About prayer

I can't refine the first question beyond the fact that in laws where there is room for deviation, isn't intervention possible there?

Assuming he hears us

There are no such laws. See Science of Freedom Chapter 8-9

Oofhhh

Is there still a point in saying them? Is there a point in praying while a person is undergoing medical treatment or a woman is trying to get pregnant, which is not dependent on him/her, but on the laws of nature?

I didn't understand. You said you knew my view on the matter. I explained it several times here.
It's not about the Psalms but the Torah itself. See here:
https://mikyab.net/כתבים/מאמרים/חיפוש-אחר-אלוהים-בעולם

Regarding the reason for prayer, search here on the site. It has already been discussed many times.

I have already read the article that the rabbi attached.. and went over it again.
In the article, the attitude is about a miracle and an exception to nature.. Is a perception that accepts the influence of prayer in one way or another necessarily a miracle and an exception to nature? And is it necessarily a world of chaos?
(I apologize if this is a question from an ignorant person. I have not studied the heart of God)

And something else.
The counter-evidence that led you to write the model of gradual departure can perhaps serve as evidence that the Torah is not the word of God?

I saw some of the reasons the Rabbi gave for prayer and they do agree with my opinion..
But the part about supplications can be eliminated.. Or rather, it is not possible. Prayer/request is the expression of your will and it is possible even if there is no answer at all. But about supplications?

*On the reason for prayer

Not related to the heart. Many are confused by this.
I told you to search the site, as I have already explained here several times that there is no divine involvement in nature. When God intervenes, it means that naturally X was supposed to happen and He causes Y to happen.

This can be used as evidence for this, but since I do not think so, the conclusion for me is a gradual departure. The conclusion regarding God and the Torah is based on a set of considerations and overall, in my opinion, it is much more likely that there is a God and that something was given at Sinai. See the notebooks here on the site.

If the supplications are unreasonable in your opinion - do not beg. And is there a mitzvah to beg?

I admit that it is difficult to accept the Rabbi's view not from logical considerations but from an inner feeling.
Since the Rabbi is an authority for me (formal and essential), I will continue to nag a little more in order to understand and accept in a way that has completely settled in my heart. In the hope of understanding.. I am sure that I am not re-introducing the Rabbi in any way (: But at the time of the Rambam, the laws of nature already existed as they do today and the Rambam did not know about it? Or is this just from the development of modern science? (And by the way, it seems that the commandment of prayer is simply in supplications) a) The commandment to pray every day, as it is said (Exodus 23:25): “And you shall serve the Lord your God’. From the word of the Lord, it is said that this work is prayer. And it is said (Deuteronomy 11:13) “And to serve Him with all your heart”, the wise said: What is the work of the heart? This is prayer. And there is no number of prayers from the Torah, and there is no second meaning of this prayer from the Torah, and there is no fixed time for prayer from the Torah. (b) And for women and servants, let them be devoted to prayer, according to the commandment of the Lord, which is not due to time. But the love of this commandment is like this: Let a man pray and supplicate every day and say his praise, which belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He, and then ask for his needs, which he needs, in request and supplication,

One more thing. I asked whether the counter-evidence for divine involvement can serve as evidence against the notion that the Torah is the word of God.. The question was broader, I think that even the Rabbi would not disagree with me that the essence of Judaism and the Torah revolves around the connection between humans (the people of Israel) and God. We have suffered the cancellation of miracles and the cancellation of prophecy and we live in hiding. But if I cancel out of my life divine providence or my knowledge that God watches over me in this or that way.. and chance (nature) are the only factors that affect my life, what reason can oblige me to follow the path of the Torah?
Because he said in the Torah?? Blessed is he who said…. After all, he doesn't deal with me from good to bad anyway..
Because this is the path to a good and happy life?? I don't think the Rabbi would have signed that this is the path..
Knowing kindness?? Okay, I can recognize kindness every day without keeping the Torah.
I will conclude... If we have grown up and he has already left his occupation in this world, he is most likely also less interested in whether we keep his word and teachings or not.

