For the Gra, the thing to emphasize is learning Torah and this makes a of of sense to me.
i37 Music file [i37 in midi format] written Jan 2013. i37 in nwc
My Musical approach was developed to a large degree by my dad who gave me records of Mozart, and also the high school music teacher, Mr. Smart who had this sort of infectious love for classical music that I think got into me.
I realize that the USA rose to power because they placed the major emphasis on competence. The ability to do stuff. So people like my dad who were good at inventing stuff were rewarded. Gender studies did not count for anything. So to me it seems clear that for the USA to retain its position, it must reemphasize STEM studies.
But many people have trouble with STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering Mathematics] So what I think to solve this problem is '"to say the words and go on." To learn the subjects even if you think you do not understand. מה גורם לצדיקים שיתבזה שולחנם לעתיד לבוא? מיעוט אמונה שהייתה להם בעצמם "What causes to the righteous that their table is ruined in the future? The lack of faith they have in themselves."You have to have faith in yourself--that even though you think you do not understand, to believe that you really do, and that the learning is absorbed.
I realize that if learning and understanding Torah is not a goal to someone, then the idea of Rav Nahman of saying the words and going on will not amount to much--or to anything. One has to have had the will and desire to learn Torah, first in order for this to matter.
And that goal I can not relate well to people. The best I have been able to come up with is the Kant Friesian approach of Dr. Kelley Ross, about the importance of knowledge that we know, but not by the senses nor by reason. But even though this kind of knowledge is close to faith, it is not the same.
It was more or less invented to bypass problems that Kant never solved about how we know the categories. [Kant has a list. That is his own list but more or less it is like quantity, quality space time causality which are closely related to Aristotle's ten categories ] [Kant's argument is surprisingly unconvincing..] ]
And this school of thought has had an odd sort of history. starting with Fries. That ended soon. Then Fischer sunk the last nail into it. Then Leonard Nelson revived it, while against Relativity. That was corrected by Gretta Hermann who was great in many ways, but was not going with Nelson on major points. And I have a tremendous respect for this school of thought, but I just can not agree with the total dismissal of Hegel that is a fundamental axiom. To me it seems that Hegel is simply dealing with different issues.
i32 [i32 in midi format]this is from around Jan. 2013 i35 [This is also from the same time period].] [i35 in midi]
r87 midi music file Again I mention that I am sharing this because I am not writing anything new, so I decided to look into old files to see if there is anything worth sharing.
[I was just writing the music for me. Only now that I seem to have run out of steam, I decided to go and share. But that also means I have to edit! And that means every single piece needs to be worked on before it can be presented.]
e69 midi file [e69 mp3] [e69 nwc format]written in Uman right before I came to Israel for a year in Netivot I kind of regret that in my learning session with David Bronson we stopped in towards the end of Bava Metzia page 116. I was really hoping to get to page 119 with him because of the astounding fact that he could see into the depths of the sugia almost without trying. page 119 is important because there is the argument about דורשין טעמה דקרא We go by the reason for the law, not the literal meaning of the words. And even though I was able to learn what Rav Shach had to say about that subject in the Avi Ezri, I still believe that if I merited to learn that subject with Bronson, I would have seen the almost infinite depth in Tosphot. [And also the next page with those important Tosphot.] חבל על דאבדין It is upsetting to lose ideas and understanding of the depths of those sugiot/subjects that I could have learned and shared with others.
There is a kind of proof that mysticism, as interesting as it might be, leads to the destruction of one's soul. This ironically enough is from the Ari [Rav Isaac Luria himself] There are three books that explain verses of the Torah from the Ari written by Rav Chaim Vital. At the end of the Torah on the verse יערוף כמטר לקחי [my doctrine will pour/murder like rain] refers to those that learn mysticism before having fulfilled all the conditions of fasting and separation from this world, and also having finished the two Talmuds in depth.
[Is there a solution to this problem? I am not sure. The Shelah [Shnei Luchot Habrit] brings the idea one should not stroll in Pardes unless he has spent most of the day in Gemara.
