Does the Torah condemn and punish or not?

Let's assume this is spiritual improvement without divine intervention.
Does improvement in this spiritual sense affect man *as a natural creature* in a positive way?

I don't know. I get the impression that it's not directly. That is, there are no indications of a direct effect of a mitzvah or prayer on any material situation. But as mentioned, I have no way of categorically ruling this out.

It is truly idolatry to think that there is no “unity in reality”, that there is no unity between heaven and earth.
Like, a person recites Torah or performs other commandments and it affects a spiritual dimension, but it has no effect on the earth.

Sorry, this is idolatry for all intents and purposes.
This is not Judaism.

Ehud, please indicate where in the Gemara and Rambam the above halachic ruling appears.

And there was Rabbi Tarfon and the elders of Sobin, the owner of the house of Netza in Lod, when this question was asked to them: Is it a great Talmud or a great act? Rabbi Tarfon answered, and when he said a great act, the Rebbe answered, and when he said a great Talmud, they all answered, and they said a great Talmud, that the Talmud leads to an act.
And it is not the midrash that is important, but the act.

If a person receives a donation that falls into the hundred and raises it, if it was a baptismal offering, he makes it a donation and tithes in another place or calls it a donation of tithes in it. If it was a baptismal offering, he makes it a donation and tithes in another place or calls it a donation of tithes in it. If it was a second tithe, he defiles it on the hundred with donation money, except for donation money in it. If it was a new moon, he must wait until Passover arrives and give it to the priest.

The Talmud is not claimed to be great because it protects and saves.

And furthermore, back then, the Torah was the written Torah, today we do not study the written Torah at all, and studying in yeshivas does not protect and save.
Furthermore, we did not find in the Holocaust that the scholars were saved. Quite the opposite. The corrupt Judenrats were saved.

Can you explain what the connection is to the Saha Teruma because I did not understand?

Apologies. I thought you came to prove from the above passage that the Torah does indeed protect and save. I didn't see any connection, so I added a Tosefta from my own words (and after I wrote it, I realized that the Sed sees there that a deed is greater, since in them there is elevation and not enough knowledge and accuracy). As for the substance of the matter, of course, there is no evidence. It is possible that both Talmud protects and saves and also a mitzvah protects and saves, and we still need to be aware of who is greater than whom. The Tannaim did not deal (only) with the written Torah but (also) with the oral Torah, and in general the distinction is not sharp at all, and this is also exactly what is done today in yeshivot. The question from the Holocaust is a good question that papyri have been torn apart for its likeness.

The only mechanism by which it is possible to claim that reciting a text protects and saves is a mechanism of witchcraft.
And the Torah warned about a similar thing from those who are taught to be boys to continue studying Torah because of magic and sorcery…
“There shall not be found among you one who gives his son or his daughter to a man, a sorcerer, a sorcerer, a sorcerer, a sorcerer, a sorcerer, a sorcerer:”

And not only that, but in the coming days everyone will see how those factions and factions who perpetuate the disputes and ignorance and stupidity, are all going to be snatched away on their heads. The main thing is that they be careful with their shtreimel and clothing when this happens.
And Yahweh struck down all the firstborn … And there was a great outcry

And the main thing, as Rabbi Michael ruled, is that the economy does not collapse. That is what is important. And they all died.

What does sorcery mean? In their opinion, the Creator of the world guides the world and gives rewards in exchange for studying Torah and keeping the commandments. And even without the Creator making new decisions, it is certainly possible that He has embedded mechanisms of spiritual influence in creation. After all, reciprocal influences from the spirit on the body (the psychophysical problem) are an accepted fact among anyone who believes in spirit-matter dualism. If it works, it is not sorcery, and if it does not work, it is sorcery. You just need to check whether it works or not. Need I remind you that the entire Bible is filled to the brim with promises that worshiping God is abhorrent and harmful? The Torah itself is full of this, every book of Judges revolves around it, as does the book of Kings, which also explains every time reality seems contradictory (such as the failure in the days of righteous Josiah) why it did not work (the Lord did not turn back from the wrath of His anger from the days of Manasseh). All the prophets predict severe punishments for transgressions and great rewards in this world for mitzvot. And if you hear and I give you grass in your field, is that witchcraft in your opinion?