I apologize very much for continuing to make things difficult. Even though the Rabbi repeatedly returns me to material that already exists on the site.
But I would be very happy for a specific response to the difficulties I have now raised

Thank you very much!!! And

Many sages and thinkers to this day think that it is possible to speak of divine involvement within the laws of nature. They do not understand that the laws of nature are rigid and without “loopholes.” The fact that the laws of nature already existed at the time of the Rambam does not mean that the Rambam recognized and knew them. Even today, there are many, some of them certainly wise, who are mistaken about this. Anyone who speaks of divine involvement within the framework of nature is mistaken about this.
My mother does not understand your complications regarding supplications. We were talking about prayer.
I very much hope that you do not see me or anyone else as a formal authority. Substantial authority is not really authority.
I see no connection between interaction with God and the obligation to obey the commandments. You are asking how He can oblige? Because He created you and that is it. See Notebook Five. Perhaps you meant to ask why you should obey and not how He can oblige. That is a completely different question. And the answer: Because it is the truth (we also gain nothing from morality and it is obligatory). See also this in the fifth notebook.

Regarding supplications – I mean that there is no such animal that would beg someone/God if there is a built-in law that there is no way to answer. So there is no question here of whether it is reasonable to beg or not. This option simply does not exist.
Regarding authority – It is clear.. I meant to express how great the Rabbi's influence on me is, formally and substantially.
The obligation to obey the commandments – Whether we discuss his ability to oblige me or whether we discuss why I have an obligation to obey him.. Once he has withdrawn from the management of the world and his providence, it is a bit complicated to be content with a confession because he created me or because this is the truth. For me anyway! I hope I can find a way to deal with the new insight and still not lose my commitment to the religion of Moses.
Kudos to the Rabbi for all the investment and response.

In the book of Judges, Judges 9

The argument that He does not answer prayers is in direct contradiction to the Torah of Moses, as it is written: ‘For what great nation is there that has a God so near to it as this’ our God is near to all who call upon Him’ (Deuteronomy 4:7). And King David says: ‘The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth’ (Psalms 11:1).

With blessings, Sh’z Levinger

For Ron, regarding dealing with the new insight, this is a fairly old insight that the Maimonides already mentioned:
Laws of Repentance Chapter 10
11:1 Let no one say, "I am doing the commandments of the Torah and engaging in its wisdom, so that I may receive the blessings written in the Torah or so that I may merit the life of the world to come; and I will refrain from the transgressions that the Torah warns against, so that I may be saved from the curses written in the Torah or so that I may not be deprived of the life of the world to come."

12:1 It is not fitting to worship the Lord in this way: whoever worships in this way worships out of fear; and it is not the virtue of the prophets, nor the virtue of the sages. And none worship the Lord in this way, except the people of the land and the women and the little ones, who educate them to worship out of fear, until their understanding increases and they worship out of love.

13:2 He who works out of love, engages in the Torah and the commandments and walks in the paths of wisdom, not for anything in the world, not for fear of evil, and not in order to inherit good: but does the truth, because he is truth; and the end of good is to come in general.

14:14 And this virtue is a very great virtue, and no wise man is worthy of it. And it is the virtue of Abraham our father, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, called his beloved, because he did not work except out of love. And it is the virtue that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us with through Moses our master, as it is said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). And when he loves the Lord with due love, he will immediately do all the commandments out of love.

L “Does not fit in with the Torah of Moses (Laron)”: This can fit in. See the verses:
And the LORD said unto Moses, Thy days draw nigh unto death. And he called Joshua, and they stood in the tabernacle of the congregation, and commanded him. And Moses and Joshua went, and stood in the tabernacle of the congregation. 15 And the LORD looked into the tabernacle in a pillar of cloud, and the pillar of cloud stood at the door of the tabernacle. 16 And the LORD said, Moses said to his fathers, "You lied with your fathers, and this people has gone astray and gone astray from the gods of the foreign nations of the land that they have come to worship, and they have forsaken me and broken my covenant that I made with them." And my anger burned against them that day, and I left them and hid my face from them, and they became food for them. And they found many evils and afflictions, and he said in that day, Is it not because my God is not among me that these evils have befallen me? And I hid my face in that day for all the evils which she had done, in that she turned to other gods.

But in these verses it is presented as a punishment for bad behavior. In my opinion, this is a deliberate move that stems from our maturation and that of the world.

I think the problem Sharon raises is real. In Judaism, the Torah sits on God's neck like a millstone (in fact, in the eyes of the Torah, he is the one sitting on its own neck, but let's leave it at that for now). As long as the Torah actually exists in our world, God is supposed to be attached to it until its soul and/or his soul expires.

