תוספות [ראש השנה יג א]

  וזה עלה בדעתי מה הכוונה של תוספות [ראש השנה י''ג ע''א]. למעשה, נכון שתוספות אומרת שהגמרא בעבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע"ב מתייחסת לאשרות (אשרות שמדורות הראשונים) בשאלת הגמרא, ולא לתשובה. שכן כפי שאומר הרב שך, התשובה מתייחסת לעצים שהיו על האדמה בזמן שניתן לאברהם. הדבר שהפך את זה למעט מבלבל הוא שהגמרא עצמה מעמידה את השאלה לאחר שכבר נתנה את התשובה. זה נשאל, "מדוע נאלצה ישראל לשרוף את האשרות? הרי אף אחד לא יכול לגרום לאסור את מה שלא שייך לו. ואתה לא יכול לענות" זה מתייחס לאשרה שנשתלה אחרי הארץ ניתנה לאברהם והעצים האלה היו שייכים לכנענים, כי  ביטול היה מספיק. אז הגמרא עונה שהיא מתייחסת לעצים שהיו בארץ בזמן אברהם, ואז עבדו את העצים האלה  לאחר שסגדו לישראל את עגל הזהב, ולפיכך היו נדרשים לשרוף את אותם עצים. זו הסיבה שתוספות מתייחס ל"אשרות מהדורות הקודמים "שכן הוא מדבר על שאלת הגמרא, ולא על תשובתה

  I was on my way to the sea and it occurred to me what תוספות ראש השנה י''ג ע''א means. In fact, it is true that תוספות is saying that the גמרא in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב is referring to the   אשרות שמדורות הראשונים in the question of the גמרא, not the answer. For like רב שך is saying, the answer refers to the trees that were on the land at the time it was given to Avraham. The thing that made this a little confusing is that the גמרא itself qualifies the question after it has already given the answer. That is it asks, "Why did Israel have to burn the אשורת? After all, no one can cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. And you can not answer "It refers to the אשרות that were planted after the land was given to Avraham and those trees in fact belonged to the Canaanites," because ביטול nullification would have been enough. So then the גמרא answers that it refers to trees that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then those trees were worshiped after Israel worshiped the golden calf, and thus those trees would have been required to be burnt.] This is why תוספות refers to the "אשרות שמדורות הראשונים" since he is talking about the question of the גמרא, not its answer.

________________________________________________________________________________

 I was on my way to the sea and it occurred to me what Tosphot [Rosh Hashana 13a] means. In fact, it is true that Tosphot is saying that the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b is referring to the "asherot"  אשרות שמדורות הראשונים in the question of the Gemara, not the answer. For like Rav Shach is saying, the answer refers to the trees that were on the land at the time it was given to Avraham. The thing that made this a little confusing is that the gemara itself qualifies the question after it has already given the answer. That is it asks, "Why did Israel have to burn the asherot? After all, no one can cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. And you can not answer "It refers to the ashrot that were planted after the land was given to Avraham and those trees in fact belonged to the Canaanites," because bitul [nullification would have been enough]. So then the Gemara answers that it refers to trees that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then those trees were worshiped after Israel worshiped the golden calf, and thus those trees would have been required to be burnt.] This is why Tosphot refers to the "asherot from the previous generations" since he is talking about the question of the Gemara, not its answer.

________________________________________________________________________________

The Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b asks why was  Israel commanded  to burn the asherot idolatrous trees when they entered Canaan? After all it is the land that was given to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו a person can not cause what does not belong to him to be forbidden. So even if the Canaanites worshipped the trees, those trees ought not to have been forbidden. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so we see idolatry was OK to them. For if it was just the trees that were there from the first, for   those it would have been enough to have the idolaters nullify them.

Tosphot asks: The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 13a seems to be a question on this because it asks, "How could Israel bring the omer when they entered the land of Canaan? Was not the produce of gentiles?" Tosphot means that we see they did own the produce. Tosphot answers that even if the land was of Israel, the produce was still of the Canaanites.

Then Tosphot asks: if so what is the Gemara asking in Avoda Zara 23b? Answer that question is  good because of the "אשרות שמדורות הקודמים" the asherot from the first generations. To me this seems like a proof to my way of understanding the Gemara. That is the asherot were worshiped by the Canaanites, and then the land was given to Avraham, and so they became idols of a Israeli and so needed to be burned. The way Rav Shach understands that sugia, Tosphot should have said "The Gemara's question in Avoda Zara is good because of the trees from the first generations". That is the trees were regular trees, and then the land was given to Avraham, and then the Canaanites worshiped those trees. Then they would not have been forbidden until Israel worshiped the golden calf. Still it is clear that Rav Shach is right about the Gemara itself, but still it bothers me what could Tosphot mean by the word, "the asherot" instead of "the trees"? I was at the sea and pondering this question, and it occurred to me a possible approach, that is that Tosphot is trying to explain the question of the Gemara, not its answer. So  it could be that Tosphot means that trees that were there before the golden calf and that were worshiped after the golden calf would be those that needed burning while those that were planted after the land was given to Avraham those tree would need just "bitul."[nullification] That is, for the Canaanite to simply leave that tree in time of peace, or cease worshipping it in some way of other.--or break it. But it would not need to be burnt. [I mean this is the case anyway. But it just might be that this is what Tosphot is saying.]

______________________________________________________________________________

The גמרא in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב asks why was  Israel commanded  to burn the אשרות idolatrous trees when they entered Canaan? After all it is the land that was given to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו a person can not cause what does not belong to him to be forbidden. So even if the Canaanites worshipped the trees, those trees ought not to have been forbidden. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so we see idolatry was OK to them. For if it was just the trees that were there from the first, for   those it would have been enough to have the idolaters nullify them.

תוספות asks: The גמרא in Rosh Hashana 13a seems to be a question on this because it asks, "How could Israel bring the עומר when they entered the land of Canaan? Was not the produce of gentiles?" תוספות means that we see they did own the תבואה. Then תוספות answers that even if the land was of Israel, the produce was still of the Canaanites.

Then תוספות asks: if so what is the גמרא asking in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב? Answer that question is  good because of the "אשרות שמדורות הראשונים". This seems like a proof to my way of understanding the גמרא. That is the אשרות were worshiped by the Canaanites, and then the land was given to Avraham, and so they became idols of a Israeli and so needed to be burned. The way רב שך understands that סוגיא תוספות should have said "The גמרא's question in עבודה זרה is good because of the trees from the first generations". That is the trees were regular trees, and then the land was given to Avraham, and then the Canaanites worshiped those trees. Then they would not have been forbidden until Israel worshiped the golden calf. Still it is clear that רב שך is right about the גמרא itself, but still it bothers me what could תוספות mean by the word, "the אשרות" instead of "the trees"? I was at the sea and pondering this question, and it occurred to me a possible approach, that is that תוספות is trying to explain the question of the גמרא, not its answer. So  it could be that תוספות means that trees that were there before the golden calf and that were worshiped after the golden calf would be those that needed burning while those that were planted after the land was given to Avraham those tree would need just nullification. That is, for the Canaanite to simply leave that tree in time of peace, or cease worshipping it in some way of other.--or break it. But it would not need to be burnt. 