Your understanding of Rabbi Michael's "discontinuation" is truly childish in a way that is astonishing. As if "the economy" is some kind of abstract institution that, whether it is destroyed or not, is given away for the sanctification of a woman. Moreover, even in normal times, a few human lives are always sacrificed for the sake of many pleasures for many people. We can invest the entire state budget in training doctors and buying medicines, and forbid everyone from wasting every penny that is not useful for prolonging life. We can prohibit the construction of high-rise buildings so that workers don't die, and all citizens will crowd into tents. There are also some students who commit suicide from the pressure of studying, so we will ban academic studies altogether and settle for safe corn farming. Of course, it is also forbidden to park the car, lest a conflict over a parking space arise that will end in murder. It is also forbidden to create human relationships at all, because a small percentage of them degenerate into injury and murder. When you examine these absurd examples, you will see that there is no difference. And in the simplest and most direct way in the world, if the economy lacks, say, 100 billion NIS, then that is money with which they could earn thousands of years of life. In advanced countries, life expectancy is high, and not because of the weather, but because of the stable economy that allows for investment in health services and allows citizens free time and money to take care of their health.

Read again about the difference between accidents and epidemics. You didn't understand at all. It seems you didn't think about it at all, so don't try to explain it to me, first try to understand why you are wrong. If you don't find it, then ask.

In any case, the Haredim have passed on, passed on, and you will be protected and you will not stand for the blood of your neighbor and so on and so forth. See other places I have written.
And in general, all the strictness and severity is idolatry.
And it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
The LORD shall bring upon thee the word
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book,
And he shall bring upon thee all the curses of the LORD, and Egypt, from whose face you have fled, and they have clung to you
In the morning you will say, "Who will give me evening?" And in the evening you will say, "Who will give me morning?" For the fear of your heart that you will fear and for the sight of your eyes that you will see

All this is going to happen. It will begin, in fact, it has already begun in New York.

I see that you are strong in quoting verses, continuing your theory that attributes higher virtues to the written Torah than to the oral Torah. From the side, I recommend that you actually engage more with the oral Torah in order to get closer to what is right. And if all the strictness and severity are idolatry (not exactly, but let's say), why is it not witchcraft according to your theory? Bending your back in front of a picture has a natural power that curving your lips while studying Torah or waving your hand with the lulav does not?

You are welcome to criticize the Haredim as much as you want, and I did not address this point, only your attack on the principle of “magna and mitzla” from the Torah itself or from allegations of witchcraft, etc. I don't understand how you distinguish between accidents and epidemics. There is some kind of price list for human life relative to money (many pleasures for many people, and money is also unambiguously mapped to more human life). You are welcome to debate the price list and include criticism of today's decision-makers if they think of other price lists. Ridiculous demagoguery like making a great effort to kill the Jews in order to "save the German economy" is as relevant as a person dancing under the moon at Kiddush Leben.

Shalom G’

Here are the words of Rabbi Kook:

Within the heart, in the chambers of its purity and holiness, the Israeli flame grows stronger, strongly demanding the courageous and constant attachment of life to all the commandments of God, to pour out the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Israel, the general fullness that fills the entire space of the soul, within all the many special vessels for it, to express the full Israeli expression in complete, practical and ideal prominence. And this is the root of the longing for the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, the Land of God, where all the commandments are embodied and stand out in their complete form.

Hello Ehud. Quoting a paragraph from Rabbi Kook is not enough to establish a law on serious matters. Nor is it certain that this paragraph states that the mitzvot have an effect on the land and not just in a spiritual dimension. It says that in the land, the mitzvot can be observed more fully (because there are many mitzvot that depend on the land and the majority of its inhabitants, on it and on the Sanhedrin, and because of “I have set up for you Zionists”). It also says that the mitzvot emphasize the Israeli expression, but this also does not mean that the wearing of a lulav has any effect in the world, but rather that the person wearing a lulav is affected by it (probably through the mediation of his consciousness).

C, what blessings are said for the mitzvah?
What do you think it means?
It's just that simple, so simple . . .
It's for exactly the same reason that the Rambam (if I'm not mistaken) does not list the mitzvahs of faith in it . . .