Wyatt Earp decided to get some "culture" , so he and his friend bought a set of Shakespeare. After some time someone asked him what he thought of Shakespeare. Answer: "That feller Hamet was sure talkative. He would not have lasted long in Kansas."
And that of course was the whole issue with Earp. When someone decided to interview him for a book of his life story Earp had only three words he would answer to any question. "Yep", "Nope", and "Don't recall."
I learned this lesson in a different way in the LeM of Rav Nahman, vol I:6 that hold that by silence one merits to his bat zivug. [soul-mate] [Not in so many words but, in a later Torah lesson he says that Torah lesson vol I:6 holds the intensions of Elul and the intensions of Elul are good for finding one's bat zivug.]
I do not see how people can distinguish between civilians and military in the Ukraine. My own landlord in the Ukraine said to me openly that if the Russians would ever come there he would sniper them from his windows.
And for many years people that were in the majority in the cities saying privately [to me] that things were better under the Russians.
In the open marketplace I could not find a single person that said things were better under after the fall of the USSR. Everyone that I asked said things were better then, not now.
SO who speaks for the Ukraine? The average women selling their fruit and eggs at the market who always say things were better under Russian rule, or the violent fanatics that threaten to murder anyone who voices support for Russia?
And I can even say why this was the case--the Ukraine was a kind of place of no law. Theft is the accepted norm. I can see that Western people that volunteer will be surprized when they find their money and possessions stolen --when they thought they were coming to help the Ukrainians.
In the book of Job we find God sided with Job, even though he was wrong. Not with Elihu the son the Esau even though he was right. Elihu had said exactly as the Gemara itself says אין ייסורים בלי עוון There are no afflictions without sin. So we see it is not what one believes or says that is the key difference. Rather it is what one is, his essence--his deeds.
[I am referring to the end of the Book of Job where God sides with Job in spite of everything his friends had said was true.
Acta non verba-actions not words is what matters.
שיחו בכל נפלאותיו (speak of all of His Wonders) psalms105 It is hard to imagine that to speak of the wonders of God would not include his wonders in the way He created the Universe. The Laws of Physics. And Rav Nahman clearly had a idea about this saying the there is hidden Torah in the ground. טבעו בארץ שעריה [the gates of Torah sank into the ground. Now the hidden Torah is sunk into the Laws of Physics.]
[I am referring to one of the last Torah lessons in volume one of the LeM]
z63 midi file e21 in midi
s7 [in midi]
I want to thank those looking at my blog for your interest in the music has given me motivation to continue to edit older pieces. But z63 is more recent. e21 is from around 2005 but needed editing
These were written in Uman. I did not find any place where I could sit and learn Torah as I had desired, so I just found some corner in Uman where I could spend some time learning Torah with a learning partner [David Bronson who spent all of his time at the ziun of Rav Nahman], and then spend my time alone writing music. [That learning session with Bronson was only an hour a day, but I gained a tremendous amount by learning from him.]]
Even though I saw the greatness of Torah, it was clear that people that assumed the role for pay of religious teachers were what Rav Nachman said were Torah Scholars that are demons. LeM I:12, 28 [note 1] it was clear to me that there is a difference between those that learn Torah for its own sake and those that get a paid salary for being religious teachers. But I am in no way against kollel leit [people] that are learning Torah for its own sake--but to do so much accept a kollel check.
Rather the issue is the phony semicha ordination that is meant to defraud people. For real semicha ceased sometime during the period of the amoraim [sages of the Talmud]. Anything called ordination now automatically shows its bearer to be a fraud. [One should run from anyone bearing the title of a religious teacher, as one runs from cancer.]
So the issue you might say is that I do not agree with using Torah as a means of making money, but more accurately you should say I saw something off in those that do so. [I simply had no mental tools to understand the problem them in until I saw Rav Nahman's description of Torah scholars that are demons. Then it all started making sense.