הגמרא בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב שואלת מדוע נצטוו ישראל לשרוף את אשרות העצים האלילים כשנכנסו לכנען? אחרי הכל, זו האדמה שניתנה לאברהם ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו אדם אינו יכול לגרום לאיסור על מה שאינו שייך לו. כך שגם אם הכנענים סגדו לעצים, עצים אלה לא היו צריכים להיות אסורים. תשובה: ישראל הגישה את עגל הזהב ולכן אנו רואים שהעבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר מבחינתם. כי אם רק העצים היו שם מהראשון, עבור אלה זה היה מספיק שהאלילים יבטלו אותם.

תוספות שואלת: נראה שהגמרא בראש השנה יג  א שאלה בנושא מכיוון שהיא שואלת: "איך ישראל יכולה הייתה להביא את העומר כשנכנסו לארץ כנען? האם לא היה תוצרת גויים?" תוספות פירושו שאנחנו רואים שהם היו הבעלים של התבואה. ואז תוספות עונה שגם אם הארץ הייתה של ישראל, התוצרת הייתה עדיין של הכנענים.

ואז שואל תוספות: אם כן מה הגמרא שואלת בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב? תשובה לשאלה זו טובה בגלל "אשרות שמדורות הראשונים". זה נראה כהוכחה לדרך הבנתי את הגמרא. כלומר את אשרות סגדו הכנענים, ואז ניתנה הארץ לאברהם, וכך הם הפכו לאלילים של ישראלי ולכן היה צורך לשרוף אותם. האופן שבו רב שך מבין שסוגיא תוספות היה צריך לומר "שאלת הגמרא בעבודה זרה טובה בגלל העצים מהדורות הראשונים". כלומר העצים היו עצים רגילים, ואז האדמה ניתנה לאברהם, ואז הכנענים סגדו לעצים האלה. ואז הם לא היו נאסרים עד שישראל סגדו לעגל הזהב. ובכל זאת ברור שרב שך צודק לגבי הגמרא עצמה, אך בכל זאת מפריע לי מה יכולה תוספות להתכוון במילה "אשרות" במקום "עצים"? הייתי בים והרהרתי בשאלה זו, ועלה על דעתי בגישה אפשרית, כלומר תוספות מנסה להסביר את שאלת הגמרא, ולא את תשובתה. אז יכול להיות שתוספות פירושו שעצים שהיו שם לפני עגל הזהב ושסגדו להם אחרי עגל הזהב יהיו אלה שצריכו שריפה ואילו אלה שנטעו לאחר שהאדמה ניתנה לאברהם אותו עץ יצטרכו לבטל. כלומר, עבור הכנעני פשוט לעזוב את העץ הזה בזמן השלום, או להפסיק לעבוד אותו בדרך אחרת או אחרת .-- או לשבור אותו. אבל זה לא צריך להישרף.

x20 music file

 x20 A Minor mp3 [x20 in midi]   [x20 nwc]

 There are great things I received by following the advice of Rav Nahman. But I think that it would have been better if I had stuck with the straight Litvak path of Torah based on the Gra, and instead of jettisoning that, I would have simply added the great ideas and advice of Rav Nahman. The reason I say this is there are important aspects of the path of the Gra that one can not get anywhere else. Diligence in learning Torah, carefulness in all aspects of Torah and especially laws about monetary issues, care in not speaking lashon hara/slander.  

 I was at the Na Nach [Breslov] place today and they were learning the LeM vol. I:106 where Rav Nahman goes into the idea that "all poorness is from the mind," [small mindedness].  And there he also brings the idea of teaching and rebuke.  So even though there is a definite aspect of not to rebuke others as you see in LeM vol. II:8 still there is a time a place where it is proper.   [LeM II:8 starts out with: "Even though rebuke is important, still not everyone is fit to rebuke, since by rebuke one can make things worse."]

 Z19 B minor      z19 midi  z19 nwc

תלמיד חכם שד יהודי Torah scholar that is a demon [LeM vol. I:12. Also vol I:28 and Zohar page 253 on the Book of Numbers]

From where does Rav Nahman [of Uman and Breslov] get the idea that there is such a thing as a Torah scholar that is a demon? It is from the Zohar page 253 in the book of Numbers. I had a chance to look it up and  I see it is a good source to some degree, but Rav Nahman does interpret it in a unique way. For all you really see there is that there are two kinds of demons. Gentile demons and Jewish demons. And the Zohar does bring from the Gemara that Jewish demons can be sent on errands for the sake of Torah scholars that learn Mishna. And it adds that these Jewish demons are experts in Torah. But so far you do not see that they enter into the bodies of Torah scholars. That is a new idea that Rav Nahman adds. 

[I should add here that I have a high degree of confidence in what Rav Nahman writes. And this lesson in particular seems to me to very important because it tells us something that otherwise people would only come to know by bitter experience after there is no more chance of correcting the damage that these demonic Torah scholars do.]

 

 חשבתי על תשובת רב שך בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב ועכשיו אני חושב שזה נכון. הסיבה שאני אומר זאת היא שגם כשארץ כנען ניתנה לאברהם, שאומר שהוא רצה לקבל בעלות על האשרות [העצים שנשתלו כדי לסגוד להם.] ורק למען הוויכוחים נניח שהוא קיבל זכות בעלים בכל מקרה. אז מה יהיה הרעיון החדש? אנחנו כבר יודעים שצריך לשרוף אליל ששייך לישראלי. אז הגמרא הזו רוצה להגיד לנו משהו חדש, כלומר שכדי שאובייקט ייאסר כאליל, הוא לא צריך להיות בבעלות האדם הסוגד לו. אלא די בכך שהבעלים לא יתנגד. ולמעשה זה מקור החוק הזה

Rav Shach's answer in Avoda Zara 23 side b

I was thinking about Rav Shach's answer in Avoda Zara 23 side b and now I think it is right. The reason I say this is that even when the land of Canaan was given to Avraham, who says he wanted to get ownership of the asherot [trees that had been planted to be worshipped.] And just for argument's sake let's say he got ownership of them anyway. Then what would be the new idea? We already know that an idol that belongs to a Israeli needs to be burned. So this Gemara wants to tell us something new, I.e. that for an object to become forbidden as an idol, it does not need to be owned by the person worshipping it. Rather it is enough that the owner does not object. And in fact this is the source of that law. 

_______________________________________________________________________

I was thinking about רב שך answer in עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב and now I think it is right. The reason I say this is that even when the land of Canaan was given to Avraham, who says he wanted to get ownership of the אשות [trees that had been planted to be worshipped.] And just for argument's sake let's say he got ownership of them anyway. Then what would be the new idea? We already know that an idol that belongs to a Israeli needs to be burned. So this גמרא wants to tell us something new, I.e. that for an object to become forbidden as an idol, it does not need to be owned by the person worshipping it. Rather it is enough that the owner does not object. And in fact this is the source of that law.