By God who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to redeem a severe punishment. What do we see from this text? That the people of Israel were separated from all the nations and were commanded with unique commandments. And even if the interpretation is that the one who performs a mitzvah is sanctified and purified thereby, this too is a spiritual and not a physical matter. Do you think it is possible to measure holiness in a laboratory? I cannot claim anything about the effect on the mind, and I truly think that sometimes the fulfillment of the action of the mitzvah affects the mind of the one who performs it.

If the mitzvahs of the main belief in it are not listed, it is because there is no point in commanding beliefs (a command is something to do, not something to think. A person is the same in this regard. If you believe, there is no need for a command, and if you do not believe, the command will be of no use). You can command further clarification or a prevention of further clarification, etc. In any case, from the wording of the commandments, it is impossible to prove either the body of the factual claim (that the mitzvot or the Torah have an effect in the physical dimension) or the ruling that you made (he who does not think so is a workaholic).

C, what is “Baruch” ?
If we want to bless the Name itself, we say “Blessed are you, O God”

What is “Baruch” ?

Only for the sake of knowledge is it known that the Rambam did list the commandments of faith. Do a.
Now we can continue the discussion.

Please tell me what the answer is and how it relates to the topic.
I would be happy if you would take into account that a search in the Bible reveals that even towards flesh and blood, living and growing things or even an abstract noun, they say Baruch (Blessed are you, my daughter, for you have made your last kindness better than the first. Blessed is the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground. May the day on which my mother bore me be blessed).
And towards the Lord, some say Blessed (May the name of the Lord be blessed from now on and forever).
And towards the non-Lord, they say Blessed (And now you have caused the house of your servant to be blessed forever before you, for you, the Lord, have blessed and blessed forever. And in reference to the heads of the name: that is, And your servant shall be blessed forever)

For Rabbi Mikhi, it is possible that the Ramban is not listed. To the best of my memory, one of the sages who enumerated the eighty commandments did not list belief in the Lord as one of the thirteen commandments (I mentioned there that I am not 100% sure that it was the Ramban).

C, before I answer your question, will you answer me - what is Baruch?
What is a "bracha"?
What is a "bracha"?

The huge question of Act A in Rambam reminded me of a legendary story.
The son of the rabbi, who was difficult for several rabbis, wrote: “The scroll is read at eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, no less, no more.” And it says: “Always come near at nine, ten, eleven, twelve.” And it does not say: “no less, no more.” Why?
The rabbis became more agitated in their arguments, one said: “Weep,” and the other said: “Weep.” One approached and made his excuse, the son of the rabbi shook his head and said: “My father, you have a better excuse.” The other approached and made his excuse, and he too was answered with a nod: “My father, you have a better excuse.” Thus he gave up on all the excuses until they gave up and said to him, "Well, what is your father's excuse?" My father told them, "You excuse me, for it is indeed written there, 'no less, no more.'"

[I did not remember what Maimonides says, and I did not open it, because I remembered that God forbid there are discussions and methods about this. And that is why I said that the main commandment of faith cannot be enumerated, and if it is enumerated, then it must be settled on the obligation of deepening or a prohibition (which is not certain to be useful, but technically it is possible to prohibit) on further clarification after a person currently holds himself to be a believer].

Ehud, I don't know the answer.

G,
And I know that the world speaks so of the Jew from Brisk, "There is no such thing."

In the story "There are no such additions," I interpret to myself that he interpreted the additions appropriately. It's hard for me to believe that anyone can really say about something (that was told to him by a reasonably learned person) that it is so idiotic that there are no such additions. Or if there were such additions, then he would remember that he went through all the Shas at least once and Milta Ded was so surprised that the female scribes would point it out, etc.

It doesn't matter. It's like the stories of the Baal Shem. You have to believe that it could have happened. In practice, who said that such an act even happened? Why do you have to look for excuses and compromises?

There is no such thing as a woman.

C’

I will answer in 3 sections, if you find it appropriate to answer, I would be happy if you could answer according to each section.

1. “Blessed” – God is the source of blessing. Just like in the words Hanun and Rahum.
“You” – come (ata in Aramaic).
And it is written in the Torah: And the Lord came from Sinai and shone forth from the hair . . . and you are the holy multitudes at his right hand”

That is, God brings abundance when we bless (of course also on the mitzvah). We are instruments for absorbing the language
that comes.

