So is it actually possible that I make an effort to keep the commandments, make even more effort to avoid transgressions, and get no reward for it at all?

He already wrote and explained that he doesn’t know.
He has a reasonable hypothesis about the soul’s continued existence,
and the rest he doesn’t know.
But it’s a very worthwhile lottery, since the uncertainty may also tilt toward the possibility that there is reward, as the Sages’ reasoning or tradition suggests.
It’s worth investing because of the doubt.
And the fact is that Rabbi Michael also invests, and presumably he invests not only for that reason, but maybe also because of the consideration that perhaps there is reward.

As stated, I do not know. But serving God for its own sake is not done in hope of reward (see Maimonides, beginning of chapter 10 of the Laws of Repentance).

1. What does the Rabbi think about angels? For example, in Maharsha (Makkot 10a): “Through good thought and good will, angels are created that protect a person.”

2. If the Rabbi thinks that the world was handed over to the laws of nature and from then on there is no divine intervention—what is the point of the prayer “Have mercy on us, Lord our God …”? And what is the difference between a Jew and a gentile regarding his fate?

3. What does the Rabbi think about reincarnation of souls?

4. How does the Rabbi explain: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, these to everlasting life, and these to everlasting contempt”?

5. Why did Joseph and Jacob insist on being buried in the Holy Land? After all, in any case everything returns to the dust as it was. “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”

1. It is entirely possible that these are metaphors, or a mistake.
2. As I have written here several times, the meaning of requests in prayer is indeed problematic according to my view. Either the Holy One, blessed be He, does answer at rare times, and for that we ask, or it really is a mistake. What makes you think there is a difference between a Jew and a gentile?
3. I don’t know.
4. What is the question? These will awake to eternal life and these will not (or perhaps these too, but a life of contempt). The question is whether this is true, not what it means.
5. I have no idea. By the way, I don’t know whether everything returns to dust. As I wrote, it seems quite plausible to me that it does not (otherwise where does the soul go after death?). But that is of course only a conjecture. Still, all the various descriptions of the World to Come sound dubious and baseless to me.

I have tons more questions on the subject—afraid to put them in writing…

1. Honorable Rabbi—angels spoke with Abraham… and saved Lot from Sodom… how are those metaphors, how are those mistakes?
2. There has to be a difference, because we are the Creator’s firstborn sons. “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” That does not mean that the Creator does not hear every mouth’s prayer, but we have the merit of the fathers. And even Balaam said: “Let me die the death of the upright, and let my end be like his.”
A. What does the Rabbi think about the speaking donkey?
B. Does the Rabbi believe in the ten things that were created on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight: the mouth of the earth, the mouth of the donkey, etc.?

3. When you say “I don’t know,” do you mean you half-believe and half-don’t, or that more than half of you doesn’t believe and the rest does? What do you feel inside, without knowing—just a feeling, since anyway nobody knows.

4. Yes—but it says “those who sleep in the dust of the earth”!!!!!! If that is what it says, then how would you explain it assuming it is true, and if it isn’t true—why was it written, and why do you think it isn’t true…?

5. Yes—but the Rabbi knows there is a verse: “and the spirit will return to God who gave it”… and it is written, “My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he too is flesh; his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
What is the point of teaching the soul words of wisdom, when study comes at the expense of other bodily pleasures… Maimonides.

6. How does the Rabbi explain karet?

7. Does the Rabbi believe that Job really existed?
8. If so, does the Rabbi think Job should have listened to his wife’s advice? Since anyway he suffers a lot, and maybe there is no World to Come?
9. What does the Rabbi think about the ten righteous people who entered Paradise alive?
10. What does the Rabbi think about Enoch being taken? Without language of death.
11. What is the Rabbi’s view on “when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was given to fools”?

1. Do you have a question? I didn’t notice one.
2. Do you mean to go over every detail in the aggadic literature of the Sages or in Scripture and ask the same thing again and again?
3. Think for yourself. Even if I explain it, you can still ask what I mean. I wrote in pretty simple Hebrew.
4. I don’t know when, if, and where it will be, or for whom. Nor whether it is a metaphor or not. It is also written that “the lips of the dead move in the grave.” And many other things are written that are interpreted in different ways. As I have written more than once, it is hard to learn anything clear from the words of the prophets.
5. And if there is a World to Come, what’s the point then? Because you gain more?
6. The medieval authorities disagreed on the question of karet and its meaning, and apparently nobody really understands what is being discussed.
7. I don’t know. The Sages already disagreed about that.
8. No. See 5.
9. I don’t know.
10. Maybe he didn’t die but was taken to another place. And even if his soul was taken, according to your view that is what is called death, so why does it say about Enoch that he did not die? That is evidence to the contrary, of course.
11. It seems to me the meaning is that there are no prophets after the destruction, and therefore whoever thinks himself a prophet, and whoever believes him, are basically fools (in today’s language: crazy people).
This seems to me more like a not-very-useful trivia quiz.