__________________________________________________________

 

 I saw a book on the life of Israel Oddeser, [the person that found the hidden letter of Rav Nachman concerning  Na Nach Nachma Nachman Me'Uman] and I noticed he told one person about the importance of olive oil -both for putting on a wound or sore and also to drink a little bit. There he also mentions to put on a wound a sort of concoction made of tea. [That is to boil tea leaves in a small amount of water so the water is like a concentrated mix, sort of like concentrated orange juice.]

I would like to explain why Rav Shach explains the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23 as referring to the trees that were planted before Avraham and then worshipped after Israel served the golden calf. Normally trees that have been planted for fruit can not become idols since they are like mountains and the sun and moon that  have no human hold on them. This in fact is the reason I am thinking the Gemara is referring to trees that were planted to be idols at the very start and then the land was given to Avraham. That would make them idols of Israel that need to be burnt. But Rav Shach explains this Gemara differently since the Gemara says the only reason the trees are forbidden is that Israel served the golden calf. In My way of looking at the Gemara that reason would be irrelevant. So to him it has to refer to trees that were planted before Avraham and thus became the property of Israel after the land was given to him. And then the Canaanites worshiped those trees and there was no objection from Israel since they too at that time had served idols. It can not refer to trees that were planted after Avraham since those would be owned by the Canaanites and thus be idols of a idolater and only need nullification, not burning.

_____________________________________________________________________________

I would like to explain why רב שך explains the גמרא in עבודש זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב as referring to the trees that were planted before Avraham and then worshipped after Israel served the golden calf. Normally trees that have been planted for fruit can not become idols since they are like mountains and the sun and moon that  have no human hold on them. This in fact is the reason I am thinking the גמרא is referring to trees that were planted to be idols at the very start and then the land was given to Avraham. That would make them idols of Israel that need to be burnt. But רב שך explains this גמרא differently since the גמרא says the only reason the trees are forbidden is that Israel served the golden calf. In My way of looking at the גמרא that reason would be irrelevant. So to him it has to refer to trees that were planted before Avraham and thus became the property of Israel after the land was given to him. And then the Canaanites worshiped those trees and there was no objection from Israel since they too at that time had served idols. It can not refer to trees that were planted after Avraham since those would be owned by the Canaanites and thus be idols of a idolater and only need nullification, not burning.

ברצוני להסביר מדוע רב שך מסביר את הגמרא עבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב כמתייחס לעצים שנשתלו לפני אברהם ואז סגדו להם לאחר שישראל עבד את עגל הזהב. בדרך כלל עצים אשר ניטעו לפרי אינם יכולים להפוך לאלילים מכיוון שהם דומים להרים ולשמש ולירח שאין בהם אחיזה אנושית. זו למעשה הסיבה שאני חושב שהגמרא מתייחסת לעצים שנשתלו לאלילים כבר בהתחלה, ואז האדמה ניתנה לאברהם. זה יהפוך אותם לאלילי ישראל שצריכים להישרף. אך רב שך מסביר את גמרא זו אחרת מכיוון שהגמרא אומרת שהסיבה היחידה שהעצים אסורים היא שישראל עבד את עגל הזהב. בדרך שלי להסתכל בגמרא, סיבה זו לא תהיה רלוונטית. אז מבחינתו יש להתייחס לעצים שנשתלו לפני אברהם וכך הפכו לנחלת ישראל לאחר שניתנה לו האדמה. ואז הכנענים סגדו לאותם עצים ולא הייתה שום התנגדות מצד ישראל מכיוון שגם הם באותה תקופה שירתו אלילים. זה לא יכול להתייחס לעצים שנטעו אחרי אברהם מכיוון שאלו היו בבעלות הכנענים ובכך להיות אלילים של עכו''ם וזקוק לביטול, ולא לשרוף.

Rav Shach Laws of Idolatry chapter 8 law 3

See Rav Shach Laws of Idolatry chapter 8 law 3. Think what Rav Shach means is this. Trees that are planted as regular trees do not become asherot. Idolatrous trees. Only trees that are planted in order to be worshipped. So the asherot that were in Israel at the time the land was given to Avraham, become the possession of  Israel and so need to be burnt. The Asherot that were planted after teh land was given to Avraham were the possession of idolaters and so could simply be nullified and did not need to be burnt. This explains Tosphot Rosh Hashana page 23a. There Tosphot asks on the Gemara in Avoda Zara that asks why did the asherot need to be burnt? After all a person does not forbid what does not belong to him.  The Gemara answers because Israel served the Golden calf, so idolatry was considered OK to them. Because if we would be talking about the asherot that were there before, those could simply be nullified.

Tosphot says that the idolaters in fact owned the produce of the land.  So when the Gemara says the asherot needed to be burnt that refers to the asherot that were there at from the beginning. What that means is the asherot that were in the land at the time it was given to Abraham needed to be burnt. These that were planted after that needed only nullification. 

Still the Gemara itself is hard to understand. Those that were planted after Abraham should have been forbidden simply because they were the property of the Canaanites. Why do you need the reason that Israel served the golden calf to make them forbidden?

This is in answer to a question I asked on Rav Shach a few days ago.

_____________________________________

See רב שך הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח הלכה ג.  Trees that are planted as regular trees do not become אשרות. Idolatrous trees. Only trees that are planted in order to be worshipped. So the אשרות that were in Israel at the time the land was given to Avraham, become the possession of  Israel and so need to be burnt. The אשרות that were planted after the land was given to Avraham were the possession of idolaters and so could simply be nullified and did not need to be burnt. This explains תוספות ראש השנה דף כ''ג ע''ב. There תוספות asks on the גמרא in עבודה זרה that asks why did the אשרות need to be burnt? After all a person does not forbid what does not belong to him.  The גמרא answers because Israel served the Golden calf, so idolatry was considered OK to them. Because if we would be talking about the אשרות that were there before, those could simply be nullified. תוספות says that the idolaters in fact owned the produce of the land.  So when the גמרא says the אשרות needed to be burnt, that refers to the אשרות that were there at from the beginning. What that means is the אשרות that were in the land at the time it was given to Abraham needed to be burnt. These that were planted after that needed only nullification. Still the גמרא itself is hard to understand. Those that were planted after Abraham should have been forbidden simply because they were the property of the Canaanites. Why do you need the reason that Israel served the golden calf to make them forbidden?

