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?