Rav Shach's explanation of the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b and Rosh Hashanah 13a.

 I was at the sea again and pondering Rav Shach's explanation of the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b and Rosh Hashanah 13a. In short: the land of Israel belongs to Abraham the Patriarch but trees that the Canaanites plant belong to them. So the Gemara asks why burn the asherot (trees that were worshipped)?[If they would have been idols of a gentile, the gentile could simply verbally nullify them and knock some piece off.] Tosphot says because of the trees from previous generations. [Rav Shach explains that means that were planted before Abraham.] 

What I was thinking was this. Rav Shach explains the trees that had to be burned were not worshipped at first. So when the land was given to Abraham the trees came along. Then Israel [the nation of Israel] worshipped the Golden Calf and so we see idolatry was okay to the and the trees became idols of Israel that needed to be burned.

What I asked was the obvious question that a tree that was planted regularly, not in order to be worshipped does not become an ashera [idol worshipped tree] since it is attached to the ground.

Today I was wondering if there could be  away this question might be answered. Perhaps I thought the trees were  in fact planted to be worshipped, and then the land was given to Abraham along with those trees and then the Golden Calf was worshipped and then they become idols of a Israeli. But I can not see how this could make sense. If the land was given to Abraham along with those trees then they already belonged to him before the Golden Calf. Then they needed burning. If Abraham would have refused to acquire idolatrous trees then what changed when the Golden Calf was worshipped? Suddenly an act of acquisition occurred? Obviously not.

So I am still stuck in trying to figure this subject out.

[Just for a reminder to people, I bring here the subject in short. Gemara Avoda Zara23b: why was Israel commanded to burn the Asherot idol trees? Did not the land belong to them? And אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one an cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so idolatry was okay to them. 

Gemara Rosh Hashana 13a. How could Israel bring the Omer first stalk of grain when they came into the Land Of Canaan? That grain belonged to the Canaanites! Tosphot says by way of explanation: the land was of Israel and the grain was of the Canaanites. Then Tosphot asks then what were they asking in Avoda Zara 23b? Answer: Because of the trees from the previous generations.]

_______________________________________________________________________

 I was pondering של רב שך explanation of the גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב וראש השנה י''ג ע''א.  In short: the land of Israel belongs to Abraham the Patriarch but trees that the Canaanites plant belong to them. So the גמרא עבודה זרה  asks why burn the אשירות  (trees that were worshipped)? [If they would have been idols of a עכו''ם, the עכו''ם could simply verbally nullify them and knock some piece off.] תוספות says because of the trees from previous generations. רב שך explains that means that were planted before Abraham. What I was thinking was this. רב שך explains the trees that had to be burned were not worshipped at first. So when the land was given to Abraham the trees came along. Then Israel [the nation of Israel] worshipped the Golden Calf and so we see idolatry was okay to the and the trees became idols of Israel that needed to be burned. What I asked was the obvious question that a tree that was planted regularly, not in order to be worshipped does not become an אשירה [idol worshipped tree] since it is attached to the ground. Today I was wondering if there could be a way this question might be answered. Perhaps I thought the trees were  in fact planted to be worshipped, and then the land was given to Abraham along with those trees and then the Golden Calf was worshipped and then they become idols of a Israeli. But I can not see how this could make sense. If the land was given to Abraham along with those trees then they already belonged to him before the Golden Calf. Then they needed burning. If Abraham would have refused to acquire idolatrous trees then what changed when the Golden Calf was worshipped? Suddenly an act of acquisition occurred? Obviously not.

הייתי מהרהר בהסבר של רב שך בגמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב וראש השנה י''ג ע''א. בקיצור: ארץ ישראל שייכת לאברהם  אבל עצים שהכנענים שתלו שייכים להם. אז הגמרא עבודה זרה שואלת למה לשרוף את האשירות (עצים שסגדו להם)? [אם הם היו אלילים של עכו''ם, יכלו העכו''ם פשוט לבטל אותם.] תוספות אומר בגלל העצים מהדורות הקודמים. רב שך מסביר שפירושו שנטעו לפני אברהם. מה שחשבתי זה זה. רב שך מסביר את העצים שהיה צריך לשרוף לא עבדו בהתחלה. אז כשהארץ ניתנה לאברהם, נרכשו גם העצים. ואז ישראל סגדו לעגל הזהב ולכן אנו רואים שעבודת האלילים הייתה בסדר אצלם והעצים הפכו לאלילים של ישראל שהיו צריכים להישרף. מה ששאלתי היא השאלה המתבקשת שעץ שנשתל סתם, שלא על מנת לעבוד לא הופך לאשרה מאחר שהוא מחובר לאדמה. היום תהיתי אם יש דרך לענות על השאלה הזו. אולי חשבתי שהעצים בעצם נטועים כדי לעבוד, ואז הארץ ניתנה לאברהם יחד עם העצים האלה ואז סגדו לעגל הזהב ואז הם הופכים לאלילים של ישראלי. אבל אני לא יכול לראות איך זה יכול להיות הגיוני. אם הארץ ניתנה לאברהם יחד עם העצים האלה אז הם כבר היו שייכים לו לפני עגל הזהב. ואז הם היו צריכים שריפה. אם אברהם היה מסרב לרכוש עצי אלילים, אז מה השתנה כאשר סגדו לעגל הזהב? פתאום התרחש מעשה רכישה? ברור שלא

 Since too much stuff is falsely called Torah it occurs to me to make a short list of what counts as authentic Torah. [As the Rambam wrote Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the Written Law so there is no adding or subtracting from the Oral Law. The Rambam goes into this in his letters. 