ראה רב שך הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח הלכה ג.  עצים הנטועים כעצים רגילים אינם הופכים לאשרות (עצים אלילים). רק עצים הנטועים על מנת לסגוד להם. כך שהאשרות שהיו בישראל בזמן שניתנה הארץ לאברהם, הופכים להיות נחלת ישראל ולכן צריך לשרוף אותם. אשרות אשר נשתלו לאחר שניתנה האדמה לאברהם היו רכוש עובדי אלילים וכך ניתן היה לבטלם בפשטות ואין צורך לשרוף אותם. זה מסביר תוספות ראש השנה דף כ''ג ע''ב. שם שואל תוספות על הגמרא בעבודה זרה ששואל מדוע היה צורך לשרוף את אשרות? הרי אדם לא אוסר את מה שלא שייך לו. הגמרא עונה מכיוון שישראל שימשה את עגל הזהב, ולכן עבודת אלילים נחשבה להם בסדר. כי אם היינו מדברים על אשרות שהיו שם בעבר, ניתן היה לבטל אותן. תוספות אומר כי האשרות למעשה היו תוצרת הארץ ורכוש הכנענים. לכן כאשר הגמרא אומרת שיש צורך לשרוף את אשרות, הכוונה היא לאשרות שהיו שם מההתחלה. פירוש הדבר הוא שהאשרות שהיו בארץ בזמן שניתנה לאברהם הייתה צריכה להישרף. אלה שנשתלו לאחר מכן נזקקו לביטול בלבד. אבל עדיין קשה להבין את הגמרא עצמה. אלה שנטעו אחרי אברהם היו צריכים להיות אסורים פשוט משום שהם נחלת הכנענים. מדוע אתה צריך את הסיבה שישראל עבדו את עגל הזהב כדי לאסור אותם. זה קרוב למה שרב שך כתב. הוא כתב ש  העצים הזקוקים שריפה הם אלו שניטעו קודם שניתנה הארץ לאברהם ונעבדו אחרי כן. אבל קשה על זה שאשרה חייבת להיות נטוע מראש למטרת עבודה זרה

the events surrounding the concubine in Giva.

Rebuke is one of the 613 commandments. And where you can see the serious of it is in the events surrounding the concubine in Giva. In short for those who are not familiar with those events let me recount the major points. One fellow had a concubine. [That in itself is subject to a debate. Some hold that is simply what you would call a  girl friend, i.e. sex with no marriage. Others hold there is kidushin, but not nisuin/hupa.] He visited her parents home with her, and then wanted to get back up north where his home was. His concubine wanted to stay and bit longer, but he insisted they get back home. On the way they passed through the area of the tribe of Benjamin in a town called Giva. There were some ruffians there that attacked them at night and killed her. But worse than that--no one else in that town objected. So all Israel made war against the tribe of Benjamin. And they even asked God directly by means of the Urim and Tumim and God approved of that war. No because of the murder, but because no one besides the actual criminal objected.

Another place to see this is in the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza by which the Second Temple was destroyed. The reason was not so much the actual crime, but rather that the sages at the time did not object. 

So when we see the Gra signed the well known letter of excommunication (and Rav Shach also agreed with the Gra)  and yet their objections have been ignored, I feel that I ought to say something myself and encourage others. I mean to say that when asked I have stated my view that the Gra was right. But now I am seeing that it is not enough to for me to do so. Others also ought to go along with the Gra.] 

I also think that besides the fact that a herem/excommunication is a valid halachic category; there is also the issue of why that herem was issued in the first place (i.e. idolatry). And time has shown that the Gra was right.  

[The herem did not apply to Rav Nahman of Breslov as it was specific. So learning Rav Nahman's books is perfectly fine and commendable.]

z17 D minor mp3 [z17 in midi] [z17 in nwc format]

pieces I wrote when I was in my parents home.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B71pces179i2dFZ6eEgxSWNtS0U/view?usp=sharing

This is called a piano piece because it was written on the piano in my parents home. But it was meant for organ -so that is why the instrument it is played on is now the organ.

Piano piece called This is a great title.

 string1

orchestraoo

[My dad gave me a record that had Mozart on one side and Beethoven on other . This was an influence Plus Braham I listened to in the library [as I waited for my dad to pick me up] and as you can see this influenced me in the piece called "orchestra". Plus it seems certain  the teacher of the high school orchestra Mr. Smart, must have had an influence on me.

My dad was a captain in USAF and one thing he mentioned to me about one medal that he got was by setting up an air force base in France that was specially geared to repair disabled planes and get them off the ground quickly.

After the war that he invented the Infrared telescope.  [That is the young man in that article in Life Magazine, Philip Rosenbloom]. After that when the USA government wanted to create infrared satellites to spy on the USSR so they called him and he went to work for TRW in creating those satellites. Called the DSP [Defense Support Program] satellites in the early 1970s. 

Later he worked on laser communication between satellites for SDI [Star Wars].

So I can safely say my parents were very loyal Americans.

Similarly the argument that people like the fact that their property is taken from them to give to the welfare takers does not mean that they agree with their property being stolen from them to support parasites.

The fact that the government does some crime does not mean that the people under it agree or want that.  When the lands of England were enclosed by the ruling class, the peasants did not rebel. But that does not mean they liked the fact that their lands were taken from them. Similarly the argument that people like the fact that their property is taken from them to give to the welfare takers does not mean that they agree with their property being stolen from them to support parasites. 

On the way to the sea this morning it occurred the question how does Tosphot in Rosh Hashana 13a deal with Rabah? אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות "A gentile does not have the ability to take away the obligation of truma and tithes." I mean to say this. The Gemara asks "How could Israel bring the Omer when they came into the Land of Canaan? was not the grain the produce of the gentiles?" And right there Tosphot asks from Avoda Zara 23b that the land of Israel was already in the possession of Abraham from the time it was promised to him. And Tosphot answers that the gentiles had a portion in what they sowed. So my question is both on the Gemara and also on Tosphot. Why not simply answer that Rabah was right!  אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות "A gentile does not have the ability to take away the obligation of truma and tithes."

______________________________________________________________________________

 How does תוספות in ראש השנה י''ג ע''ב deal with רבה who holds אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות "A gentile does not have the ability to take away the obligation of תרומה and מעשרות." I mean to say this. The גמרא asks "How could Israel bring the עומר when they came into the Land of Canaan? was not the grain the produce of the gentiles?" And right there תוספות asks from עבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב that the land of Israel was already in the possession of Abraham from the time it was promised to him. And תוספות answers that the gentiles had a portion in what they sowed. So my question is both on the גמרא and also on תוספות. Why not simply answer that רבה was right!  אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות "_______________________________________________________________________

כיצד מתמודד תוספות בראש השנה י''ג ע''ב עם רבה שמחזיק שאין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות. אני מתכוון לומר את זה. הגמרא שואלת "איך ישראל יכולה הייתה להביא את העומר בבואם לארץ כנען? האם התבואה לא הייתה תוצרת הגויים?" ושם תוספות שואלים מעבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב שארץ ישראל כבר הייתה ברשותו של אברהם מרגע שהובטחה לו. ותוספות עונה שלגויים היה חלק במה שזרעו. אז השאלה שלי היא גם על הגמרא וגם על תוספות. למה לא פשוט לענות שדווקא רבה צדק! אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות?

 Rav Nahman brings in the LeM that when one wants to come into holiness there stands at the entrance a religious person to block the way. [I forget off hand which chapter that is in]. So religious people often are enemies of holiness and serving God. I have seen this much. Religious people most often do not care about God at all and rather care about their social group. Some stupid cult or other.

 In accounts of the expulsion of Jews from Spain is left out the war that  was going in between Muslims and Christians. I noticed this in an account of the events from a Jewish perspective. So my question is --as would be natural to ask- "How much were Jews helping the Muslims?" I do not know. But if the answer is a lot,-- then it would be understandable why Isabella and Ferdinand did not want a enemy in their borders.

Today Jews consider Christianity as idolatry, and Islam as basically OK. So I wonder if this attitude had not been around at that time also?

