While in general it is not true that an ideal of an ideal is an ideal, this proof in Humphreys confuses me. Could someone please explain to me why the underlined sentences are true?

While in general it is not true that an ideal of an ideal is an ideal, this proof in Humphreys confuses me. Could someone please explain to me why the underlined sentences are true?

Copyright © 2021 JogjaFile Inc.
take an element $i$ in an ideal $I$ of $L_1.$ Notice that for any $l\in L_1, m \in L_1^\perp,$ $[l, m]=0$ (this is true for any two ideals with trivial intersection). Now, writing $l\in L = l_1 + m,$ we see that $[i, l] = [i, l_1] + [i, m] = [i, l_1] \in I.$