[note 1] This issue is brought in other places in the LeM of Rav Nahman. LeM I:8, 61 II:1, 8 and that last one is the last Torah lesson Rav Nahman every said. So he saw this issue as important.]
n65 midi
This is another old file from long ago. I just decided to share old files with people since I am not writing anything new. I am what Rav Nahman calls in מוחין דקטנות [a state of a fallen mind.]
p120 chs mp3 [chs in midi format] s100 [ThisS100 was actually never finished, until I was going through old files and noticed it.]
exodus 4 midi file [There is a story behind this piece exodus 4. I was taking the Greyhound bus back to California after being in Uman for Rosh Hashanah. We got off for a 30 min stop in Philadelphia. As soon as I got off the bus, this song came to me and I spent the whole 30 minutes writing it down, but I could not get on the bus until it was finished and in fact I just finished it and jumped on the bus just as it was pulling out. [And in fact I had no money if I had been stuck.]
Avoda zara23b Rosh Hashanah 13a
To Tosphot in Rosh Hashanah the Gemara in Avoda zara is referring to trees from ancient generations. So they would have been given to Avraham. But it seems like a round about type of way to get to this conclusion. The gemara starts out with "Why did Israel have to burn the asherot when they entered into Israel? After all a person can not cause to be forbidden that which does not belong t him, and the land of Israel was already given to Avraham. But in the conclusion the Gemara wants that the actual trees should be owned by Israel so that there will be an obligation of burning them. If they would in fact have been owned by idolaters, then nullification alone would have been enough.
Plus I am wondering about the problem that no tree can become an ashera if it was planted to e a regular tree since it is like a mountain.
I just got back from the sea where I was thinking about this--so I am cold and tired and not sure if there really is an issue here. It is just that the Gemara starts out with "Were not those trees in the possession of Israel, so how could the Canaanites make them forbidden.?" Well what bothers me is this is exactly what the Gemara wants. It wants the trees to be in the possession of Israel so that they become an idol of a Israel and thus be obligated in being burned. That would not be the case if those trees were idolatrous trees of the Canaanites in which case a simple act of nullification would have been enough.
Maybe the way to understand the Gemara is like this: Why did Israel have to burn the idolatrous trees when they entered into the land of Israel? After all the trees belonged to Israel since the land was given to Avraham. And no one can cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: the trees in fact belonged to Israel and they were forbidden because of the law that if a Israeli makes an idol and someone else comes and worships it, that idol or statue becomes forbidden --and in fact is forbidden as an idol of a Israeli which must be burnt. But because of the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah we know that not all the trees belonged to Israel because, the Canaanites in fact owned the trees that they planted. So the Gemara in Avoda Zara is only referring to the trees that were in the land at the time it was given to avraham.
==================================================================
עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב ראש השנה ע''א To תוספות in ראש השנה ע''א the גמרא in עבודה זרה is referring to trees from ancient generations. So they would have been given to אברהם . But it seems like a round about type of way to get to this conclusion. The גמרא starts out with "Why did Israel have to burn the אשירות when they entered into Israel? After all אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, and the land of Israel was already given toאברהם. But in the conclusion the גמרא wants that the actual trees should be owned by Israel so that there will be an obligation of burning them. If they would have been owned by idolaters, then nullification alone would have been enough.
I just got back from the sea where I was thinking about this--so I am cold and tired and not sure if there really is an issue here. It is just that the גמרא starts out with "Were not those trees in the possession of Israel, so how could the Canaanites make them forbidden.?" Well what bothers me is this is exactly what the גמרא wants. It wants the trees to be in the possession of Israel so that they become an idol of a Israel and thus be obligated in being burned. That would not be the case if those trees were idolatrous trees of the Canaanites in which case a simple act of nullification would have been enough.