[The very great anger of Jews towards Christianity is apparent even today in the accounts of the expulsion from Spain. And I can see why. The major port of entry for many Jews was Morocco. But the experience of Jews there was often  horrific.] 

 Even when one wants to keep Torah, the obstacle is always the religious authorities who are wicked. This problem is mentioned in the Gemara, but mostly appears in the LeM of Rav Nahman.[vol I8,12,28, 61, vol II 1, 5, 8] The issue is that there is a sort of entry of the Dark Side into the world of Torah.; such that anyone who wants to keep Torah must  encounter these Torah scholars that are demons. Far be it from me to ask why this is the case, but it does imply a sort of care and caution when one tries to keep Torah not be be seduced by the Dark Side.

Since is is hard to tell the difference between authentic Tora and Torah of the evil realm, thus avoiding the religious is the best approach.

Written Law and Oral Law, Physics, Metaphysics

To learn the entire Written Law and Oral Law, Physics, Metaphysics is the basic approach of Pakuda and Maimonides. That is the Old Testament, the two Talmuds, the books of Aristotle named the Metaphysics. But the Physics I would have to say must refer to Physics today. Even the Metaphysics of Aristotle I would have to say refers to the subject matter. [i.e., includes Plato and Plotinus. I would have to add Kant and Leonard Nelson.] 

[The way I suggest to finish the two Talmuds is with Rashi, Tosphot and Maharsha. That should be the fast session. For the the in-depth session I suggest to concentrate on individual sugias with the the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.]

[Certainly the Ramban/Nahmanides and many of the other rishonim would disagree with the importance of learning Physics and Metaphysics. Still I have adopted this approach of Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam. It makes the most sense to me.] 

“I CAN NO LONGER RECOMMEND THE VACCINE TO ANY INDIVIDUAL”

 https://www.brighteon.com/d6fab6d3-24b8-4f1e-9bc7-9ab1c1134593

 General Grant was reviewing his troops and came near the closest lines to the Confederate Army. As he did the Union guards saw him and announced to all the soldiers in the vicinity to come  out of their tents and present themselves to the general. General Grant said, :"Forget it. Just let the men go back to their tents."  The Confederate guards had heard from across the battle lines what had been going on. So the Confederate officers called to their men to stand at attention for General Grant. They all assembled and saluted the General and he returned their salute.

The lesson. We are all Americans. We all believe in Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Just we are disagreeing about what is just. 

[This is not to imply that General Grant was right. Rather as is the case with many issues of justice, there is ambiguity. The odd thing is that General Grant stated in his writing down his account of the war, mentioned one justification. That the slaves would eventually reproduce and then since they would hate the whites, they would exterminate the whites. So with that in mind it was important to free the slaves so the nation would be whole. But was that the result? Are now things any different? Is now hatred of whites any less? Is there longer any less desire to exterminate the whites? He forsaw that with enough numbers the result would be that the slaves would attempt to destroy all white people. So is that any different from things now?]  

How much does one do review before going on?

   For myself I found  review twice and go on made the most sense.

I was aware of the approach of Rav Nahman of just saying the words in order and going on. [But that left me with almost zero understanding.] On the other hand Rav Freifeld of Shar Yashuv was emphasizing doing review 10 times before going on. That left me with making no progress. So the review twice approach was what I adopted for many years.  

if Trotsky had been aware of the future, he would never have advocated Marxism.

 if Trotsky had been aware of the future, he would never have advocated Marxism.  His concern was towards the working class. If he had known the fact that to get a loaf of bread one needed to get up at 4:00 A.M.  in the wee hours of the morning to go stand in a line that went half way around the block, he would have dropped his theory and replaced it with capitalism--a theory that results in plenty for the people that in fact work. [His concern was not towards welfare recipients. He would rather have been concerned about the people that were actually working. [You can see this in his writings that all hinge on the concept-that the workers are good and the parasites like welfare collectors are evil.]

And why would taking from bankers and other wealthy people be right? The whole idea of redistribution   is based on movies that portray rich people as having stolen from the poor. But movies are not evidence. Other that that why should there be a prima facie assumption that the reason anyone who has more than another is because they stole it? 

The unity there is in positive transcendence, which is value, where, again, the unity is among things in themselves. What makes this significant is that this seems to show a deep source of faith

 In Kant there is this separation between things and what we can know about them. In the Kant-Fries school it is held that even though there are limits to ''analytic knowledge'' which can be known by manipulating definitions, and empirical knowledge;--still there is a third source of knowledge which is not by pure reason nor by sense perception. Not faith as understood as a third kind of extrasensory perception. So what is reality? 

My  question to Dr Kelley Ross was about this issue. His answer: One idea is that the nature of value is a unity among things in themselves, but is split up by the kaleidoscope of phenomenal reality.  Dilemmas become possible.  The division between mind and body is more like that between internal and external negative transcendence.  The unity there is in positive transcendence, which is value, where, again, the unity is among things in themselves.

What makes this significant is that  this seems to show a deep source of faith

z16 music file

 z16 B Minor  z16 midi   z16 nwc

Rav Avraham Abulafia of the Middle Ages

 You might ask why do I pay attention to Rav Avraham Abulafia of the Middle Ages in terms of sensitive subjects. Faith in the wise is one of the most important principles by which the Torah is acquired.  The only thing is one needs a certain degree of sense to be able to discern who really is wise and who is faking it.

In fact this is one of the problems of very smart people. They tend to not know their limits.. In the Midrash its says that the mother of Samuel the prophet prayed that her son should not be overly smart nor dumb.

There are more parasites in the seas than in the past.

;There are more parasites in the seas than in the past. The salmon and other species suffer. These sorts of worms that dig into the skin of fish do the same with humans.

spacecraft-in-a-warp-bubble-could-travel-faster-than-light-claims-physicist/

https://physicsworld.com/a/spacecraft-in-a-warp-bubble-could-travel-faster-than-light-claims-physicist/

This becomes even more interesting if you take into account that there are lots of ER bridges around. In a paper by Susskind, it is suggested that ER bridges are what connects entangled atoms one to another.

way of learning - from the beginning to end, and end to beginning, and from the middle and outwards.

 When I was in high school, there was a physics student that told me his way of learning. It was from the beginning to end and end to beginning and from the middle and outwards.

I have found that helpful for me in terms of method of review. I get to some place in the text where it seems to me that that I need to start review. So instead of going to the very beginning, I simply start going back page by page from where I am holding.  But I keep the place where I left off by some kind of place marker so that when I get to the beginning I can pick up again at that place.

Not speaking lashon hara/slander. But the equal importance of warning the public

 I can see the importance of not speaking lashon hara/slander but I think that this emphasis tends to diminish the equal importance of warning the public or individuals about dangerous friends or groups. There must be many more sources for this but the two that I recall off hand are Kamtza and Bar Kamtza by which the Second Temple was destroyed. Not so much for some individual transgression but the fact that no one objected. Also the events surrounding the concubine at Giva. It is not at all that some people in that one city had killed the concubine, but rather that no one in that city nor in the entire tribe of Binyamin objected.