So the list is the two Talmuds and the Halachic midrashim and agadic midrashim. 

Mechilta, Sifra, Sifrei, Midrash Raba, Midrash Tanhuma, Eliyahu Raba, Eliyahu Zutra, Tosephta, the shor mesechtot printed in the end of the Villna Shas.

But I would have to include in the commandment to learn Torah the commentaries, though not actually "Torah" still they are a part of "learning Torah."

But even in later commentaries, there is some point where things cease to be Torah and start to be Fraud.[Of course that was the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.]

messiah son of joseph

 

The whole subject messiah son of joseph does not seem important to me. That is to say: Torah is about good character. 

But for information: the idea of messiah son of joseph can best be seen in the book of the Gra called "Kol HaTor" קול התור

At any rate, Torah is not a cult of personality. It is devotion to God. No one else. See tehilim 18 verse 2.You see there that King David  was putting his hopes in God, not people.

 The Gra explained that every word of Torah is worth as much as all the other commandments put together. He brings this from the Yerushalmi.The Yerushalmi says the mishna תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם refers to every word of Torah.

[You can ask if the same idea applies to Mathematics and Physics according to the opinions that Math and Physics are included in the commandment to learn Torah. See Rambam laws of Learning Torah where he divides the learning time into the Oral Written Law and Gemara and adds the things called Pardes are included in Gemara. We see  in the beginning of the Mishna Torah that Pardes refers to the subjects of Physics and Metaphysics. And in the Guide he says so openly in the introduction

But this group of Rishonim [Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the Doctors, Rambam etc] include Metaphysics and I do not know what that would mean for today. In their time this meant Plato Aristotle Plotinus. Al Kindi, and Ibn Rushd. But today? I guess this would include Kant, Fries, Hegel, Leonard Nelson. 

[The main thing in Torah and Metaphysics is to know what to exclude. In philosophy I would exclude everything after Kant, Fries and Hegel. In Torah I would exclude everything after the end of the Talmudic period --as the Gemara says itself "Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of the time when one can decide a halacha" רבינא ורב אשי סןף הוראה

So it is not a surprise to me when one midrash contradicts another.

Someone asked me about difficult issues in faith issues. You might have noticed these yourself. My answer to this has been the "dinge an sich [Things in themselves]. That means this: There are areas where reason can venture into, even without empirical evidence.  These are areas of possible experience. [For example Math.]But there are also areas where reason tries to venture into that it has no access to. and when it tries to get in, it comes up with self contradictions. [e.g. Is the universe infinite? If yes how can any length not have an end? And if it is finite then what limits it?] So that is my general approach to spiritual issues. They are all dinge an sich, and thus outside the realm of human or even pure reason. So it is not a surprise to me when one midrash contradicts another. I say that is to be expected. And if there would not be contradictions, that in itself would be a problem, Trying to insert Reason into spirit is a mistake, and thinking about these things makes people insane.

 Reason integrated with Faith --Athens and Jerusalem was a great achievement of the Middle Ages.

So you can see how faith without philosophy leads to absurd results. But philosophy without faith also tends to lunacy.

So the question is how to get the right balance. I think that Kant, Kelley Ross [based on the Jacob Fries and Leonard Nelson] and Hegel are the best when it comes to philosophy.

That is to say: people that came before Kant all seem to have some sort of difficulties with either pure reason or empirical evidence.  Spinoza and Leibniz were great, so were John Locke and Hume. But each system has problems. To me it seems the best solutions are in Kant, Leonard Nelson and Hegel.

But philosophy after these three took a nose dive. To show this I recommend Robert Hanna's books showing how Analytic Philosophy misunderstood Kant and went off into directions not very well thought out. As for Continental philosophy the same goes. As John Searle puts it : "Twentieth century philosophy is clearly false". 

The point of philosophy is to see the big picture. What is it all about? But the idea that Natural Science needs philosophy is not so absurd as it sounds. After all there are tons of pseudo sciences nowadays tha masquerade as legitimate science. E.g. Psychology.  It is by definition pseudo science since there is no conceivable observation that could falsify it. Climate science is another doozy.  

 In the religious world, it is thought that if you can change the words, then you can change the reality. How do you see this? Well, one example is idolatry. If you can call worshipping dead people "going to kivrei tzadikim (graves of  tzadikim) that somehow changes the reality.

Magic to force God to do your will, you no longer call it "magic" rather "yichudim" unifications. And that is somehow supposed to change the reality.

But this is not confined to the religious. In California you call prisons "houses of corrections." They are not houses of corrections. Nobody gets corrected. They get imprisoned. And usually come out much worse. So perhaps we should call them houses that take mild criminals and turn them into hardened criminals.