Thank you, honorable Rabbi. These questions were only to understand your opinion and nothing more—you are very special! You should know that! And because of that I was hesitant to ask, but I am grateful for every answer; it is enough for me that I understood from you even the tiniest point. I’ve done my part.
And I still have more to ask, but this time I’ll hold myself back!
And if the Rabbi wants to hear my thoughts on his words, just say so!

Today an interesting question popped into my head:
If the Rabbi is uncertain about the World to Come, then why was “be killed rather than transgress” chosen? What is the logic in that?
Maybe it is better to stay alive and enjoy life, and maybe even keep more commandments, and atone for the sin (that we committed, one whose law is “be killed rather than transgress”).

Honorable Rabbi, why is there no “be killed rather than transgress” for desecrating the Sabbath? After all, it is a covenant (part of the covenant). The proof is that Moses our teacher broke the tablets when the children of Israel worshiped idolatry, when he saw it with his own eyes as he came down from the mountain with the first tablets. And the Sages said “one transgression leads to another,” so in the end he will violate the first commandment and worship idols. So from the outset, for every transgression would it not be preferable to be killed rather than transgress? And the same applies to the stubborn and rebellious son, who was sentenced to death by law because if he does not honor his parents, how will he honor his Creator?

Someone who is significantly doubtful indeed will not allow himself to be killed. But if you have sufficient certainty (not full certainty), then yes, you do give up your life for various things (like a soldier in war, who, if he is a sober person, is certainly not completely sure of his own rightness either).

As for desecrating the Sabbath, it says: “and live by them.” The Torah was meant for life, not for dying through it. Are you asking why they did not decree rabbinically that one should be killed because of fear of a slippery slope? That really is an absurd question.

Does Maimonides hold that you are a heretic, based on what you wrote?

Ask him.

That is not a clear answer. Based on what you learned in Maimonides, what is the status of someone who does not accept his approach on these matters?

Why, regarding the providence described in the Hebrew Bible, do you treat it as a fact that came “in a period in which there were prophets, prophecy, and miracles, and then the Holy One was more involved in the world,” and not as a mistake or a metaphor (or folklore)?

Israel, I assume you know the following two laws (in my opinion): a person is considered related to himself, and a person does not render himself wicked. In short, check for yourself. It does not really interest me.

Joshua, maybe it is a metaphor, but my impression from the language of Scripture is that these are not metaphors but descriptions of fact.

An ambush?
Israel—I do not make myself into a heretic. And I’ll explain by example:
You know those vegans who can’t put “meat or honey or milk” into their mouths—they cannot bear the thought that something from an animal is inside them. That’s how I answer you. There are people who would prefer to die rather than violate the word of God. What does Maimonides have to do with it? We are discussing it here. It is more connected to feeling. Once a person commits a transgression, that’s one thing, but to violate something from the Ten Commandments is something else… “And live by them”—a nice verse—but I explained that there are people who are unable to live after they violated something from the Ten Commandments; it eats them up inside—and certainly if they had the choice not to violate the Sabbath.

Regarding the soldier who sacrifices himself, I answer: not every soldier has to be combat; with a little acting they’ll put him in a desk job and he’ll save his life just fine.
A tiny little difference: a person whom the Creator deliberately places in a situation to desecrate the Sabbath, and he has the choice to die or transgress—there is no other option. Soldiers have another option; it depends how slippery he is about avoiding combat. By the way, the army too may not go to an obligatory war if you know of: “Who is the man that has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the war and another man dedicate it…” So transgressions bring death upon a person.

Regarding the two laws the Rabbi brought: we are here to learn, and if we are learning, usually that is in order to apply it—and then it is irrelevant to think that we are wicked.
An opportunity for me to express my opinion on God’s intervention in the world nowadays: I don’t know about you, but I know endless miracle stories in which the Holy One saves people from accidents, and I am amazed and bless God who did and does miracles and reveals them to me. Don’t you have people called up to the Torah who recite the blessing of thanksgiving? There is no such thing as none.