See sefer hamidot [of Rav Nahman] the section on embarrassment. he brings there a statement from the sages that it is permissible to embarrass the religious authorities that make money off of the Torah [and what religious authorities don't?], and one must not stand before them, and the clothing they wear is like a saddle on a donkey. So we see that sometimes one must object. Certainly the Gra and Rav Shach objected to great evil, even though it is clear that no one paid any attention to what they were saying until this very day.

There is a lot of tension between the Schools based on Kant and those based on Hegel.

I see philosophy as a sort of orchestra conductor. That is one who is making all the separate aspects of the orchestra /reality to be one unified whole. So the Mind Body problem has been an issue since Descartes.

But 20th century philosophy is not a very good conductor. Especially when philosophy ventures into politics. The results are dismal. 

So I would like to recommend the Kant Fries approach of Leonard Nelson. However that is not to deny the value and important points of all the thinkers after Kant up until Hegel. [There is a lot of tension between the Schools based on Kant and those based on Hegel. And I wish I could decide which is right. But I can not. Each has good points. In fact one of the major objections to Hegel is the sorts of Marxist ideas that perverted his approach. Abusus non tollit usum."Abuse dos not kill use"

The "work book"

 The oddest sort of thing which pops up every time I take a look at the Russian Revolution is that the impression that people have of it being all about everyone getting an equal amount of stuff was not at all what it was about. It was about the industrial workers. And when they took power on Oct 24-25 that is what they in fact enforced. The "work book". If people did not have a continuous set of entries they went to jail. They did not receive "welfare". [The "soviets" were the elected representatives of the workers in the city. This was against the "zemstvos" --the elected representatives of the villages.]

There have been plenty of attempted takeovers of the USA by internal enemies that are welfare-takers. And they claim communism for their model. But what they are asking for is to be the masters, and the white people the slaves. They are not actually asking for communism.

And in fact I agree with the idea of work. That is to say I do not think that Torah ought to be a means to make a living. However that does not negate the idea of sitting and learning Torah. But that I think is a matter of trust in God. When one trusts in God, then I believe that often God provides. [Depending on how sincere the trust is.] But to sit and learn and extort money from the State seems to me to be not the Torah way.

Often one finds in kollels that they feel they deserve to get paid for learning Torah. I have never been able to digest that idea.

To me the idea of kollels and even religious leaders getting paid seems ridiculous. Trust in God I understand. But using Torah as a means to make money seems extremely offense to me.

And furthermore- I do not see any devotion to Torah in it. The whole religious business seems like a sneaky way trick. They pretend to not be using Torah to make money while that is exactly what they are doing. 

Since it is clear that using Torah to make money is forbidden, why not simply stop it in its tracks--once and for all?

Women and blacks against white men

 Many white men are accused by women of sin. The issue is addressed in the Gemara in Gitin pg 7.An amora was asked: "I can call the authorities against someone who is going around and slandering me, What should I do? Answer, ''Be silent and wait upon God.'' Thus, we see calling the police on people is not good. Blacks and women bring false accusations against white men as a matter of gaining credit for themselves.  Though they will not gain from this, still it is necessary to object. [As we see in the events of the concubine of Giva, and Bar Kamtza in Gitin. In these places we see that to object to evil is an obligation.] 

I can imagine that women that bring this endless stream of false accusations against men have not learned the laws of slander.

[But I know the general public does not know the laws of slander. So let me state some general principles.

Slander is speaking negatively [even if true] on anyone except with certain conditions. The conditions are   slightly different for sins between man and his fellow man and sins between man and God. For sins between man and fellow man to see it yourself, to rebuke beforehand, to judge the act according to the Law [Torah], to intend benefit not just to harm someone, that the benefit can not be gained in any other way. that worse punishment will not result that if he would be judged in a court that would go judge according to the Law (Torah.) 

The Gemara in Gitin pg 7 says how do we know that song is forbidden?

 The Gemara in Gitin pg 7 says how do we know that song is forbidden? It answers from one  verse. Then asks "Why not bring from another verse?" Answer: "From there we might think only by instruments is forbidden. How would we know that even by voice is forbidden? From the first verse." To Rashi Tosphot and Rav Yeshayah from Trani this means song in bars [drinking bars]. But to the Rambam all song in forbidden except songs of praise to God. But we see also in the Gemara that making songs out of verses is also forbidden. [See the Gemara where you see that making songs of any verses is forbidden not just the book of Song of Songs.]For this reason Sephardim had lots of Pizmonim [songs in their sidur in order not to be using verses of psalms to be making into songs.

The songs with verses however is worse. That is as the Gemara says about using verses as words for songs "They have made me a song to them." And this does not apply to Shir HaShirim alone but to any use of any verse to make a song. However there is a Gemara Yerushalmi הכל חולים לגבי שיר אפילן אישה זקנה Everyone is sick when they lack song, even an old woman. But not that is is a mitzvah.

So why do I write music then? Because I am sick. Betrayed by everyone I trusted. The religious world in particular. that I thought were righteous. My soul is sick from the fact that I wanted so much to learn Torah but was expelled from every single yeshiva that I wanted simply to sit and learn in. I would just walking and start trying to learn Torah and told to leave. But surprise was that there were the same places that were begging secular Jews to give them money because they had an open door policy for anyone that wanted to learn Torah. I found the opposite to be true. They were using the name of Torah to make money and try to gain power. The "Frum world" I found to be the exact opposite of authentic Torah. That just this, but in an astounding way, they did tremendous efforts to cause a divorce between me and my wife and later to rape my children. So the frum religious world I found to be anti-Torah.Opposed to true Torah Values. 

There is a kind of ambiguity in politics and philosophy that Kant was trying to solve.

 There is a kind of ambiguity in politics and philosophy that Kant was trying to solve. The idea was to eliminate speculation outside the areas of possibility of experience [not possible experience]. But that does suggest an intersection with politics. We might not know what is true justice? But what ever true justice is, is certainly not outside the area of possibility of experience. The answer of Kant has seemed weak since the first review by a critique on Kant by Schultz, his closest ally. I do not see how any other answer besides Fries is possible, That knowledge is not just from sensible perception or from reason, rather from a sort of core knowledge of immediate nonintuitive knowledge. [Fries and Beneke are thought to be of the empirical Kant first. But if you look at the friesian.com you will see that Fries and Nelson were non-intuitive immediate knowledge first.] But as close to faith his seems, it is not faith--not a sort of knowledge based on extrasensory perception. Rather a source of knowledge that is not based on any kind of feeling or reason.

In the world of politics, the answers of philosophy have been incoherent. Ideas from Kant, do not appear to have brought any kind of clarity. It seems to me that there was a kind of flow from above of philosophy from the period starting from Kant to Hegel. But ideas about politics seem to have been focused into the founding fathers of the USA. So In fact Hegel saw the USA as the State of the Future.

Modern morality the opposite of the morality of the Bible.

 ''Sit underneath your place on the Sabbath day.''[Exodus the parsha of the Mann] שבו תחתיו ביום השבת.Rav Nahman explains this thus: that a person should thinks of himself as lower than his level. Even if he know his level, he should consider himself as less that than.[ LeM vol. I chapter 31]. I have found this advice useful in terms of learning. Instead of thinking I will understand everything perfectly, I rather imagine that in fact I will not understand, but that simply go on in the subject I am learning--whether in Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot Maharsha or Physics, and thus eventually in fact come to understand.

