Hasn’t the Rabbi argued in a number of places that if a person does not believe, his commandments and transgressions have no meaning? How is his case different from that of a secular person?

I am distinctly Jewish, probably by lineage too. It’s in my blood. But I’m not rationally convinced that I am obligated / need to observe those same commandments that other Jews from my people even gave their lives for. So I don’t see myself as coerced; rather, I see you as the one who is compelled to observe those commandments.

No. – Hello,

Lying in bed for a prolonged period can cause pressure sores, so it’s recommended to get up a little from time to time too 🙂

With wishes for a good night, Sol Akokosh-Mar

Or,
Indeed, his commandments and transgressions have no meaning, but he is obligated in all of them. It is just that he is unable to observe them. The practical difference is that there is value in bringing him back to repentance so that he will understand his obligation.

A.
That already belongs to the realm of the harmful influence of sentimentality on reading comprehension. It seems to me that the discussion is over.

A., why are you so intent on seeking out Rabbi Michi?
If you convince him that you’re right, will your mind be at ease?
Are you basically looking for approval for bed-based pleasure?

Elhanan.

I care about why I develop a discussion about things. And may whoever is right among all of us win.

The game is rigged. You lost a long time ago

You tickle me like the tiniest ant crawling on my leg.

You’ve got ants in bed?

A question for the Rabbi regarding the original answer here. You wrote: “If you’re merely not convinced that they must be observed, then you are not even considered coerced.” Why isn’t he considered coerced here as well?

Someone who is coerced is a person who is truly convinced that there is no religious value (religious obligation) in observing the commandments (truly convinced there is no such value—that is, he holds that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not reveal Himself and did not give the Torah and commandments, or he holds that He did give them but they are not binding today), and this is what is called being coerced in matters of belief according to the Radbaz. A person cannot be punished for transgressions if he truly does not think these are transgressions.
By contrast, a person who has doubts about observing the commandments and does not observe them simply because he isn’t sure about it and doesn’t really have the strength—he is not coerced. He is aware that there is a probability that observing the commandments is indeed obligatory, and nevertheless he chooses not to observe them. He indeed can be judged.

Indeed.

I don’t think there is any person who is 100 percent convinced in either direction. Even a religious person has doubts about revelation or the binding nature of the commandments, and on the other hand even a non-believer is not 100 percent sure that there isn’t some slight chance that maybe he is mistaken.

From this it follows that there is no situation in which a person would be considered coerced. Or perhaps there needs to be some threshold from which a person is considered coerced.

The question, in my opinion, is how a person presents things.
If a person says he investigated and reached the conclusion that Judaism is not true, then it doesn’t matter how many commandments he observes—if he is an atheist, then he is an atheist.
If a person says, listen, I’m not sure I need to observe the commandments, and in any case I don’t really feel like it, so I’m passing—that is not coercion in matters of belief (that is, in my humble opinion it is more reasonable to assume that a person would be punished for a certain laziness or contempt than for non-belief).

By the way, at least declaratively there are many rabbis, like Eliyahu Rahamim Zini and Rabbi Cherki, who emphasize that the concept of faith in Judaism is absolute certainty without any doubts whatsoever from their perspective, and if you tell them that you live with doubtful faith they will tell you that you believe for the wrong reasons)—and of course there are also atheists who say they know with certainty that there is no first cause or creator.

All of you are coerced and amusing. The writers of Scripture mocked everyone. It is very possible that the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is altogether a satirical work. But as Einstein said: there is no end to human stupidity.

Therefore, better that he stay in bed…

Elhanan, this question was directed specifically to Michi. Your opinion doesn’t interest me. And by the way, from your comment here it’s obvious that you’re just some random ordinary guy.

No.
I see that your discussion is only about whether there is a reason to get out of bed or whether one can stay in it, but why aren’t you asking whether there is any reason at all to remain in the world? After all, if there is no World to Come and no God, there is only man and his life, and if you do not find purpose in them, why not end them?
Is this your purpose—to lie down and read books until you drop dead alone? [I am not asking sarcastically but seriously].

You are not careful with your question, and I use small words. You can address this to some “so-and-so” in the third person and not to me, and then it would come out more proper. Next time pay attention to the words that come out of you, so that you don’t again come off as a complete fool. As for “God,” that is an unresolved issue for a skeptic like me. As for any World to Come? There is no real proof. As for purpose? That’s what a person does with his life. And regarding the body of the question, your world is narrow, and not even like the world of an ant. Even if someone finds no purpose, that is not grounds for what you wrote. A stupid, fate-struck person falls into that.

What is my purpose? Whatever I do with my life. Right now I feel like lying down and reading books. Drop dead—not. Become wiser—yes.

With God’s help, 3 Iyar 5780

To A. – Hello,

The problem with reading books in bed is the concern that one might fall asleep in the middle. In an analytical book presenting a deep and complex line of thought, falling asleep in the middle leaves a person halfway through the argument, unable to reach the final conclusion, and thereby his chances of arriving at a true clarification of the issue are slim.

And the joke is well known about someone who became an apikoros because of cholent. Every Sabbath after the cholent he would go up to bed with Abarbanel’s commentary on the Torah, whose way is to ask dozens of questions on every weekly portion and then propose an approach that resolves all the questions. But under the influence of the cholent, the reader would fall asleep in the middle of the questions and never got to the answers 🙂

Therefore it seems, in my humble opinion, that complex topics should be read and analyzed with settled concentration, sitting down and in full alertness. But sleep too has benefit even for them: before sleeping one sums up the topic one is studying, and not infrequently after refreshing sleep new ideas and insights arise for a person regarding the issue he had delved into and struggled with before going to sleep.

With blessings, Guy Shlopan

Guy Shlopan, hello to you too. I don’t fall asleep in bed when I’m reading analytical material, because I’m not tired. It’s simply more comfortable for me. When I’m tired, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s sitting up or in bed. I bless you with the blessing: “Whoever eats cholent is obligated to bed.”