The Rabbi said: “As for desecrating the Sabbath, it says: ‘and live by them.’ The Torah was meant for life, not for dying through it. Are you asking why they did not decree rabbinically that one should be killed because of fear of a slippery slope? That really is an absurd question.”
My opinion is—maybe it’s a test? Whether you love God more than your body? I don’t understand your puzzlement, honorable Rabbi. After all, Abraham our father didn’t ask questions; he went and offered his son, and behold the angel of God did not let him—it was purely a test. That cannot be disputed.
“Which a man shall do and live by them” is a statement from God hinting that whoever does the commandments will live. Exactly as I showed: one who has not dedicated his house can die because of it! Yes! That shows the withdrawal of providence from him, and it can shorten his life.
Especially since the Rabbi admits he does not know what karet is and there are differing opinions on it, so what is preferable—to definitely receive karet, or to rely on God’s view that one who keeps the commandments will live? And everyone knows our lives are in His hands alone. “Unless God guards a city” (from disaster and from an enemy), its builders labor in vain.
I ask the Rabbi: how is it that a person who is significantly doubtful indeed will not allow himself to be killed (and will transgress), when every person will choose to be significantly doubtful—after all, you have no proofs either way regarding the World to Come.

In another discussion, some smart guy said today that we need to honor creatures so that peace will come! I said to him—true, but first of all the Creator, and afterward the creatures. “With all your heart and with all your soul”—even if He takes your soul! That is how the Sages ruled.
And one more thing—did you see how the angel of death wanted to strike Moses our teacher? Why? Because he had not circumcised his son Gershom. Go and learn: if for circumcision he was liable to death, then for desecrating the Sabbath, where it is explicitly written “he shall surely be stoned,” all the more so he is liable to death. And there is no need to ask whether even unintentionally, because we are liable also for unintentional sins, as is known: “if a soul sins unintentionally.” And it is written: “And if the whole congregation of Israel errs, and a matter is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they do one of all the commandments of the Lord which should not be done, and they become guilty.”

A person also does not choose to be doubtful. If he is doubtful, then indeed he probably will not give up his life. And if not—then he will give up his life, like soldiers. I already explained this.

That is the point I was aiming at: we need to seek the path of peace. Will war bring peace? No. So why should I be a soldier? And to believe, even with uncertainty, in this path and lose my life—that is a stupid soldier! A smart soldier who is doubtful will not give up his life. And if a person is not doubtful, then he will give up his life—how does he become not doubtful? Hope I didn’t make it too complicated.

How can one say that the Holy One does not intervene in the world when roughly half of the Hebrew Bible, midrashim, and Talmudic passages are about the Holy One intervening (or 90% of what is not Jewish law)? One can say we are not obligated to adopt the outlooks of the Sages, but are we not obligated to adopt the outlook of the Torah? You can say “metaphor” about one passage, two, five—not about most of the Hebrew Bible.

See here, especially the link:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%A2%D7%96%D7%91-%D7%93-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A5/

With God’s help
No need to philosophize.
Whoever studies the Tanya will get answers regarding the World to Come. Regarding the soul, regarding reward.
What do we say every morning?
“I thank You, living and enduring King, for You have returned my soul within me”
So what—do we say that just with our lips, without meaning it?

Whose answers?
And why do you think those are anything more than nice speculations, and sometimes even dazzling ones?

And if you recited the phone book every morning, then there would be no need to discuss what so-and-so’s phone number is? And if you said every morning that there are three-winged demons, would that mean such demons exist?

The truth is that to answer properly one would need to write a whole scroll. But I’ll note a few points.
A. The statement that providence exists only in the time of the prophets is heresy and contradicts even the Talmud: “It was taught in the school of Hezekiah: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four death penalties did not cease. Did they not cease? Surely they ceased! Rather, the law of the four death penalties did not cease. One who became liable to stoning either falls from a roof or is trampled by a beast. One who became liable to burning either falls into a fire or is bitten by a snake. One who became liable to execution either is handed over to the government or bandits come upon him. One who became liable to strangulation either drowns in a river or dies of quinsy.”
B. And what you said, that in matters of thought there is no decision and no tradition. In the Jerusalem Talmud it is explained on the verse “between judgment and judgment, and between lesion and lesion…” — “between matters of aggadah.” That is, aggadah too is decided.
C. There is a deep lack of understanding of Maimonides on many subjects. But I’ll mention the point relevant here. People think of providence as intervention from outside. Maimonides says that providence depends on knowledge. And I will explain: all conduct in our reality depends on our knowledge. Knowledge is not understanding and education, but identification with reality. For example, in the past warriors identified with death and evil, until they saw it as part of reality that did not need fixing, and therefore they murdered and raped even women and children. For in their view everyone dies and life has no eternal value. Reality, for them, was self-satisfaction until death. Consequently….
Rather, reality has many layers. And the knowledge of God is to know that “He is there,” meaning beyond cognition there is a First Existent, and He is the truth of reality. That truth is not pictured in the senses, because the senses picture reality as it is received by us, not as it truly is. Reality without truth is called imagination. The more knowledge is joined with wisdom—that is, with caution not to think one knows everything, for the wise person knows that he does not know, especially regarding the truth of reality—the more precise one’s actions become. And just as there are occurrences in nature, such as natural disasters and so on, so too the human response, insofar as one is wise—that is, nullifies his own knowledge—will be more correct, and his action will be the objective response to it, such that the full meaning of the action will unfold over time without end. Just as the meaning of death can have many layers, and a narrow grasp of its meaning can also lead to cruelty.