Pride is given too large a place in modern society. This is the opposite of Torah thought in which it is thought to be the worst possible sin to think of oneself as greater that he really is. The sin of Pride.

Modern morality the opposite of the morality of the Bible. [Modern morality is the morality of Satan,] Self Esteem is thought to be the greatest thing. In the Torah, it is considered the gravest of all sins, and that leads one to the bottom of hell.

The Kant Fries school however holds like Schopenhauer that reality itself is irrational. --or beyond reason.

Dr Kelley Ross mentions in his Ph.D. thesis that there is a sort of ambiguity what is it that the categories are meant to unite, just conceptions or also perceptions. A fundamental ambiguity in Kant concerns just what it is that synthesis generates, a structured set of concepts describing the world or our immediate perceptions." If it would be just conceptions then everything would be OK. But how can they unite perceptions? Well Kant notices this problem himself, and claims that because of this problem it must be that perceptions themselves are themselves rational. Structured by reason. [That surely sounds like the exact point of Hegel.] But Dr. Ross takes a different approach and claims that because of this very sort of problem--that sensations and conceptions are so different there must be a deeper source of knowledge that both are just two sides of the same coin. [You can also see this as almost implicit in Kant himself if you think of the categories are being like the computer chips that process the incoming information and signals. Then the natural question to ask is, "Who is the user?" The answer: the soul.] The Kant Fries school however holds like Schopenhauer that reality itself is irrational. --or beyond reason. Kelly Ross has a sort of chart. He shows things of value go up from all form with no content e.g., Logic which is formal in that its forms do not have any content. If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. A, B and C have no content. Then he goes up to an area which can not be reduced to pure logic like Mathematics as we know from Gödel. So, math has more content but less form. numbers have reality. This is the old argument if universals exist. Well, it seems that trees exist. Not the concept of trees but actual trees. Michael Huemer brings some proofs of this. One that I recall off hand is that yellow is a color. Many things have it. So, universals exist. Music and art have more of what is called numinous content. Some sort of value that can not be reduced to a computer program--as we know from the many that have tried to do this with Bach. Values that involve holiness even more so have less form than that, and even more content. If you continue the progression you would get to God who has no form. [I should add that the Kant-Fries school is not "psychologism" as Kelley Ross takes some time and effort to point out.] my feeling about this is that Hegel is right that no part of reality is immune to reason, and yet Leonard nelson is right that reason even in metaphysics in its second part need axioms to begin with. that is that there is immediate intuitive knowledge about things in themselves

music file z15

 z15 F sharp minor  z15 midi   z15 nwc

My parents were loyal Americans and believed deeply in the American system of government and my dad spent most of his life supporting the American way of life

 My parents were loyal Americans and believed deeply in the American system of government and my dad spent most of his life supporting the American way of life one way or other. First by volunteering for the United States Air Force at the start of WWII. Then excelling in that service for which he gained medals of honor. [Some of which He did not tell me about  and others he revealed what they were for. One was for the setting up  of a Air Base in France which airplanes that were disabled could come in and be repaired in short order.] Later he contributed to the USA by his work on the U-2 project. He created one of the cameras used by the U-2. Also by inventing the first InfraRed telescope. Then work on laser communication between satellites for Star Wars SDA. In short my parents believed in the American way.

So when I see people like Trotsky, I wonder why the option of the American way did not occur to him as a better way to attain a just system of government?

The answer I have is that the situation was different. It was not a matter of choosing between czarism and capitalism.  Rather it seems to him and millions of Russians that the issue was how to throw off the yoke of the czars.

What this means for today is that, in fact, it would make much sense to look at the Constitution of the USA to see what a just system of government would be like.   Sadly this does not  seem to hold in the USA where the Constitution is nowadays ignored.   

Still, a lot depends n the sort of people the system is meant to govern.

If you think all menial workers are saints and all factory owners are demons that is going to result in a different sort of system than if one thinks that human beings across the board contain a evil inclination --even if they are workers, or black or female.

The shear number of people in the USA that hate the Co Constitution of the USA would have seemed as as terrible people. 

Deterministic Quantum Mechanics: the Mathematical Equations Gerard t Hooft

 Deterministic Quantum Mechanics: the Mathematical Equations Gerard t Hooft

He finds classical QM by means of fast variables instead of hidden variables.

 On one hand it seems like a great philosophical idea. The fulfillment of Einstein's idea that QM is a mathematical device, but not a theory of what is going on inside of stuff.

On the other hand, physics is about black holes and tons of other stuff in such away that at least in physics, it is not thought to be earth shaking or to matter much to what is going on today. 

There are tests of this theory as d' Hooft has noticed.

I think d Hooft's Deterministic Quantum Mechanics really is from String Theory where these fast vibrations can be seen.

Gemara in Avoda Zara 23 side b. Tosphot Rosh Hahanah 13 side a.

Tosphot Rosh Hahanah 13 side a. Gemara in Avoda Zara 23 side b. The Gemara in Avoda Zara asks why were Israel commanded to burn the Asherot? After all the land belonged to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one can make forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so doing idolatry was OK to them. For if it had been the trees from the previous generations that would have been enough to nullify them, not burn them. Tosphot brings up the point that even though the land belonged to Avraham, the Canaanites were not thieves. They had permission to plant trees. And the trees they planted were owned by them. But when the Gemara in Avoda Zara asks its question, it is referring to the asherot from the previous generations.  So let me try to figure out this Gemara in AZ [Avoda Zara]. I guess it must be talking about trees that were in the land of Canaan before it was given to Avraham. And then the land with the trees were given to Avraham. If so the question of the Gemara makes sense. The trees belonged to Avraham and so even if the Canaanites worshipped them, they could not make them forbidden. Then look at the answer: since Israel worshipped the Calf, therefore idolatry was OK to them. That does not answer the question since an ashera has to be planted as an ashera. It can not be a regular tree that was planted for fruit and then worshipped. [That is from the Gemara itself and brought in the Rambam. Avoda Zara perek 8.] So those trees would not have been forbidden even if idolatry was ok to Israel. So let's say the question refers to asherot that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then given to Avraham. So now they are asherot of a Israel which are required to be burned. That would be great if that was the answer of the Gemara, but the question nor the answer refer to them. So lets say the question of the gemara refers to trees [or even asherot] that were planted after the land was given to Avraham. Well, then they belong to the Canaanites outright and so the question of the Gemara makes not sense. They can cause to be forbidden that which belongs to them. Possible answer: the Gemara might be thinking since the land belongs to Avraham so the trees do also [that were planted after it was given to him]. Maybe the Gemara is thinking that regular trees also can be made forbidden by being worshipped? 

