The world to come in the face of divine intervention

But providence is also something we are not supposed to grasp (in terms of the outcome), if souls are mocked, right?

After all, with all due respect to the rabbis who inform us all that they appreciate “why did the Corona come to the world” (for example),
a more serious (and more characteristic) statement is “we do not know the accounts of heaven”.

Could you clarify what the difference is between “something we are not supposed to grasp” (the next world) and something you call nonsense?
What is the meaning of something we are not supposed to grasp?

I don't understand what the fuss is about here. Very simple things. Awake or reincarnation (they are not the same thing) are theses that no one can test. We receive information from God regarding such a thesis, and the only question is whether this information is reliable (i.e. whether God really said it) or not. On the other hand, regarding providence, we are talking about a claim about God changing the laws of nature. This is something that we are supposed to see, and the fact that we don't see it is a disproof of this thesis (maybe there are excuses, that it is hidden from us, etc., but the burden of proof is on the one who claims it).
None of these are nonsense. Nonsense is meaningless talk (and not incorrect talk).

The Mishnah explains that ten things were seen on the eve of Shabbat between the evenings.
And the things that we see are detailed.
That is, according to the Mishnah, these too were created at the creation of the world, meaning that they are not miracles.

While there is no dispute about the existence of the afterlife among our sages. [Express Gemarat] The issue of reincarnations, is it truth or fantasies taken from superstitions that began to be prevalent in the world a little over 1000 years ago? This is a subject of fierce debate among the early ones [the sages denied it and apparently even despised and mocked it] and even later there is a dispute about it. And who can decide? What's more, it is not mentioned at all in the Sages, neither in the Babylonian nor in the Jerusalem, even though the Talmud did not refrain from all kinds of wonderful and strange legends and fantasies, meaning they did not know the subject at all.

“””This is an argument about God changing the laws of nature. This is something we are supposed to see, and the fact that we don't is a contradiction to this thesis”””

The desire to see God perform the miracle
under the microscope through which you observe is destined for failure.
God performs His miraculous actions when there is a need for it, and not when you seek Him out with force.
Searching for Him retrospectively will not work either, because the miracle is hidden within the normal natural chain. You cannot follow at the particle level.

It turns out that the entire thesis that “we are supposed to see Him intervene in nature” is incorrect from the start, and it is not exactly explained what style of “divine intervention” it is being opposed to.

To lift the burden The evidence is that we must first hear a claim that truly describes the action of God.

This is the usual and widespread apologetics, and I have explained many times why it is baseless.
Divine involvement in the world means a deviation from the laws of nature. It is not about expecting divine involvement in a specific situation and time. If you statistically examine, for a group and a sample group, the dependence of their medical and other conditions on prayers or observance of mitzvot, this is an empirical examination for everything. And there is no big problem in doing so.
Any law of nature that you can claim about which we may not have seen and have not seen is not evidence. That is not how science works.
In short, anyone who wants to fortify themselves in the accepted example always can. But it is not reasonable, and in my opinion, even those who do it themselves do not really believe in it. I have elaborated on this in several places here on the site and in the second book of the trilogy.

What about the question of whether the information that has come from the mouth of the prophet so far is reliable.
But there is your question as a demon that asks that since the devil doesn't have much reason to condemn the wicked because they don't exist anyway, then there won't be hell or anything like that.
I don't remember exactly. But something like that.

“””If you statistically examine the dependence of their medical and other conditions on prayers or observance of mitzvot for a group and a sample group, this is an empirical examination for all intents and purposes. And there is no big problem in doing so. “””

I am committed to the truth.
I suppose that if we take 10,000 terminally ill religious-believers (with months left to live) who were prayed over and made a lot of meritorious deeds, etc., and we take 10,000 terminally ill atheists for whom no one prayed, we will find that neither of the two groups survived.
Perhaps there will be a religious person or two who recovered, but we will probably also find an atheist or two who survived.

So, your question is apparently correct - what is the meaning of prayers? – Don't you see here that there is necessarily no divine intervention?

In my understanding, after the sentence is given from above, something really, really big has to happen to change it.
The sentence itself, in my opinion, is almost always not natural, but a divine sentence, whether it is something that the person committed in this incarnation, in the previous incarnation, or he simply finished his part in this world.

Think of a righteous and pious Jew, a giver of charity and a doer of good who somehow got out and committed murder.
The judges sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Immediately, countless justice advocates were brought in, and people who begged the judges to change the sentence and consider the righteousness and mitzvot that he had done. So many people told how he financed their son's surgery abroad, and how he would study Torah for hours in the Beit Midrash, etc., etc., etc.

Will the judge change the sentence?
Probably not. And rightly so.
There is a matter of sweetening the laws, etc., but the law basically exists, because it is known that the accused committed first-degree murder.

Why are there so many rabbis and sources that show that one should pray and He will save (even a sharp sword is laid down, etc.)?

A. For the not-so-high chance that something very, very great will indeed happen and He will save.
B. For the feeling of the person praying.
C. The prayers will go to something else. Not for what we are aiming for. Maybe something related to that person.

This is not an apologetic on my part, but an honest attempt (even if painful) to present the Jewish faith and to make it clear that God does not work with us. In order to change His will, to change a decree that has been passed, something truly great must happen.

We emphasize that if “reincarnation” It did not exist as a fairly basic concept in Judaism (in our time). Indeed, your question was stronger, as we clearly see that there are people who suffer without having sinned.