לרב שך על הרמב''ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה ג'

 ראש השנה דף י''ג ע''א ועבודה זרה דף כ''ג ע''ב. הגמרא בעבודה זרה שואלת מדוע נאסרו אשירות [העצים הנסגדים]? אחרי הכל איש אינו יכול לאסור את השייך למישהו אחר, והארץ הייתה בבעלות ישראל מימי אברהם. תשובה: מכיוון שישראל שימשה את עגל הזהב, זה נחשב כאילו הכנענים היו כאילו שליחיהם. הגמרא בראש השנה שואלת, "איך ישראל יכולה הייתה להביא את העומר כשנכנסו לארץ כנען? התבואה הייתה בבעלות גויים והפסוק אומר קצירכם ולא קציר עכו'’ם. לפי תוספות בראש השנה שלמרות שהאדמה שייכת לישראל, עדיין גויים שקונים אדמות בישראל הם הבעלים של תבואת אדמתם. אבל עדיין הגמרא בעבודה זרה היא בסדר לשאול איך גויים יכולים לאסור את מה שלא שייך להם? תירוץ: בגלל העצים שהיו שם מלפני תקופת אברהם. אני חושב שהדרך שבה תוספות מבינה את הסוגיא הזו קשה כי הגמרא בעבודה זרה אומרת שהסיבה שהאשירות אסורות בגלל שהכנענים כאילו הם פועלים על דעת ישראל לעשות עבודת אלילים לאחר שישראל שימשה את עגל הזהב. הגמרא אינה חוזרת מעמדתה המקורית שלפיה הארץ שייכת לישראל, ולכן כל מה שצומח עליה שייך לישראל. לדעת  של הרמב''ם  שני הגמרות האלה לא מסכימות זו עם זו. זה נקרא שזה נושאים חלוקות בש''ס.  לרב שך (הלכות עבודה זרה פרק ח' הלכה ג'),. הגמרא בעבודה זרה היא פשוטה. העצים אסורים מכיוון שישראל הייתה בסדר עם עבודת אלילים. לא כי לכנענים היה חלק כלשהו בהם. רב שך נותן סיבה קצרה לאמירת הרמב''ם, שהוא לא מזכיר “את קצירכם ולא קציר עכו''ם". אבל אני חושב שרב שך בוודאי חשב גם בקווים האלה. אחרת למה לא לומר כמו תוספות? והגמרא בראש השנה מחזיקה כמו רב אלעזר שיש קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות, שלמרות שהארץ ניתנה לאברהם, עדיין גוי יכול להחזיק שם אדמה וכשהוא עושה זאת, התבואה אינה חייבת בתרומה ומעשר, או העומר. והגמרא האחרת בעבודה זרה מחזיקה כמו זה שאין לעכו''ם קניין להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות גם כאשר גוי מחזיק בקרקע בישראל, התבואה עדיין חייבת בתרומות ומעשרות

I wanted to mention here the point of the argument between Tosphot and the Rambam [according to the way that Rav Shach is explaining the Rambam]. There are three points on the stalk that are the issue here. Who  owns the ground. Who owns the stalk. Who finishes the work on the stalk which is smoothing the stake of what. Tosphot sees a difference between the first two. Israel can own the ground  and the gentile the wheat, [as a renter.] To the Rambam (at least in terms of truma) there is no difference. If the gentile owns the ground in terms of truma then he owns the wheat and that is the point of Rav Elazar. He  can possess land such that the wheat is not obligated in trumah. To Raba he can not own the land in such a sense. Even if he owns land in Israel, that is like renting and the wheat is still obligated in truma.  

I recall that this very issue was a point of confusion for me in Bava Metzia chapter 8 where this same argument between R. Elazar and Raba comes up.

Rosh Hashanah pg 13a and Avoda Zara 23b.

 Rosh Hashanah pg 13a and Avoda Zara 23b. 

The Gemara in Avoda Zara asks why were the worshipped trees forbidden? After all, no one can forbid that which belongs to someone else, and the land was owned by Israel from the time of Abraham. Answer: since Israel served the Golden Calf, it is considered as the Canaanites were acting on their behalf. The Gemara in Rosh Hashana asks "How could Israel bring the Omer when they entered into the Land of Canaanan? The grain was owned by gentiles and the verse says your grain, not the grain of gentiles."

Tosphot the Rosh Hashana gemara is saying that even though the land belongs to Israel still gentiles that buy land in Israel own the grain of their land. But still the gemara in Avoda Zara is Ok to ask how can gentiles forbid that which does not belong to them   because of the trees that were there from before the time of Abraham.

So to Rav Shach, the Rambam comes out this way. The gemara in Avoda Zara is straight and simple. The trees are forbidden because Israel was OK with idolatry. Not because the Canaanites had any portion in them. [There were trees the Canaanites had a portion in --that is trees that they planted. But the trees that were growing at the time the land was given to Abraham those trees belong to Israel and the gentiles could not cause them to be forbidden. So then why was Israel commanded to destroy all the Asherot  those the gentiles had no portion in. To that question the Gemara gives an answer.] Rav Shach gives a  reason for saying the Rambam disagrees with Tosphot. The Rambam does not mention קצירכם ולא קציר עכו''ם. 