________________________________________________________________________

תוספות ראש השנה י''ג ע''א. גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. The גמרא in עבודה זרה  asks why were Israel commanded to burn the אשרות? After all the land belonged to Avraham and אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one can make forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so doing idolatry was OK to them. For if it had been the trees from the previous generations that would have been enough to nullify them, not burn them. תוספות brings up the point that even though the land belonged to Avraham, the Canaanites were not thieves. They had permission to plant trees. And the trees they planted were owned by them. But when the גמרא in עבודה זרה asks its question, it is referring to the אשרות from the previous generations.  So let me try to figure out this גמרא in עבודה זרה . I guess it must be talking about trees that were in the land of Canaan before it was given to Avraham. And then the land with the trees were given to Avraham. If so the question of the גמרא makes sense. The trees belonged to Avraham and so even if the Canaanites worshipped them, they could not make them forbidden. Then look at the answer: since Israel worshipped the Calf, therefore idolatry was OK to them. That does not answer the question since an אשרה has to be planted as an אשרה. It can not be a regular tree that was planted for fruit and then worshipped. That is from the גמרא itself and brought in the רמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח. So those trees would not have been forbidden even if idolatry was ok to Israel. So let's say the question refers to אשרות that were in the land at the time of Avraham, and then given to Avraham. So now they are אשרות of a Israel which are required to be burned. That would be great if that was the answer of the גמרא, but the answer does not refer to them. [Rather the answer is about trees that were forbidden because Israel served idols. Not to tree that were already asherot and then owned by avraham which already required burning] So lets say the question of the גמרא refers to trees or even אשרות that were planted after the land was given to Avraham. Well, then they belong to the Canaanites outright and so the question of the גמרא makes not sense. They can cause to be forbidden that which belongs to them. Possible answer: the גמרא might be thinking since the land belongs to Avraham so the trees do also [that were planted after it was given to him]. Maybe the גמרא is thinking that regular trees also can be made forbidden by being worshipped? 

תוספות ראש השנה י''ג ע''א. גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. הגמרא בעבודה זרה שואלת מדוע נצטוו ישראל לשרוף את האשרות? אחרי הכל, האדמות היו של אברהם ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו [אף אחד לא יכול לעשות אסור את מה שלא שייך לו]. תשובה: ישראל שימשה את עגל הזהב ולכן עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר מבחינתם. כי אם היו העצים מהדורות הקודמים היו מספיקים לבטלם, ולא לשרוף אותם. תוספות מעלה את הנקודה שלמרות שהאדמה הייתה של אברהם, הכנענים לא היו גנבים. היה להם אישור לשתול עצים. והעצים ששתלו היו בבעלותם. אך כאשר הגמרא בעבודה זרה שואלת את שאלתה, היא מתייחסת לאשרות מהדורות הקודמים. אז תן לי לנסות להבין את הגמרא הזו בעבודה זרה. אני מניח שזה בוודאי מדבר על עצים שהיו בארץ כנען לפני שניתן לאברהם. ואז האדמה עם העצים ניתנה לאברהם. אם כן שאלת הגמרא הגיונית. העצים היו של אברהם ולכן גם אם הכנענים סגדו להם, הם לא יכלו להפוך אותם לאסורים. ואז התבונן בתשובה: מכיוון שישראל סגדו לעגל, לכן עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר מבחינתם. זה לא עונה על השאלה מכיוון שיש לנטוע אשרה כאשרה. זה לא יכול להיות עץ רגיל שנשתל לפירות ואז סגדו אותו. זה מהגמרא עצמה והביא את הרמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח. כך שהעצים האלה לא היו אסורים גם אם עבודת אלילים הייתה בסדר לישראל. אז בואו נגיד השאלה מתייחסת לאשרות שהיו בארץ בזמן אברהם, ואז ניתנה לאברהם. אז עכשיו הם אשרות של ישראל ונדרשים להישרף. זה יהיה נהדר אם זו הייתה התשובה של הגמרא, אך התשובה אינה מתייחסת אליהם. [אדרבה התשובה היא על עצים שהיו אסורים מכיוון שישראל שימשה אלילים. לא לעץ שהיה כבר אשרה ואז היה בבעלותו של אברהם שכבר נדרש לשרוף]. אז נניח ששאלת הגמרא מתייחסת לעצים או אפילו אשרות שנטעו לאחר שהאדמה ניתנה לאברהם. ובכן, אז הם שייכים לכנענים על הסף ולכן שאלת הגמרא אינה הגיונית. הם יכולים לגרום לאסור את מה ששייך להם. תשובה אפשרית: הגמרא חושבת מכיוון שהאדמה שייכת לאברהם כך שגם העצים [שנטעו לאחר שניתנה לו]. אולי הגמרא חושבת שאפשר לאסור עצים רגילים על ידי סגידה?

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication

The signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication is generally ignored and because of that the Dark Side has taken over most of the religious world. [There are exceptions like the great Litvak yeshivas that are devoted to straight Torah, -- but outside of them I fear the religious world is dark and ugly-- and highly immoral.] 

[The problem is that  if you look at Kelley Ross's Kant Fries school you will see there is a hierarchy of areas of value. 

From that I think it is possible to see that the major test of a person  is to separate the good from the evil in whatever area of value his or her abilities lie in.] So the test of the religions area of value is if one is willing to accept the insight of the Gra. The signature of the Gra is what separates good from evil. But it is not  an area that is impossible to discern. Rather--reason can discern where is the truth. All one needs is a bit of common sense. I.e. reason has the ability to discern between good and evil. [As Huemer goes into in his paper on Ayn Rand.]

The great aspect of the Litvaks is the basic faithfulness to authentic Torah.

The great aspect of the Litvaks is the basic faithfulness to authentic Torah. Yet what is the idea of "kollel". To support people for learning Torah "lishma"--for its own sake and not for money. And in fact if people would be learning Torah for the sake of money or power that takes away any value in what they are doing. So it comes out we are supporting people that learn Torah not for the sake of money by giving them money.

[My impression of the religious world is that in fact it is all about money. But I might give to individuals that I sense that they are true Torah scholars and are learning Torah for its own sake.]    

 

between Hegel and Leonard Nelson.

 To me it seems the most important issue to straighten out is between Hegel and Leonard Nelson. That last is known as the Friesian school. It is completely ignored in the West, but was well known in the USSR.

The issues between these schools of thought are many about Kant's dinge an sich. Things in themselves isolated from all characteristics, [known by dialect, or by immediate non intuitive knowledge, or by straight reason according to the intuitionists like Huemer, G.E. Moore and Prichard.

It looks like the same sort of argument that existed between Plato and Aristotle until Plotinus made Neoplatonism philosophy based on Plato, but incorporated elements of Aristotle. 

[The issues between these two schools seem great to them, but the areas of agreement are much more that the strange areas where philosophy drifted into afterwards.  It seems that there is great value and insight in the Kant Friesian school but that should not be a reason to cancel Hegel or Prichard. What it looks like to me is  is the "soul" The deeper level where  intuitive [sense perception] and a priori knowledge originate. That is implied by Kelley Ross. I once wrote to him asking about this kind of question -that immediate non intuitive knowledge refers to a level of existence that is in the physical world and yet also refers to some level of reason--an end of the regress of reason. And his answer was that these two levels in their origin are one. That seems to refer to the soul. The "soul" seems  to be one area that philosophy has skipped in some sense except the Friesian school. 

But after one would come to this level, the questions still remain how to distinguish between area of good and evil- for every area of value seems to have  an opposite area of value that mimics the authentic area of value.

z13 music file

 z13 C Minor