z63 midi file e21 in midi
s7 [in midi]
I want to thank those looking at my blog for your interest in the music has given me motivation to continue to edit older pieces. But z63 is more recent. e21 is from around 2005 but needed editing
13.3.22
music file j1 and e21
These were written in Uman. I did not find any place where I could sit and learn Torah as I had desired, so I just found some corner in Uman where I could spend some time learning Torah with a learning partner [David Bronson who spent all of his time at the ziun of Rav Nahman], and then spend my time alone writing music. [That learning session with Bronson was only an hour a day, but I gained a tremendous amount by learning from him.]]
12.3.22
Even though I saw the greatness of Torah, it was clear that people that assumed the role for pay of religious teachers were what Rav Nachman said were Torah Scholars that are demons. LeM I:12, 28 [note 1] it was clear to me that there is a difference between those that learn Torah for its own sake and those that get a paid salary for being religious teachers. But I am in no way against kollel leit [people] that are learning Torah for its own sake--but to do so much accept a kollel check.
Rather the issue is the phony semicha ordination that is meant to defraud people. For real semicha ceased sometime during the period of the amoraim [sages of the Talmud]. Anything called ordination now automatically shows its bearer to be a fraud. [One should run from anyone bearing the title of a religious teacher, as one runs from cancer.]
So the issue you might say is that I do not agree with using Torah as a means of making money, but more accurately you should say I saw something off in those that do so. [I simply had no mental tools to understand the problem them in until I saw Rav Nahman's description of Torah scholars that are demons. Then it all started making sense.
[note 1] This issue is brought in other places in the LeM of Rav Nahman. LeM I:8, 61 II:1, 8 and that last one is the last Torah lesson Rav Nahman every said. So he saw this issue as important.]
n65 music file
n65 midi
This is another old file from long ago. I just decided to share old files with people since I am not writing anything new. I am what Rav Nahman calls in מוחין דקטנות [a state of a fallen mind.]
11.3.22
music file p120
p120 chs mp3 [chs in midi format] s100 [ThisS100 was actually never finished, until I was going through old files and noticed it.]
exodus 4 midi file [There is a story behind this piece exodus 4. I was taking the Greyhound bus back to California after being in Uman for Rosh Hashanah. We got off for a 30 min stop in Philadelphia. As soon as I got off the bus, this song came to me and I spent the whole 30 minutes writing it down, but I could not get on the bus until it was finished and in fact I just finished it and jumped on the bus just as it was pulling out. [And in fact I had no money if I had been stuck.]
Avoda zara23b Rosh Hashanah 13.a
Avoda zara23b Rosh Hashanah 13a
To Tosphot in Rosh Hashanah the Gemara in Avoda zara is referring to trees from ancient generations. So they would have been given to Avraham. But it seems like a round about type of way to get to this conclusion. The gemara starts out with "Why did Israel have to burn the asherot when they entered into Israel? After all a person can not cause to be forbidden that which does not belong t him, and the land of Israel was already given to Avraham. But in the conclusion the Gemara wants that the actual trees should be owned by Israel so that there will be an obligation of burning them. If they would in fact have been owned by idolaters, then nullification alone would have been enough.
Plus I am wondering about the problem that no tree can become an ashera if it was planted to e a regular tree since it is like a mountain.
I just got back from the sea where I was thinking about this--so I am cold and tired and not sure if there really is an issue here. It is just that the Gemara starts out with "Were not those trees in the possession of Israel, so how could the Canaanites make them forbidden.?" Well what bothers me is this is exactly what the Gemara wants. It wants the trees to be in the possession of Israel so that they become an idol of a Israel and thus be obligated in being burned. That would not be the case if those trees were idolatrous trees of the Canaanites in which case a simple act of nullification would have been enough.
Maybe the way to understand the Gemara is like this: Why did Israel have to burn the idolatrous trees when they entered into the land of Israel? After all the trees belonged to Israel since the land was given to Avraham. And no one can cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: the trees in fact belonged to Israel and they were forbidden because of the law that if a Israeli makes an idol and someone else comes and worships it, that idol or statue becomes forbidden --and in fact is forbidden as an idol of a Israeli which must be burnt. But because of the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah we know that not all the trees belonged to Israel because, the Canaanites in fact owned the trees that they planted. So the Gemara in Avoda Zara is only referring to the trees that were in the land at the time it was given to avraham.