2. Is it possible to measure abundance (however it is not expressed) in a laboratory?
No. Nor can love be measured in a laboratory. So what does this mean? That there is no love in the world?
It is clear that there are things that exist in the land (spiritual or not) that cannot be measured.
That is why your and Rabbi Michi's "I don't see it" is simply irrelevant.
If I follow your method, I will also decide that there is no love in the world.

3. You initially asked for evidence that the Gemara or Chazal say that commandments also have an effect in the land.
I didn't quite understand the question because I think there is no shortage of examples.
To the best of my memory, there is a story in the Gemara about a Babylonian Amora (I don't remember his name) who suffered a financial disaster and all of his wine
jars were broken. After his mind weakened and he didn't understand why this happened, he rummaged through his actions and in the end he
found that he had committed a transgression, and therefore was punished by heaven. So this is an example of how the Gemara also mentions commandments (do or not do) that have an effect on what happens here.

1. Not true at all. Baruch in a pinch is a present tense verb, like שבור נאול האטום האטום, and it is ‘like the adverbial form’ in the language of grammarians in Spain. חנון ראחום ראחום is in the nominative case like טאנור אלוף, and therefore the verb p is dotted at the beginning followed by an accent (ראחום has no accent because the חנון is guttural. But the punctuation at the beginning indicates that it is a noun and not a present tense verb).
Therefore, Baruch means someone who has received the action of blessing (i.e. they blessed him, as they broke him, locked him, and sealed him), and ראחום means someone who has certain qualities (here: mercy).
And even without resorting to grammatical considerations (completely basic), it can be understood from the uses in the Bible as I mentioned to you before. ”Blessed are you and your remnant” Does this tangle of difficulties, swept away by the winds, mean that this source of blessing is the source of blessing?
You means in Hebrew, clear, “you” and do”k.

2. There is some confusion here. I did not say a word or two here against the claim that in the canonical literature there is a reference to the mitzvot as influencing reality as a reward. On the contrary, I went on to argue against the last rabbi, the rabbi, that the entire Torah is full of this and that there is no witchcraft in it, etc.
In short, I asked for a source for your halachic ruling that whoever does not think so is an idolater. “The halachic is severe” as the prophet says, and dealing with it should be careful and reasoned. When you quoted a paragraph from Rabbi Kook, I told you two things: a) There is no discussion of halakha from paragraphs (Margla Pomi Becha”3: ka paragraph on animals) b) This paragraph does not speak at all about the effect of the commandments in the physical dimension.
But I absolutely agree that all the writers of the Jewish canons held the opinion that the Mishkan oversees the details and the commandments have an effect (although apparently in their opinion this is through the mediation of the Mishkan and not in a mechanical way embedded in the world).

Regarding the wording of the blessing, which is really quite fundamental in Judaism and it is unpleasant to argue against it, I said that even if the interpretation ‘Kedshenu’ is from the language of spiritual holiness (which is not the interpretation), there is still no problem here. Because a person is not the least bit sanctified by performing a mitzvah, and who would argue otherwise? Let a person be sanctified to the best of his ability and his soul be purified like crystal. Holiness does exist and is a spiritual matter, it is impossible to measure it or its implications (apparently) in a laboratory, and therefore there is no objection in the world to the hypothesis that a person becomes holy and in this the commandments have a spiritual effect (which is not mediated through consciousness).
In short, my only question to you on this subject was about the laws of idolatry. Not what the sages thought, nor what they believed was correct.

1. Without going into the grammar of the language and the evidence you brought from the Bible, when I bless (use the word Baruch), I receive upon myself (or upon what I bless) the abundance.
In the context of the word “Baruch” You can see what I mean here:
https://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91/%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A-%D7%91%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%94/

2. I use the phrase idolatry, not in the context of some “halacha”.
For me, idolatry is the acceptance of something that is partial and lacking, and adherence to that thing.
For example, a person for whom a certain value is sacred (when it is disconnected from God), in my opinion is an idolater. For example, people for whom the value of “health” is a sacred thing, then they are idolaters. They treat health as if it were God. What happens if tomorrow they discover that the person must undergo bypass surgery and then a pacemaker implant (i.e., he is no longer considered a healthy person), then this is – the highest value has collapsed, the person is no longer healthy, so life is over?
Likewise, someone for whom “family” is a supreme value – what happens if tomorrow the family falls apart (which happens more than once) – then this is – there is no point in life?