(I don't bother to justify these words, first of all because I strongly believe in the flourishing of the declaration of arbitrariness… but also because I have done it many times in the past in this very hostel)

Oh my, Michi's right mind revolts, and rightly so, against this picture, and therefore he pulls the rabbit of the “gradual withdrawal” out of his hat: Today, he says, God is not involved in the world (an involvement that should mainly take place through the mediation of the Torah). But that is only today, because “we have grown up”.
In the past, while we were “children”, God was indeed involved in our world (again, through the mediation of the Torah).
Michi is wrong. In her view, the Torah has never left us and has never allowed us to “grow up”. In her view, it is a priori attached to God, from the moment it was created, and therefore there was not a single moment - not even in our ”childhood” - in which it allowed us to detach ourselves from God and cling to it and in the process to us. The God of the Torah has never left our neighborhood, and even if He had wanted to, the Torah would not have allowed Him.

In short: Michi's interpretation (the theory of gradual departure) tries to pave a kind of golden path between reason and the Torah, but in practice this attempt fails. In this way, the interpretation does injustice not only to common sense but also to the Torah. This, in my opinion, is the reason for the questioner's dissatisfaction with the answer.

Oren, I understand that the Rambam is talking about how it is proper to worship God. But where did you find in the Rambam the insight that the world operates according to the laws of nature without any involvement of God?

Doron in his own way explained my unease with the rabbi's answer.
I will try to explain my unease myself…
I am a thinking and rational person and probably also quite brave in making complex conclusions.
I received so many things and arguments that clearly contradict the education and thinking I received at home and in educational institutions – and I was able to them. Because with me (I try) reason always wins.
Emma what – Regarding Didan I have the greatest difficulty, because I cannot find a way to reconcile my belief in the ’ as it appears in the Torah with the theory of gradual departure.
Since Rabbi Michi is known for his love of examples for the purpose of discussion, I will demonstrate my difficulty.

A father who gave birth to and raised his child with great love and care for all his needs, later asked his son to obey a book of instructions he had prepared for him, with the addition of an explanation and a promise that only in this way would the child grow up properly and the father be able to look after him. The son is faithful to his father's request due to his confidence and recognition of his father's ability.
Several years later.. the son discovers that the father has fled to New Zealand and cut off all contact with his son.. There is no longer any way to check whether the book of instructions is correct even during the upheavals that the son is going through.. and the father is no longer interested in the son's ways and needs. Does it seem reasonable to us that the son will continue to follow his father's instructions??
And another significant difficulty… How do we deal with all the text in the prayers – Shacharit, Mincha, Arives, verses from Zimra?
Reading the Torah.. studying the Gemara, etc.… If there is no meaning to the words I say..
After all, according to your opinion, Rabbi Michi, the entire text in question is worthless and unimportant

Ron,

I understand that you are dissatisfied not only with Miki's answers but also with the supposed ”help” that I offered you.
In the meantime, allow me to shower you with more of this poor material that I produce.

The example you gave (New Zealand, etc.) is excellent in my opinion, but it is lacking. Your parable (the child, the book, and the father) should have been a little different in my opinion:

Initially, the child learned about the existence of his father through the book, and in any case, only through that text did he “learn”about the father's concern and devotion to him. The father was never there himself, but only a “sacred”document that is supposed to represent him. In addition, the book explicitly states that the father will never leave his son.

An unsuccessful parable. The father did not run away but left his child with all the tools to manage on his own. Once the child grew up and learned to use them, the father moved away, as happens to each of us. The instructions that the father left for his child are for the child's sake and not for the father's sake, and therefore they do not depend on the father's presence here. They must be kept because they are correct and because there is an obligation to the father for creating me and giving me the tools.

Regarding the instructions the father left behind, you wrote that they were for his child. Isn't that also for the father? According to what you wrote at the time about the secret of work, a high need?

I wrote that it is both because they are right and because they are for our benefit. This covers both sides. Beyond that, there is no contradiction between the two sides: the action is for our benefit and this is what benefits Him. Otherwise He would not have created us at all and then there would be no need to command us.

Rabbi Michi, I didn't understand why the parable wasn't successful. Maybe I missed the tools (the laws of nature) and focused on the instructions. But alongside the tools, we received a book of instructions that, in the phase of gradual withdrawal, is no longer relevant.
There are already tools for life. Is the book of instructions still valid when we grow up?
In the example I gave – ‘Laim, asked his son to obey a book of instructions that he prepared for him, adding an explanation and a promise that only in this way will the child grow up properly and the father be able to look after him’ How is it understood from this that the instructions are for God? Obviously, for the sake of the child. But what does God want us to grow up and have tools?
You wrote – ‘And therefore they are not dependent on the Father being here. They must be kept because they are correct and because there is an obligation to the Father for creating me and giving me the tools. Is this a sufficient reason?
I argued to you, “The father is no longer interested in the son’s ways and needs. Does it seem reasonable to us that the son will continue to follow his father’s instructions?”

