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.