x85 music file

 x85  E flat major mp3

 I was attacked by Arabs and taken to the local police station to make a statement, and then to the police station in Binyamin for other reasons. Then after the interrogation was over, I was thinking about the Gemara in Avoda Zara page 23 that serves as the source for the previous blog entry [about the Israeli setting up a brick to worship, and then comes a gentile and worships it--in which case the brick is forbidden to be used.]

The Gemara says this: It says in the verse: "their worshipped trees you should burn". [That refers to when the children if Israel entered into the Land of Canaan.] The Gemara asks, 'but a person can not make forbidden that which belongs to another'. The Gemara answers, since Israel served the Golden Calf that shows idolatry is OK to them, so when the Canaanites were worshipping their trees, that is just doing what Israel sent them to do.

My question is this: What about trees they planted in order to be worshiped trees (i.e. tree planted by the Canaanites in order to worship them )? That is the regular case of "ashera" and so when the Torah says to burn those trees, why can it not be talking about the most regular simple case of worshipped trees that in fact belong to the Canaanites? [Not trees that were planted for other reasons or which grow by themselves.]

הגמרא אומרת: הפסוק אומר: "אשירהם תשרפו אש". [הכוונה היא, מתי ישראל נכנס לארץ כנען.] הגמרא שואלת אך אדם אינו יכול לאסור את מה ששייך לאחר. הגמרא עונה מאז שישראל שימשה את עגל הזהב זה מראה שעבודת אלילים זה בסדר מבחינתם, אז כשהכנענים עבדו לעצים שלהם זה מה שישראל שלח להם לעשות

השאלה שלי היא זו: מה עם עצים שהכנענים נטעו על מנת שיעבדו עצים? זהו המקרה הרגיל של "אשרה" ולכן כאשר התורה אומרת לשרוף את העצים האלה מדוע היא לא יכולה לדבר על המקרה הפשוט ביותר של עצים סגודים השייכים למעשה לכנענים? [לא עצים שנשתלו מסיבות אחרות או שגדלים מעצמם

[The police offered to me one of their sandwiches which costs them 26 shekels [around 8 dollars] which was kind of like a combination of pizza doubled over with vegetables and coffee.  I had no money to return home, so the police gave me money from a sort of general purpose collection box they keep there in the station. I still could not get home, until some soldier bought me a ticket to the central bus station in Jerusalem. There is a lot more interesting stuff but that is enough of my personal affairs for now. 

I was attacked by Arabs and then the police were informed that the police at Binyamin wanted me under arrest. I was very afraid this was going to be a many year prison sentence, and prayed hard the whole way, But God turned the heart of the police officer towards me and let me go. 

 In terms of my previous blog entry I just wanted to add that if the gentile would bow down to the brick without the Israeli having set it up to be served, the brick would not be forbidden to derive benefit from (since the gentile does not own the brick). So it is just the setting it up by the Israeli which makes it prepared to receive idolatrous worship which makes it forbidden after the worship was done. So when the Rambam says "the setting it up is an act" he means it causes a "halut" [state of being]. There is no question about what the law is, but rather what does the  Rambam mean by words "setting up the brick is an act''.

[The brick is just an example. Worship of any physical object would be the same thing. And worship means bowing, burning incense, bringing close to an altar, slaughter of an animal before it, or doing a kind of service that is specified for that idol. And example would be throwing a stone at Markulit which is its service. And the physical object does not have to be a statue. It would be anything except for the One First Cause. This I hope might bring clarity to why I say that the religious world is really doing idolatry, and why the Gra signed the letter of excommunication.] [The reason for the Gra might not have been clear at the time, but nowadays it is crystal clear]

I want to mention that Rav Shach answers the obvious question n the Rambam by putting setting up the object is an act by the egg.