If he is not interested in us as in the Torah of Disengagement, what obligation is left to his instruction book? When we have tools and he no longer bothers with us? His lack of concern proves that there is no necessity for carrying out his instructions. Even he is no longer interested. And we have many good dictionaries that testify to this.

I've already explained this, and I'll say it one last time.
He does care about us, but like any father, he lets us manage on our own. He watches from above and follows.
The instructions were not intended to give us tools. The tools were given to us regardless, and now we're getting by. The instructions are intended for various spiritual benefits (and for him as well, as he commented above). Therefore, it is mandatory regardless of our own organization.
That's it. I've exhausted it.

We did indeed.
Thank you very much for everything!

There is a difficulty, a contradiction, between the logical-philosophical process between prayer and the laws of nature. As a result, Michi claims something completely unfounded, that the entire doctrine of reward and God's response to prayers is a thing of the past. The process of maturation really does not emerge from the Scriptures, and this is a poor excuse for a good question. As we know, a good question is better.

Keren
I would absolutely prefer to remain in the dilemma than the answer of leaving, which in my understanding contradicts the Jewish religion in every way.
Rabbi Michi's view is not a reform in Judaism, it is more in the direction of abolishing the religion.
Therefore, I do not accept his answer..(I am not ready/not mature enough to remove the religion of Moses from me)

On the 14th of Elul 9th

There is no contradiction between the fact that there are laws in nature and providence and prayer, since G‑d established the laws of nature and He established the laws of retribution. Since both sets of laws are His will, He will act in the best way that will minimize conflict between the systems, and will bring salvation through natural scenarios.

And as I demonstrated elsewhere. Regarding someone who was miraculously given the opportunity to nurse his son, the Sages said: “How shameful is this man that the orders of Genesis were changed for him.” G‑d does not usually perform such overt miracles, but rather helps in the existence of natural processes, such as preserving the mother’s health so that there will be no need for a wet nurse, or finding a job for the father so that he can pay the wet nurse. Things that are natural but not trivial, which require the effort of the person accompanied by divine help.

An act of divine help in a natural way occurred in Ramada, when his family was stuck due to a car breakdown late at night in a deserted place. And here he arrived at the place due to a mistake by a neighbor who noticed them and took them home. This means: divine help by natural means.

Such a “miracle” happens to every person, according to Dramada, when he makes a choice. After all, every action of a person depends on the electrical instructions of the brain transmitted to the nervous system. Every choice made in a person’s spirit is translated into a different electrical current. And if a person changes the electrical currents transmitted from the brain with the power of his thought and will, what is the problem with the will of the Creator of the world affecting the material world.

With blessings, Sh”z Levinger

Ron, that is, you identify the work of God with work not for His sake. You are not mature enough to identify the work of God for His sake. The Maimonides wrote about you the beginning of the verse "Pe" in response to the answer (as the work of women and children - those who are "not mature" as you put it). Good luck.

On the 10th of Elul 9th

To Ron, greetings,

Before Chapter 10 of the Laws of Repentance, comes Chapter 9, in which Maimonides explains that the true reward for the commandments is the spiritual reward of the "life in the next world," the reward given in this world is "good conditions of service." For the doer of good, which makes it easier for him to complete his soul and earn the right to life in this world (and vice versa, the sinner encounters torments that prevent him from completing his soul.

In the laws of fasting, the Maimonides mentions another role for torments, the role of a "red light" that calls a person to examine his path and correct what needs correction. In his commentary on the Mishnah in Tractate Peah, the Maimonides explains that there are things for which one deserves to receive "fruits in this world" in addition to spiritual perfection, and these are things that benefit other creatures, for which a person deserves to receive "fruits in this world."

The Maimonides' opinion, which is based on both the sources of Judaism and natural justice, The Lord oversees the private providence of those with knowledge and choice to reward their actions for good and for the better, as explained by the Maimonides in the Teaching of the Perplexed, 3:17 ff. (A comprehensive explanation in Rabbi Chaim Weissman's book, "Examinations of the Beliefs of the Rambam: Creation, Prophecy, and Providence in the Teaching of the Perplexed," published by the Har Bracha Institute.

