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.]