Contradiction in the Rabbinic Mishnah (Michi)

The fact that something can be interpreted in several ways does not make it something that ”does not actually teach”.
The national religious read the Torah and come to the conclusion that the land should be conquered.
Neturi Karta read the Torah and learn the opposite of that.
This is the mother of learning.
It may be possible to reach different conclusions, that is true, but that does not mean that it is not learning.

Let's say that I studied the Holocaust (as a series of facts) and came to the conclusion that the Jews need their own state.
Someone else studied the Holocaust (as a series of facts) and came to a different conclusion.
But here we are talking about known facts, so it is clearer.

Here is another option that does not deal with facts:
I read Anselm's argument and came to the conclusion that there is a God because it is a perfect argument.
Another person read it and decided that it was a good argument, but not perfect.
Dawkins read it and decided that it was not good enough.
A fourth person read it and decided it was completely stupid.

Does just because Anselm can be interpreted in multiple ways mean it's not considered a study?

It doesn't mean but it allows. In my experience in Bible interpretation, because there are several interpretive options, everyone chooses what they thought in advance and therefore de facto they learn nothing from this. The same goes for history. But this topic has already been thoroughly explored on this site.

Hello Rabbi,
I didn't understand, if the stories of the Bible were written to convey a message to us, and in fact they don't convey a message because ”de facto we don't learn anything from it” then why were they written? And did God want to satisfy his writing instinct so he wrote us meaningless literary descriptions?

If it was written to teach a message – there must be a possibility to learn the message. If it was written to convey a message and it is impossible to learn the message – there is no point in writing and delivering it.

A parable of what this is like, a person who sent a letter to his friend, but the letter is written in a cryptic language, if there is no chance that the friend will understand the content of the letter, what is the point of sending the letter?

I will answer you what I have already written and what I have already answered dozens of times on the site. You are absolutely right. So is it now possible to learn from the Bible? Factually, it is impossible. Do you have a question about why it was written? A great question. I would love to hear an answer to it.
And in your parable: If someone now comes to you and tells you that it is unlikely that the sender of the letter sent it without intending to convey any message to you, will that help you decipher the letter? If you can't, then you can't, and statements don't change anything here.

If I understand the Rabbi's method, it turns out that the Rabbi doesn't care that God wrote in his Torah "nonsense" that didn't come to teach anyone anything?? So why did he write them? He shouldn't write them.
Furthermore, if you don't know why God wrote what he wrote, that's a problem with God, who supposedly is supposed to be perfect and not just write things. If the things in the Torah contradict the definition of God, you should abandon the religion that believes in the Torah.

Ro, the Rabbi already told me that he has no answer to the question of why God wrote the Bible, but in any case, that doesn't mean that now we can learn anything from the Bible.

Regarding the second point, if I don't know why God wrote the Bible, the problem is with me, not with him. Just like I don't know why he created me, and that's a problem with me, not a deficiency in him.

Ben, you are right about the first point, I really didn't notice that he answered you.

Regarding the second point, it seems to me that there is still a certain drawback in God. Because God had to write a text that we would understand what we are supposed to do with it. It is clear that God wrote the text so that we humans could do something with it. If there is no way to know why God wrote the Torah, then it means that the ‘perfect’ God did not write the Torah. At the very least, you need to bring another possibility for why God wrote this text, besides learning something from it.

So there is a drawback to it (or at least that's what I think). What does this have to do with the discussion?
If you can show that you do learn things from the Bible, then I basically argued without regard to the assumptions about the perfection of God, and if you don't succeed, then it is impossible to learn despite your impressive claims and statements. So what is the argument about?
We've exhausted it.

Micky's answer is nothing more and nothing less than the standard skeptic's answer: We can't learn anything, not from the New Testament or the Quran or his own pleasures or history or soap operas. We don't know anything. Alas. We can't learn anything from what Micky publishes either (including his statement that we can't learn anything).

So here's a small suggestion - in addition to Ben's suggestions - what we can learn for sure from the Tanakh (if we choose to believe what it says): that there is a God, that he created the world, that he gave the Torah to a certain group and that he expects us to approach him through it (and through the books of the Nachch that rely on it). As mentioned, there are a million other things that can be learned from it and Ben himself has detailed some of them. It is worth noting that the teaching done here is not only theoretical and fragmentary but that it practically dictates the lives of many people who have indeed learned in practice (at least from their point of view) how to behave.

Doron's response is nothing more or less than a repetition of a baseless claim that has been raised here countless times and rejected (with reasoned contempt). I don't see fit to go back to it again.

So are we talking about declarations now?

Many passages of the Rambam (for example) can also be interpreted in multiple ways, so is there no such thing as "studying the Rambam"?

“Everyone chooses what they thought about in advance”, I wonder where free choice suddenly went…

Your words can be interpreted in several ways, some of which you don't intend at all.

Not clear, see my answer to the person who doesn't understand above.

Mikhi, I noticed that you often write to people that the topic has been thoroughly researched.
It is indeed difficult to ask you to answer the same questions over and over again.
On the other hand, it is difficult to find what you have answered in the past through a search engine. Besides, not everything has a column, but some things were written only in the comments.

I recommend that you create another page on the site for topics that points to the exact place for topics that have already been thoroughly researched, so that readers can examine the answer.
For example, that page will contain detailed information about all the discussions, questions, and your final responses regarding the issue of providence, vegetarianism, learning, morality, and more. The page will contain precise links to the answers you gave in the columns or in the comments.

Usually, a topic I've talked about that has been thoroughly researched probably appears here quite a few times, so it's likely that it can be found. Anyone who wants to make keys to the site would be welcome. I don't have the time or energy for that. Sorry.