With best wishes, Shatz Levinger

One last comment, B&N. You are known for your honesty, but here, unfortunately, you have gone completely astray. Just as we abhor apologetics and do not want to force science to conform to the Torah, but rather adhere to sincerity, honesty, and the search for truth, so too, on the other hand, we must not force the Torah to conform to science, but rather examine it out of freedom. In the Torah, providence, reward, and prayer certainly exist. There are debates about the dimensions and limits.
There are several possibilities to resolve the issue between the determinism of the laws of nature and the freedom of action of God to answer prayer, all of which are theories (the intervention is hidden from view, God is above time, there is a breach of determinism within the laws of nature, and more (in most of them you tried to contradict and did not convince me, in any case, even if they contradict them, there is probably another mechanism, or there is a serious problem in the Torah - that cannot be solved by a crooked interpretation)). In science too, we have contradictions and try to reconcile them with theories, until we manage to find the right path. The fact that we are living with contradictions in the meantime does not cause us to abandon one experimental method or declare that one theory is incorrect, or explain findings in an unconvincing manner.

Rabbi Michai. I looked at the Rambam again, and the things I wrote throughout the discussion, and I did not find that there is a connection between the women and the little ones of the Rambam to my words. I do not engage in the Torah and the mitzvot in order to gain something or to be saved from calamity. Rather, because it is truth and the end of good comes because of it. In the doctrine of gradual departure, God is not present except as you defined above, “watching from above and following.” But I argued that in a world without actual divine involvement, it is impossible to reach the Rambam’s rule in those laws about how proper love is. “He who loves the Lord with a great, exceedingly intense love until his soul is bound to the love of the Lord.” And he is found to be always wandering about in her, as if he were a lovesick man whose mind is never free from the love of that woman, and he is always wandering about in her, whether he is sitting down, or getting up, or while he is eating and drinking. Moreover, the love of God will be in the hearts of his lovers, always wandering about in her, as was commanded with all your heart and in all

Your soul, and it is he who Solomon said through a parable, for I am sick with love, and the whole Song of Songs is a parable for this matter. Certainly not to follow his ancient book of instructions, since the Maimonides concludes the laws of repentance thus: It is a well-known and clear thing that the love of God, the Holy One, is not bound in a person's heart until he always practices it properly and abandons everything in the world except it, as he commanded and said, "With all your heart and with all your soul, the Holy One, blessed be He, is not loved except with the knowledge that He knows Him." And according to the knowledge, love will be either a little or a lot. Therefore, a person must dedicate himself to understanding and becoming wise in the wisdom and understanding that inform him of his creation, according to the power that a person has to understand and achieve, as we explained in the laws of the Foundations of the Torah: Today, wisdom and understanding do not inform me of my creation. They inform me of the laws of nature. Every possible relationship with God and the Torah is within the framework of His “natural” presence.
I don't know of any other relationship. But if he just observes, I will make him ashamed and embarrassed (apologies for the cynicism) I think the Rambam would agree with me

Or in short, as I responded to Oren above who brought the Rambam in the answer, P.I.

Oren, I understand that the Rambam is talking about how it is proper to worship God. But where did you find in the Rambam the insight that the world operates according to the laws of nature without any involvement of God? End.

Measure me by the Rambam's "Lishma" standards, while he understood active involvement and I do not?

Ron,
I assume you already understand that I did not say that the Maimonides”s method is that there is no divine involvement in the world (although in other places he writes this as well. He explains that miracles are inherent in the world from its creation and opposes contemporary divine involvement). But you not only claimed that there is involvement, but added an assumption that without it there is no point and no possibility of worshipping Him (and it should be abandoned), and then you qualified that at least it is impossible to love Him (translation: If it is impossible to love Him, there is no point in worshipping Him. Working out of fear or out of a sense of duty – is too small for you).
In other words, according to your method, without Him repaying you for your actions, you see no point and need to do them and at least no possibility of loving Him. This second assumption of yours stands in stark contrast to the work in Maimonides”s name here. He calls your immaturity (in your words) the work of women and the little ones.
Regarding your comment about love as if it requires interaction – In my opinion, it is also absurd. Why is it impossible to love Him for being good and perfect and for having created us and created a world and laws that allow us to exist? It seems to me that this is not only possible but also closer to the view of the Maimonides that you yourself quoted (he does not write there that love is for the entity with which I interact, but for the one who created nature and its laws - exactly what I wrote). It is strange that as support for your words you cite the Maimonides who writes what I write. After all, you are only willing to love him if he is holding your hand right now. This is a love that depends on something. I am lacking a bit of Platonic maturity here (women and little ones, did I already say?!).

Keren,
I will devote a whole column to your methodological arguments here, since they do not only concern the question discussed here but also the methodology of addressing difficulties and contradictions in general. Here I'm just saying that there aren't as many possibilities as you write. In my opinion, not even one reasonable possibility. You can always make statements that have no cover (like a miracle within the framework of nature, etc.). All of these ”possibilities” are very easy to unravel, and I've even done so here more than once. But wait for the column (240 according to the current plan) where I'll explain this in more detail.