Of course, there are lower values (that people really cling to) like “Squares in the Stomach”, “Maccabi Tel Aviv” etc.’.

The entire scale of values should always be a derivative of faith in God. Nothing else.
So much for the introduction, to show what I call “idolatry” (partiality).

The claim that the commandments do not affect abundance in the land is idolatry, in my opinion, because it makes the Blessed Infinite very lacking and partial – There is heaven, there is earth, there is no effect between them when the commandments are observed. There is no unity in reality. When there is no unity in reality, this is idolatry.

“In this, the commandments have a spiritual effect (which is not mediated through consciousness).”

Again, I cannot agree with this. There is a spiritual influence that ultimately also affects nature itself, even if it cannot be seen in the laboratory.
As mentioned, to say that there is a “spiritual dimension” and a “natural dimension” and that there is no direct connection of fertilization between them, that is, there is no unity, is very problematic.
If your method were correct, the people of the Great Knesset would not recite blessings with “natural” abundance (as in prayer 18), but would recite all kinds of mystical blessings, etc.

1. I understand the meaning of the blessing in a much more simplified way, but I have no complaints about other interpretations. Baruch is undoubtedly in the verb tense (if there was an emphasis, then the law of the elision would not be inclined to be ברוכים but ברוכים, like the thoughts of הרוכז but it is permissible that in the plural it remains הרוכים) and I do not see in the link you mentioned the inaccurate comparison to חנון and ראחום.

2. I thought you were engaged in halakhic paganism. The truth is, I just caught you on the word and went into a tirade. Since you have never written like that, then here too I have no complaints. Perhaps there really is a way to accept values completely disconnected from the הרוכה (as opposed to disconnecting from the halakhah) but I do not think at all that if the commandments do not affect abundance in the land, then infinity is very lacking and partial. (And this argument is a double-edged sword for proving that infinity is very lacking and partial). In any case, it turns out that at least in my opinion we don't have that much of an argument, Mount Sinai was completely covered in smoke and the Israelites camped, each under his own flag.

Regarding the ”Baruch”, here is a link that explains the matter (by my rabbi and teacher, Rabbi Uri Amos Sherki Shalit”a). You can only read the first paragraph:

https://ravsherki.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45:4545-45&catid=33&Itemid=100513

Regarding idolatry, it is worth watching the following section (17 min’):

Thank you. I read chapter 2 of Nefesh Chaim and I think that Rabbi Shreki's wording there is not that precise. Nefesh Chaim does not distinguish between Baruch and Borach or between Rahum and Merham, and does not compare Baruch and Merham.

Does not distinguish between Baruch and Borach – because I did not find it there. And I also mentioned above the verse that they used the term ‘Blessed’ on the Lord.

Does not distinguish between Rahum and Merham – because I did not find it there. And also what will Rabbi Shreki do with the verse “Hanon Ha’ and Tzadik, and Elkinu Merham” after he explained that on the Lord it is only appropriate to say ”Hanon’ Or ”merciful’ and in no way ”merciful”?
He does not compare Baruch with Rahum – not what he is dealing with, although it does follow from his interpretation that both are adjectives. He interprets there “Baruch” as an adjective (verbs in the neuter also function as adjectives), and the root B.R.K as an addition and a plural. And he interprets that ’ is the source of the blessing.
Then he deals with another question, how can we use adjectives in names for ’ itself. To this he replies that we describe only that which is indeed available to us and according to His actions (such as ‘And He prepared you according to your actions’). He gives the example of חנון and ראחום, which happens to have a similar sound to ברוך, but these are just examples of titles and how their meaning is understood, and he could also give examples of גיבור and חסיד.

I did not see the Hasidic joke that ”אתה” is from the phrase “ואתה מרבובוט קודש” that Rabbi Shreki mentioned there in the Nefesh HaChaim (if he does say that, I will reconsider. On the face of it, it seems to me to be a slip of the tongue).
I would be happy to read your further explanations, but I am afraid that I will not continue to write more of my own opinions because the subject does not interest me enough.

In short, you are right, especially in your words about Baruch, who interpreted the source of the blessing (adjective. And probably Baruch, who blessed you and your rest, this will remain a passive verb in the middle). My last message revolved around the other peripheral things, even though they are really not significant and were not part of the main part of your words.