==================================================================
עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב ראש השנה ע''א To תוספות in ראש השנה ע''א the גמרא in עבודה זרה is referring to trees from ancient generations. So they would have been given to אברהם . But it seems like a round about type of way to get to this conclusion. The גמרא starts out with "Why did Israel have to burn the אשירות when they entered into Israel? After all אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, and the land of Israel was already given toאברהם. But in the conclusion the גמרא wants that the actual trees should be owned by Israel so that there will be an obligation of burning them. If they would have been owned by idolaters, then nullification alone would have been enough.
I just got back from the sea where I was thinking about this--so I am cold and tired and not sure if there really is an issue here. It is just that the גמרא starts out with "Were not those trees in the possession of Israel, so how could the Canaanites make them forbidden.?" Well what bothers me is this is exactly what the גמרא wants. It wants the trees to be in the possession of Israel so that they become an idol of a Israel and thus be obligated in being burned. That would not be the case if those trees were idolatrous trees of the Canaanites in which case a simple act of nullification would have been enough.
Maybe the way to understand the גמרא is like this: Why did Israel have to burn the אשירות when they entered into the land of Israel? After all the trees belonged to Israel since the land was given to אברהם. And no one can cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: the trees in fact belonged to Israel and they were forbidden because of the law that if a Israeli makes an idol and someone else comes and worships it, that idol or statue becomes forbidden , and in fact is forbidden as an idol of a Israeli which must be burnt. But because of the גמרא in ראש השנה we know that not all the trees belonged to Israel because, the Canaanites in fact owned the trees that they planted. So the גמרא in עבודה זרה is only referring to the trees that were in the land at the time it was given to אברהם
Plus I am wondering about the problem that no tree can become an אשירה if it was planted to be a regular tree since it is like a mountain.
עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב ראש השנה ע''א לתוספות בראש השנה ע''א הגמרא בעבודה זרה מתייחסת לעצים מדורות קדומים. אז הם היו ניתנים לאברהם. אבל זה נראה כמו דרך סביבתית להגיע למסקנה הזו. הגמרא מתחילה ב"למה היה צריך ישראל לשרוף את האשירות כשנכנסו לישראל? הרי אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, וארץ ישראל כבר ניתנה לאברהם?" אבל לסיכום, הגמרא רוצה שהעצים בפועל צריכים להיות בבעלות ישראל כדי שיהיה חיוב בשריפתם, אילו היו בבעלותם של עובדי אלילים, אזי היה די בביטול לבדו. בנוסף אני תוהה לגבי הבעיה ששום עץ לא יכול להפוך לאשירה אם הוא היה נטוע כדי להיות עץ רגיל מכיוון שהוא כמו הר.
בדיוק חזרתי מהים שבו חשבתי על זה - אז אני קר ועייף ולא בטוח אם באמת יש כאן בעיה. רק שהגמרא מתחילה ב"האם לא היו העצים הללו ברשות ישראל, אז איך יכלו הכנענים לאסור אותם?" ובכן מה שמפריע לי זה בדיוק מה שהגמרא רוצה. היא רוצה שהעצים יהיו ברשות ישראל כדי שיהפכו לאליל של ישראל ובכך יחויבו בשריפתם. זה לא היה המקרה אילו העצים הללו היו עצי אלילים של הכנענים ובמקרה זה היה די בפעולת ביטול פשוטה.
אולי הדרך להבין את הגמרא היא כזו: מדוע נאלצו ישראל לשרוף את האשירות כשנכנסו לארץ ישראל? הרי כל העצים היו שייכים לישראל מאז ניתנה הארץ לאברהם. ואיש אינו יכול לגרום לאסור את אשר אינו שייך לו. תשובה: העצים היו שייכים למעשה לישראל והם נאסרו בגלל ההלכה שאם ישראלי עושה פסל ובא מישהו אחר ועובד לו, אותו האליל או הפסל הופך לאסור, ולמעשה אסור כאליל של ישראלי. שחייב להישרף. אבל בגלל הגמרא בראש השנה אנחנו יודעים שלא כל העצים היו שייכים לישראל כי הכנענים היו בעלי העצים שהם נטעו. אז הגמרא בעבודה זרה מתייחסת רק לעצים שהיו בארץ בזמן שהיא ניתנה לאברהם
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)