רמב''ם בהלכות עבודת כוכבים פרק 8. חוק 1 Rambam Laws of Idolatry chapter 8. law 1

רב שך שואל על חוק מסוים ברמב''ם. אחד שם לבנה כדי לעבוד אותה ואז מגיע עכו''ם שסוגד לו, אסור להפיק ממנו תועלת מכיוון שההקמה שלו היא מעשה. יש לו תשובה מסוימת לכך, אבל עלתה לי תשובה אחרת. הרמב''ם קובע על פי חוק רב הונא כי לא ניתן להפוך לאובייקט של מישהו אחר אסור. אתה רואה זאת בחוק, אם אחד שוחט חיה של מישהו אחר לאלילים, מותר להרוויח שימוש ממנה. עכשיו יש את העובדה שפעולה על האובייקט עושה שהדבר אסור. אבל זה לא המקרה כאן. הגוי השתחווה לחפץ של מישהו אחר. והקמת האובייקט כשלעצמה אינה הופכת אותו לאסור. זה פשוט גורם להיות מוכן להיות סוגדים. כך שזה שיחד אותה עם מעשה הגוי הופך את זה לאסור וזה מה שהרמב"ם מתכוון להקמתו הוא מעשה. זו הקמתו יחד עם פולחן העכו''ם שהופך אותו לאסור. כלומר, שזה מעשה שלם. הרעיון כאן הוא שאופן השימוש במילה "מעשה" שונה מהרעיון הפשוט של פולחן. לדוגמא בהלכות עבודת כוכבים פרק 8. חוק 1 אנו רואים שאפילו פולחן על בעל חי אינו גורם לכך שאסור להשתמש בו. רק "מעשה" כמו שחיטת הבעל חי לאליל או החלפתו לאליל הופך אותו לאסור. זה לא אותו דבר כמו מה שגורם לאסור להביא חיה כקרבן במקדש, ובמקרה זה די בפולחן פשוט כדי לאסור את החיה. בכל מקרה אנו רואים את אופן השימוש במילת "מעשה" בהקשר זה הוא מאוד ספציפי. וככה הרמב"ם משתמש במילה בפרק ח' הלכה ג' שם הוא כותב, "אחד שם לבנה כדי לעבוד אותה ואז בא עכו''ם שסוגד לו, אסור להפיק ממנו תועלת כי הקמתו הוא 'מעשה'". אז הוא לא יכול להתכוון למעשה כאן אומר שהחפץ אסור. במקום זאת הפעולה של הקמתה בקשר עם מישהו אחר שמגיע ומתפלל ללבנה היא זו שהופכת אותה לאסורה. אז מה קורה אם מקימים לבנה כדי לעבוד אותה אך עדיין לא סגדו לה? זה מה שהרמב''ם מתכוון אליו כאן. אנו יודעים שאם אחד סוגד לבעל חי, אפילו אם הוא סוגד לחיה שלו, לא נעשה איסור להשתמש בבעל החי מכיוון שזה לא מעשה ידי אדם. אבל מה עם לבנה? נראה שזה המקרה שהרמב''ם מתכוון אליו. העובדה שאם ההקמה לא הייתה הופכת אותה לאסורה. אבל אם מישהו אחר בא סוגד אליה, בקשר להקמתו זה יהפוך את זו לאסורה. כל זה בא מגמרא בה נשאלת השאלה אם מקימים ביצה לסגוד לה ואז סוגדים לה אם אסור להשתמש בלבנה זו [ע''ז דף מ''ו ע''א] [חזקיה שאל אם זקיפתה היא מעשה]. ואז הגמרא מציינת שהתשובה ברורה מאליה, אלא שהשאלה הייתה אם הוא פשוט הקים את הלבנה ומישהו אחר סגד לה. האופן שבו הרמב''ם מסתכל על השאלה נראה קשור לוויכוח אחר אם שוחטים חיה של מישהו אחר לאליל אם אסור להשתמש בחיה זו. שם הרמב''ם סבור כדעה שאינה אסורה להפיק תועלת. אלא הנה העובדה שהלבנה היא מעשה האדם עשתה השינוי.

 רב שך asks about a certain law in the רמב''ם. One puts up a brick to worship it and then comes a gentile who worships it, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it because the setting it up is  an act. He has a certain answer for this, but it occurred to me a different answer. The רמב''ם holds by the law of רב הונא that one can not make an object of someone else forbidden. You see this in the law, if one slaughters an animal  of someone else to idols, the animal is not forbidden to gain use from. Now there is the fact that an act on one's an object that is man made makes it forbidden. But that is not the case here. The gentile bowed to an object of someone else. And the setting up of the object in itself does not make it forbidden. It just makes to prepared to be worshiped. So that together with the act of the gentile makes it forbidden and that is what the Rambam means the setting it up is an מעשה. That is the setting it up along with the worship of the gentile makes it forbidden. That is, that that is a whole act. The idea here is that the way the word "act" is used is different from the simple idea of worship. For example in Laws of Idolatry chapter 8. law 1, we see that even worship of an animal does not make it forbidden to be used. Only an "act" like slaughtering it for an idol or exchanging it for an idol makes it forbidden. This is not the same thing as what makes an animal forbidden to be brought as a sacrifice in the temple in which case simple worship --bowing down--is enough to make the animal forbidden. At any rate we see the way act is used in this context is very specific. And that is the way the Rambam uses the word in chapter 8 law 3 where he writes, "One puts up a brick to worship it and then comes a gentile who worships it, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it because the setting it up is  an 'act'". So he can not mean the act here means the object is forbidden. Rather the act of setting it up in connection with someone else coming and worshipping the brick is what makes it forbidden.]