In my opinion, the question of what Maimonides says and even the question of the connection between the laws of nature and God's involvement in the world are marginal to our discussion.
It is more important to clarify what the Torah says about God's involvement/non-involvement in the world and even more importantly what reason - separate from the question of the Torah's attitude - allows us to say about it.
Only after we have formed a position on these two separate issues is there room to cross-reference, that is, to examine whether the central message of the Torah is consistent with that of reason.
With the final conclusion, we can finally go to the grocery store.

Rabbi Michai. You did not say that the Rambam's method has no involvement. I only claimed that without involvement I do not think that the Rambam would describe the path of love and fear as he described in the laws of repentance. I did not claim that without Him repaying my actions I see no point in loving Him and worshiping Him. But without His active involvement in the world in any way, there is no meaning to love and fear Him. The reasonable possibility to indicate involvement is a response through prayer, or divine providence, that is, even if there is suffering even in the case of a completely righteous and devoted servant who prays day and night. But it comes from the will of God. In short.. ‘Man seeks meaning’. And in my view “meaning” in loving God and serving Him can exist when there is some active involvement. In the words of the Rambam ”in the light‘ There is no downside to seeking meaning in one's work and love, if anything, quite the opposite. Therefore, I do not see a direct contradiction in working for the sake of Maimonides.

In your opinion, He is no longer concerned with our world. You are unsure about the next world and reward and punishment, whether it exists at all and in what way. What remains of Him is a magical, beautiful and fascinating world. And we need to examine and be precise about what we should do in return for this, beyond gratitude. But is it the love or fear that leads to the worship of God as written in the Torah?? After all, He is not here!!! The Maimonides that I quoted illustrates the type of love in question: “He who loves God with a great, intense love until his soul is bound to the love of God and is always lost in it, like a lovesick person whose mind is never free from the love of that woman, and he is always lost in it, whether he sits down, gets up, or eats or drinks. Moreover, the love of God in the hearts of those who love him is always lost in it.” From Maimonides’ description, it appears that this is real love, not empty words without meaning. There is no such love. And if you tell me that he said this, I will answer you that all of this was said at a time when there was active involvement, so it would have been appropriate to reach love and fear, and certainly to work.

I repeat to myself that to turn today's God into a doll, who was once very active and now is silent, and to remain with the same love and awe, and with the same level of obligation to instructions, in my understanding, is forced and not real. I am ready to love him not only if he holds my hand. In any case! But for him to exist in my world in real practice.

I apologize that my comments are divided into several messages. Technical glitch.

If we go back for a moment to the example of the boy whose father left for New Zealand.
Many years have passed and the boy has grown up a lot, his childhood friend has been blessed with his father remaining by his side and actively involved in his life. Do they both love their father equally?

I have reread and reread the quote you brought from the Rambam and I really cannot understand your comment. There is not the slightest hint there that love depends on his involvement nor on the world. Furthermore, I have already pointed out to you that the Rambam's method is that there is indeed no contemporary involvement. Therefore, your words are puzzling from both the reading and the explanation.
I say again that this is not a doll but a father whose children have grown up and I see no reason why anything in love would change because the father lets the children fend for themselves. Indeed, even if the child is in New Zealand, I see no reason why the love for his father would decrease. Furthermore, even if it does decrease, who said that love has to be at one level or another. Each according to his own situation. It is not Moses, our Lord, who meets the Holy One directly (the illuminating mirror) like the rest of the prophets, and the prophets like the rest of the human race, and therefore there is no reason why we should all be in a more distant state today and love as much as we can. And that there is a necessity that the situation should always be suitable for maximum love (as mentioned, all of this is according to your absurd theory that love should depend on interaction).
And in the end, I will only comment that the fact is that our debate can proceed, and that means that you have no real indications of His current involvement except for the belief that you have in it. But everything is going on with you as it is with me, and all that is different is only the interpretation we give to it. So I do not understand why this interpretation is relevant to love for Him and His work. What happens to you happens thanks to Him, and the question of whether it is because of the nature of creation in general or because of current involvement, which is a theoretical question that has no practical expression, should not change anything in our relationship with Him.
In short, your approach seems completely absurd to me. I really can't even understand the side you're putting forward.
But that's it. As far as I'm concerned, we've had enough, and the voter will choose.