And the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah holds like R, Elazar that יש קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות that even though the land was given to Abraham, still a gentile can own land there and when he does, the produce is not obligated in Truma and Maasar --or as in our case the Omer. [And the other Gemara in Avoda Zara holds like Rabah that אין לעכו''ם קניין להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות Even when a gentile owns land in Israel, the produce is still obligated in Trumah and maasar

 The Ari [Rav Isaac Luria Ashkenazi] says that Emanation is pure Godliness, Briah (Creation) is mostly good, Yezira (Formation) half and half, and the Physical universe is mostly evil.

This explains a lot to me. We find people that start out sincere seekers of God and his will but fall. The reason I think is this. That every area of value has an opposite area of value. But the opposite can be no so much damaging as areas of value with more content. What I mean is that Logic is one area of value that is pure form and no content. The sentences: "A implies B. B implies C. If A is true, then C is true" are an example of the form is true but the content of each A B and C can be anything. zero content. Math has more content and is not just formal as Kurt Godel proved. Then up the scale you get to art and music with more content and less form. And the progression continues until you get to God--all content and no form. לא ראיתם כל תמונה ביום עמדכם בהר סיני "You did not see any form on the day you stood at Mount Sinai."

See this diagram which shows this [By Kelley Ross based on Leonard Nelson]

But every area of value has an opposite area. The Sitra Achra of that area. And since this world is mostly evil is easy to fall from holiness into the opposite area of value.

 x86 D minor 

 The attack on me by the Arabs last Sunday night was in fact serious. After stealing money they were dragging me away to a hidden to do something else while they were saying they are going to kill as many Jews as they can. So I figured that I was in a serious situation. I really do not know what distracted them for a second that gave me a chance to run away. At any rate, in a nearby parking lot there was a woman who I told what had happened and she suggested that she would call the police. So I was taken to the station to give as many details as I could remember and then to Binyamin near Jerusalem. The police wanted to talk to me about other issues. But God granted me grace in their eyes and let me go. But I had no money to return so they gave me money from a sort of fund box they have there for random purposes, and shared their sort of grilled pizza sandwiches with me. [I can not explain it. It seems to be an Israeli invention. Combination of sandwich and pizza.]  I got back Monday afternoon.

Rav Shach suggest that the Rambam has a different approach to the two gemaras in rosh hashanah 13 and and Avoda Zara 23 .

Rav Shach suggest that the Rambam has a different approach to the two gemaras in Rosh Hashanah 13 and and Avoda Zara 23 . The one in Avoda Zara we know he holds with since that is the source of the idea that if someone sets up a brick to worship and then someone else comes along and worships it then it is forbidden even though a person can not forbid that which belongs to someone else. Still in this case the first person has already revealed his acquiescence.

But the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah, the Rambam simply does not hold with. The reason is this. It says How could Israel bring the Omer after they arrived in the land of Canaan? Did not the grain grow in the possession of gentiles? And the Omer has to be brought from a harvest that belonged to a Israeli.

In fact the Rambam does not bring that law that the Omer has to be brought from a harvest that belonged to a Israeli. Rather he holds like the Gemara in Avoda Zara that the land belonged to Israel from the time of Abraham.

[But Rav Shach is not simply saying that the two gemaras disagree with each other סוגיות חלוקות. Rather that the Gemara is Rosh Hashana 13:a hold with the opinion יש קנין לנכרי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מתרומות ומעשרות and so even though everyone holds that the land of Canaan belongs to Israel from the time of Avraham still they should not have been able to bring the Omer since the grain that grew in the possession of a gentile would anyway not be obligated in tithes. But the law is אין קניין לנכרי להפקיע מידי תרומות ומעשרות and the law does not follow  the Gemara in Rosh Hashana.

The leaders of the religious world tend to come under the category of Torah scholars that are demons that Rav Nahman brings in the LeM in ch 12. [ch.s 28, 61, vol II ch.s 1, 8 and many other places that do not occur to me this minute ] There are exceptions but no fixed rule how to tell. Someone suggested to me that this is the reason so many do not show much interest in keeping the Torah since the Torah scholars that are demons give the Torah a disreputable reputation. 

In the LeM of Rav Nahman you do not really see any clear way of how to avoid the demonic Torah scholars except in the LeM ch 12 where the major difference is the "Shelo Lishma" aspect. [i,e, those that use Torah to gain power and money.]   

In any case you see Rav Nahman was very aware of the problem that the Sitra Achra has taken over much of the religious world. No wonder most people left it when they had the chance. 

So in a practical sense how does one come to learn authentic Torah? To me it seem the answer is clear--to go to any yeshiva based on the Gra. However in that very conversation it came up that many people in Israel have had problems  even in Litvak yeshivas. So while I base my recommendation of Litvak yeshivas based on my experiences in Litvak yeshiva in NY, it could be that in Israel things might be different. So maybe the best thing is to learn at home? 

[The Rambam brings the problem of using Torah to make money in his commentary of Pirkei Avot ch 4 on the Mishna "He that uses the crown passes away". [To find that commentary you have to go to chapter 4, because the same mishna of Hillel occurs in chapter 1 and there the Rambam does not write anything.] ]