D. As for the difference between a Jew and a gentile, that too requires length, but I will note that only the Jew’s consciousness is developed enough as a human being to be able to experience himself within a strong national-cultural framework, and still experience himself outside that existential framework. A Jew is a people of peoples, of all human beings, unlike the gentile, who is always part of humanity through some particular way of life of human beings.
There can also be gentiles who incline toward the universal dimension, but only through blurring their national identity. The Jew experiences himself as the essence of man, and the gentile as an external way of human life.

Likewise, statements by the author of the Tanya about “the husks of the gentiles,” that gentiles today are not as Jewish law says—beyond the fact that this suffers from misunderstanding, the very statement that Jewish law is not eternal contains an extremely grave defect. Not just in this law, but in the whole approach to Torah. For Torah, even in its halakhic reasoning, always speaks in objective reasoning, not circumstantial reasoning. As the Maharal says, the Sages always speak in wisdom, meaning in what must necessarily be. Indeed there are disputes, but that is because there are several angles on what must necessarily be, as is known to anyone who studies Talmud, and to Rabbi Michael Abraham himself.

The “husks” indicate a consciousness-awareness of an entity as separate from another, and there are four such husks. As long as a person is in a body, this is necessary in the feeling of his body.
And this is in his animal soul, which is the sense of life found in the warmth of his blood by which he feels his body. And in sensing a body, he senses an essence separate from another.

The translucent husk exists in the soul of the pious among the nations of the world and in Israel. And among gentiles there are impure husks.
The essence of a pious person, as explained in Maimonides, is that he does not conduct himself like the wise man, who follows the exact middle path, but rather fences himself toward the extremes. And all this is because of his awareness of his environment and of the collective, until the good of the collective is his own good. Thus, “what is mine is yours and what is yours is yours,” and he even burns his fingernails though there is harm to himself in that. Not everyone can be pious.
The pious person is one who has greater wisdom, who is aware of his belonging and dependence on the collective until the good of the collective is his own good. Like Moses’ grandson who practiced idolatry. And Moses sought atonement for that for Israel in the matter of the calf, and the nation was not repulsive to him, for he needed a people.

Jewish identity is essentially collective, because the Jew’s consciousness in his nationhood is knowledge of God, which is the truth of reality not limited by intellect. The Jew denies idolatry, that is, conceptualizing reality within a limit and turning it into a supreme principle. He remains at the ultimate knowledge that he does not know, which is knowledge of the truth of reality.
Indeed Jews too can worship idols, but not out of their Jewish belonging. Rather one must invent for oneself some “isms,” such as being Israeli and the like. The very existence of Jewishness is a denial of the boundaries of human opinions that separate one nation from another. He is simply a Jew. This is not talking, God forbid, about some higher power, but about identification with the truth of reality in that one experiences himself as a Jew without any definition of what a Jew is.

A pious gentile among the nations of the world is one who keeps the seven commandments because that is how it is in the Torah of God—that is, out of the clarity of knowing the truth of his existence, not because of intellectual reasons. Just as nature acts not because of intellectual reasons but because that is the nature of its creation, so he keeps commandments because that is his nature. And the ability to identify the truth of his existence requires acceptance of the commandments before three Jews, who express that true identity-bond, the one not pictured in any category.
In this way, even a gentile—despite belonging to a people that does not worship God—is limited in his national identity, and therefore does not have a soul, meaning a general national awareness of God, but only knows God in a private way. And the obstacle of this awareness is what our Sages called “the filth of the serpent.”
In any case, he is beyond the limited perception of reality; he is in the truth of reality, and therefore he is pious. And in this he does what is fitting for all human beings, not only for his own people. That is the wise man among the nations.

The separation in the bodily sense is what leads to transgressions and cruelty, even if in practice he behaves nicely and pleasantly. One should remember that the Germans too were pleasant until before the Holocaust. We are not dealing with fantastical evil. Rather, evil is a shaky essence that cannot endure on its own.