Rabbi Michi
In your opinion, the Father gave us a book of detailed instructions, at first he still influenced and changed here and there, and then the world ‘mature’ [alek] and he left us.
According to this, some of the instructions he gave us are no longer correct, because it is impossible not to fear in war that the Lord is with us because he left us, the verse that who is a great nation and a great nation is no longer relevant, etc., and since God did not tell us in any way [in writing, or in words. Tradition says something completely different] that any of what he said would become meaningless [on the contrary, he defined it as a time of concealment, not of a positive and permanent change in policy] who will tell us that the rest of his instructions are still relevant? Perhaps all the grammar and details of the commandments were intended for a pagan world that needed religious worship mixed into its life all the time, but we, the adult world [alek], should live a life of conscience only. Is everything that we enslave ourselves to keep the commandments our entire lives out of doubt as to which of the instructions we should continue to keep in our adulthood??? After all, God does not bother to inform us of such minor changes?

And in your opinion, is there a promise that you will be saved in war? How does the Manach write that the way of war is that people die? (Regarding the settlement of Yishuv A’Yah, which is in the slaughter and should not pass by even if it is not one of the three gravest). Perhaps this commandment is interpreted as not fearing war simply because it is forbidden to fear war. God watches over our actions and will ensure that justice is done. Either way, the difficulty exists regardless of what I say. No law has changed. Even the promise on the seventh that the harvest will increase is not fulfilled today (and the explanations are known, the seventh in time, according to the rabbis, etc.). The gates of excuses have not been closed.
He did not tell us that prophecy would depart from us either. We simply see it. He also did not tell us that the visible miracles would disappear, but we see it.

Good week, Rabbi Michi. I have thought a lot about these things. Logically, I cannot contradict your words. Moreover, reality proves and you wrote about it “And the bottom line is that it is a fact that our debate can proceed, and that means that you have no real indications of His current involvement except for the belief that you have in it. But everything is proceeding with you as it is with me, and all that is different is only the interpretation we give to it”
Do you not understand why the interpretation is relevant to the love and work of G-d? But for me it is very relevant. My faith exists and can exist only if there is a connection between us and G-d in a current involvement.
Therefore, my conclusion is that there is no need to pray and keep His commandments.
I will continue to observe the commandments and avoid transgressions because that is how I am accustomed to it (and in accordance with the mood that day)
I do not find a logical argument in your words for observing the Torah and the commandments.
(It is somewhat ironic that such a turn of events happened to me precisely in the month of Elul)
Thank you very much! And Happy New Year.

There has been no change in your work of God. You have always heard things out of habit, but until now you have lived under the illusion of dialogue, and now the illusion in this has become clear to you. This is not a change in the work of God, but a disillusionment from an illusion on the factual level. And it is fitting for the month of Elul, for the seal of God is truth, and He hates those who deceive Him.

If only the disillusionment and clarification of the illusion would be revealed as a higher level and it would be realized in me that "the king brought me into his chambers, and we will rejoice in you."

To Ron
If I were you, I would look for a greater necessity to reach such a conclusion [not saying there are none..], after all, we have no knowledge that there are no changes in nature, we just don't see it, and if we accept the religious sayings that God changes the world according to the needs of the one who prays, then there are necessarily changes, but He hides it from people so that the world appears to proceed naturally [and even when the world was still ‘young’ most interventions were not against explicit laws, but they would not have avoided explicit violations], the far-reaching conclusion is truly far from being necessary.
To Rav
Regarding your answer above: As long as there is providential intervention, meaning can be found in the Torah's command [and as you explained, for example, that a person should be certain in his heart that God will only bring justice to light, and that he is in good hands], but when God left the earth, there should not be such a reason, and the command is null and void in its essence.
But that is not the main point of my speech. I was making a passing point, that if we accept that the Torah sets a certain model, and our eyes see that the model does not exist in reality, and as you brought from the prophecy that was promised to us and does not exist, and that it will be close to us in all our readings and does not exist [apparently], and that He will punish sinners with a curse and our eyes see that it does not exist, etc. [everything that concerns the promise and providence and seeing His words happen in practice – as if they did not exist], how can we know that the reason for these things is that He wants them to fulfill the Torah but is no longer willing to give His part to the matter as He promised [which is very strange], perhaps because He is tired of playing with us in commandments and punishments, and has gone to play another game [‘New Covenant’…].
When the Israelites went into exile, they believed that now they no longer had any reason to keep the laws of the Torah, but God informed them through His prophets that there would be no more, etc. Today, we have strong reasons to assume that God has indeed left us, that there is no longer any point in us doing our part in the agreement, that there is no longer a partner watching us and interested in it. Is all observance of the commandments from your perspective only out of doubt as to whether this is so or that?