So what happens if one sets up a brick to worship it but has not yet worshipped it? That is what i think is what the Rambam is addressing here. We know that even one does that with an animal or even if he worships his own animal that animal does not become forbidden to be used since it is not man made. But what about a brick? This seems to be the case the רמב''ם is addressing. The fact if setting it up would not make it forbidden. But if someone else comes and bows down to it, that in connection with his setting it up would make it forbidden. This all come from a גמרא where the question is asked if one sets up a brick to worship and then worships it if that brick is forbidden to be used. Then the גמרא points out that the answer is obvious, but rather the question was if he just set up the brick and someone else worshipped it. The way the רמב''ם looks at the question seems related to a different argument if one slaughters an animal of someone else to an idol if that animal is forbidden to be used. There the רמב''ם holds like the opinion it is not forbidden to derive benefit from. So here the fact that the brick is man made changes that.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

Rav Shach asks about a certain law in the Rambam. [Laws of Idolatry chapter 8. law 3] "One puts up a brick to worship it, and then comes a gentile who worships it, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it because the setting it up is  an "act".

He has a certain answer for this but it occurred to me a different answer. The Rambam holds by the law of Rav Huna that one can not make an object of someone else forbidden. [You see this in the law, if one slaughters an animal  of someone else to idols, the animal is not forbidden to gain use from.]

Now there is the fact that an act on one's an object that is man made makes it forbidden. But that is not the case here. The gentile bowed to an object of someone else. And the setting up of the object in itself does not make it forbidden. It just makes to prepared to be worshiped. So that together with the act of the gentile makes it forbidden and that is what the Rambam means the setting it up is an "act". That is the setting it up along with the worship of the gentile makes it forbidden. That is, that that is a whole act.

[The idea here is that the way the word "act" is used is different from the simple idea of worship. For example in Laws of Idolatry chapter 8. law 1, we see that even worship of an animal does not make it forbidden to be used. Only an "act" like slaughtering it for an idol or exchanging it for an idol makes it forbidden. This is not the same thing as what makes an animal forbidden to be brought as a sacrifice in the temple in which case simple worship is enough to make the animal forbidden. At any rate we see the way act is used in this context is very specific. And that is the way the Rambam uses the word in chapter 8 law 3 where he writes, "One puts up a brick to worship it and then comes a gentile who worships it, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it because the setting it up is  an 'act'". So he can not mean the act here means the object is forbidden. Rather the act of setting it up in connection with someone else coming and worshipping the brick is what makes it forbidden.]

So what happens if one sets up a brick to worship it but has not yet worshipped it? That is what i think is what the Rambam is addressing here. We know that even one does that with an animal or even if he worships his own animal that animal does not become forbidden to be used since it is not man made. But what about a brick? This seems to be the case the Rambam is addressing. The fact if setting it up would not make it forbidden. But if someone else comes and bows down to it, that in connection with his setting it up would make it forbidden.

[This all come from a Gemara where the question is asked if one sets up a brick to worship and then worships it if that brick is forbidden to be used. Then the Gemara points out that the answer is obvious, but rather the question was if he just set up teh brink and someone else worshipped it. The way the Rambam looks at the question seems related to a different argument if one slaughters an animal of someone else to an idol if that animal is forbidden to be used. There the Rambam holds like the opinion it is not forbidden to derive benefit from. So here the fact that the brick is man made changes that.]

The great thing about Litvak yeshivas is that they learn and teach authentic Torah.

 I have thought about an idea of making a Litvak yeshiva in every city. A yeshiva in the path of the Gra and Rav Shach would give people  a great idea of the essence of Torah. However the difficulty is that not every Litvak yeshiva is Ponovitch or the Mir. Some are good and some not so good.

A different idea occurred to me about the ancient custom to learn Mishna between the afternoon prayer an the evening prayer. This in fact seems like a great idea.

The great thing about Litvak yeshivas is that they learn and teach authentic Torah. 

 x84 A major mp3 file

 I wanted to mention that even though you have the space foam [little black holes] which are sort of like the Dirac sea of negative particles that fill space, still space is not quantized. There can not be any sudden jumps because of Max Born's four postulates. It has to be that way because otherwise there would be infinite momentum at the jump-off point. [However I am wondering if perhaps a Lipschitz function might fill the needs of the Max Born postulates. It would have a limited derivative even though space would not be continuous. And that might be helpful for the space foam which  seem to mean that space would not be continuous, [even if they are connected by worm holes as mentioned by Alsaleh]] [The original idea of worm holes connecting the quantum foam came from a paper  by Robert Penna]

I also wanted to mention something that was noted by Kelley Ross. That the uncertainty principle does not just mean a limit on what one can know. It requires that things do not have both classical values of position and momentum at the same time because otherwise the electrons would fall into the nucleus. And there are lots of hydrogen atoms in the universe that are not observed.[So it is not just Bell's inequality which shows that things do not have classical values until they interact with something big. Even the very existence of hydrogen atoms shows that.]