Maybe the way to understand the גמרא is like this: Why did Israel have to burn the אשירות when they entered into the land of Israel? After all the trees belonged to Israel since the land was given to אברהם. And no one can cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: the trees in fact belonged to Israel and they were forbidden because of the law that if a Israeli makes an idol and someone else comes and worships it, that idol or statue becomes forbidden , and in fact is forbidden as an idol of a Israeli which must be burnt. But because of the גמרא in ראש השנה we know that not all the trees belonged to Israel because, the Canaanites in fact owned the trees that they planted. So the גמרא in עבודה זרה is only referring to the trees that were in the land at the time it was given to אברהם
Plus I am wondering about the problem that no tree can become an אשירה if it was planted to be a regular tree since it is like a mountain.
עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב ראש השנה ע''א לתוספות בראש השנה ע''א הגמרא בעבודה זרה מתייחסת לעצים מדורות קדומים. אז הם היו ניתנים לאברהם. אבל זה נראה כמו דרך סביבתית להגיע למסקנה הזו. הגמרא מתחילה ב"למה היה צריך ישראל לשרוף את האשירות כשנכנסו לישראל? הרי אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, וארץ ישראל כבר ניתנה לאברהם?" אבל לסיכום, הגמרא רוצה שהעצים בפועל צריכים להיות בבעלות ישראל כדי שיהיה חיוב בשריפתם, אילו היו בבעלותם של עובדי אלילים, אזי היה די בביטול לבדו. בנוסף אני תוהה לגבי הבעיה ששום עץ לא יכול להפוך לאשירה אם הוא היה נטוע כדי להיות עץ רגיל מכיוון שהוא כמו הר.
בדיוק חזרתי מהים שבו חשבתי על זה - אז אני קר ועייף ולא בטוח אם באמת יש כאן בעיה. רק שהגמרא מתחילה ב"האם לא היו העצים הללו ברשות ישראל, אז איך יכלו הכנענים לאסור אותם?" ובכן מה שמפריע לי זה בדיוק מה שהגמרא רוצה. היא רוצה שהעצים יהיו ברשות ישראל כדי שיהפכו לאליל של ישראל ובכך יחויבו בשריפתם. זה לא היה המקרה אילו העצים הללו היו עצי אלילים של הכנענים ובמקרה זה היה די בפעולת ביטול פשוטה.
אולי הדרך להבין את הגמרא היא כזו: מדוע נאלצו ישראל לשרוף את האשירות כשנכנסו לארץ ישראל? הרי כל העצים היו שייכים לישראל מאז ניתנה הארץ לאברהם. ואיש אינו יכול לגרום לאסור את אשר אינו שייך לו. תשובה: העצים היו שייכים למעשה לישראל והם נאסרו בגלל ההלכה שאם ישראלי עושה פסל ובא מישהו אחר ועובד לו, אותו האליל או הפסל הופך לאסור, ולמעשה אסור כאליל של ישראלי. שחייב להישרף. אבל בגלל הגמרא בראש השנה אנחנו יודעים שלא כל העצים היו שייכים לישראל כי הכנענים היו בעלי העצים שהם נטעו. אז הגמרא בעבודה זרה מתייחסת רק לעצים שהיו בארץ בזמן שהיא ניתנה לאברהם
In the Talmud Yerushalmi it is brought that every word of Torah is worth as much as all the other commandments. But to realize this truth is not always open to everyone. I for one, tasted the "taste of Torah". So I thought to devote myself to learning Torah always. But to do so clearly one needs to marry the daughter of a authentic Litvak Torah Scholar [that goes by the Gra]
The reason the sages recommend to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar is that daughters of amei haaretz [people ignorant of Torah] are hostile to Torah. They will do almost anything to stop their husbands from learning Torah. They might say it is "for parnasah", [they want their husbands to work],but that is just a cover story for public consumption. They really just do not want to see their husband sitting and learning Torah--even if they would already have plenty of money.
In some cases however, to marry a bat talmid chacham [daughter of a Torah scholar] is not possible.
Part of the reason is phony Torah scholars תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים Torah scholars from the Dark Side. So one might be offered a shiduch of the Dark Side. [Or a baalat mum, a girl with a hidden defect.]