To Rabbi Mikhi
If you decide not to comment, I will respect your wishes, but did my last response slip your mind by chance? I would love to hear your opinion on the matter.
[According to what you said on the website, it is possible that the commandments are null and void for several reasons: a) Perhaps God is no longer interested and does not bother to inform us about this. b) Perhaps the reasons or reality into which the instructions were given are no longer relevant [e.g. the parable of the short clothes in winter] and they are null and void by themselves. And since it is doubtful whether there is any reward for the commandments at all, and all action is a moral obligation whose essence is unclear to me, does morality also require shaking the lulav in such a doubt?]

For some reason, I didn't notice that the discussion here continued. I don't remember what was in it anymore, so I'll only address your last message.
If he's not interested, why didn't he bother to inform us, just as he informed us that he was interested. As for his involvement in the world, we'll see for ourselves. As for the reasons that were canceled, every mitzvah is different. Sometimes I would be willing to accept such an offer, and you already alluded to my article on ‘enlightened’ idolatry.
Morality does not require waving the lulav. The duty is because it is the truth, not because it is moral. There is no dependence between religious duties and moral duties. See column 15.

I would also like to point out that now we have to doubt even the principles of faith, not only because we don't know who formulated them, but even if it were clear to us that all the words of the prophets were true, and that God revealed Himself to them and promised to build us a temple and bring the Messiah, etc. It is possible that the plans have changed since then, and now he is working on something else, and you know what it is.

I doubt them much earlier. Who would dare to assume that these are truly the main ones and that we have correctly understood the words of the prophets?! In general, threats of a slippery slope do not scare me. There is common sense and for every thing and question there is the proper way to deal with them. There is no need to establish a general doubt here and a general statement regarding all the questions of the world.

Hello Rabbi Michi.
I am writing to you in the same place where I wrote to you that after I was convinced that you are right about the matter of attainment, prayer, etc. that I do not see a need to serve and love the ’ if He does not intervene in the world and I added that I may continue out of inertia, etc.
After more than a year, I can say that not only have I not abandoned the Torah and the mitzvot, but on the contrary. . Observing the Torah and the mitzvot have taken on a real form for me. Knowledge of God! The authority of the Halacha!
Not afraid, not moved by this or that, not so that He would grant me something, not because my grandmother said so.
Because I studied and researched and formulated my position.
In short, only after you formulated a “lean” Judaism do I manage to run with it on my shoulders everywhere and at any time
Thank you Rabbi Michi.

PS. So yes, there are people you repent to (:

I am very happy to hear that you went to Oriyta.

In my opinion, you did not repent but rather asked. You may study and keep the commandments, but you do not believe. It was you who felt within yourself that there was someone to whom you needed to pray, that one and only one that your grandmother told you about. Instead of believing her, you were convinced by Mechi that there is a Creator of the world, but He is not the God of Israel. And indeed, how can you pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Perhaps it is better to take off the veil, or else the longings for your people and your God will grow stronger in you and you will truly return to Him.

You hurt my feelings by omitting the title of Rabbi from Rabbi Michi.

I'm sorry and apologize if I offended you or Bar’ Miki. I don't know him. I came across him in an article in the first source (where, among other things, it was written in his name that homosexuality can be permitted, his image from the newspaper intrigued me because I remembered that there was a big fuss when the book Two Carts and a Hot Air Balloon was published, even at the center where I studied at the time, and that was strange to me. I considered buying the books and through Google I came to the site, I asked him, at first he was dumbfounded, then he added that the reporter didn't understand and that there were corrections to the article). Since then, I've been reading a lot on the site, mainly because it strengthens me in what not to be. I've never received a decent answer to my questions (which is why I won't invest in buying the books). But it's a great privilege for him to have a site like this that raises quality discussions related to the world of Judaism. And especially for the multitude of commenters with different and interesting opinions, and he leaves most of all the opinions on the site. I don't know of a similar site with such interesting content, and for that I thank him very much. And in any case, his views are, in my opinion, very far from the worldview of Torah – and I see them as heresy in true faith. (In my opinion, everything starts with disdain for the opinions of great and many, both poskim and rishonim and also great Hasidic figures). I thought he was a true man and therefore I thought I could create a dialogue with him. Apparently I am not smart enough but I only receive arrogant and disdainful responses. It is hard to see myself convincing him of anything – maybe I will be useful to someone, maybe to you (because it seemed that you have an understanding heart). I hold him in high esteem and do not want to offend, God forbid, but you will understand why I have difficulty calling him a rabbi. And I probably simply do not need to respond here anymore.