Thank you, Rabbi, for the response.

I didn’t understand the Rabbi’s answer as to why one cannot infer rationally that general prayers do work (and not just “simply believe”). Here are a few rational arguments showing that general prayers do work:

A. The Jewish people have been praying for many hundreds of years about “returning to the Land,” and in the end it indeed happened. What is additionally amazing is that this region remained fairly desolate (since the Bar Kokhba period no truly serious city and no truly serious regime arose here, even though this is a relatively convenient geographic area and holy to so many other religions). And in general, the very fact that the Jews survived in exile seems like a kind of “natural miracle.”

B. As I understand it, Jews live longer and healthier lives (data about this was published not long ago—in a comparison of Jews versus Arabs), and from this there is room to think that if Jews live longer and healthier lives, then the blessing “Heal us” works.

C. The blessing “Graciously grants knowledge”—there is no doubt that overall the Jews are the smartest people in the world. Most Jews (at least in the Land of Israel) are connected to the Creator in high percentages, and this is proven. And that means that the request for “knowledge” (connection) in that blessing also works.

D. The Jewish people pray for the wholeness of the people and the land (the Prayer for the Welfare of the State). And indeed, even though we are surrounded by haters and enemies, we survive, and survive quite well. By contrast, other peoples who were also very technologically advanced (for their own period) collapsed very quickly when they were surrounded by enemies.

I mean this:

1. Wherever there is doubt whether it works or doesn’t work enough, that is either because the time has not yet come or because we did not pray strongly enough (and sorry that I’m falling into tautology here).
2. There are prayers that cannot be put to the test (at least for now), for example “Forgive us” or “Hear our voice.” But they certainly do not refute what I’m trying to argue here. That is, you will not find a “general prayer” that definitely did not work.

In summary, there is room for a rational inference that general prayers work. That same “rational space” that allows one to infer that general prayers work is exactly “free choice.” A free choice based on rational inference, as the Rabbi likes, and not just “baseless beliefs.”
If the Rabbi sees a problem in my argument, I’d be glad to know where.

A. That proof is not compelling. It could certainly be a natural result. Even if the probability is small, in one place it can happen. Beyond that, who says this is the result of prayers? It is a divine plan, and He carried out His plan. After all, there are prophecies that this would happen, so they knew it in advance even without the prayers.
B. I don’t know the statistics. Relative to Arabs that says nothing. As is known, health is a function of socioeconomic status. Is there also a verified correlation between degree of fear of Heaven and degree of health?
C. What does that have to do with prayers? Before the Amidah was instituted, were Jews not smarter? I would guess that back then the gap was even larger.
D. Again, this seems to me a completely unfounded claim. Our enemies are really not at a level that threatens us. If we were surrounded by Germans or British who threatened us—then we’d have something to talk about. By the way, Uri Milstein once wrote that in the War of Independence we had superiority over the enemy on several parameters. The folk legends about the few against the many are apparently not accurate.

In short, you are assuming what you need to prove. When one seriously examines such a thesis, one must use a more rigorous methodology: go through all peoples in all circumstances, and neutralize other effects (apart from prayers). On the face of it, the situation seems to me completely the opposite. Usually when people bring an argument based on actual data, a short check shows that it doesn’t hold water. Beyond that, one should remember that what happens in general is also an event in the world, and it is composed of physical events that happen to individual people and objects. And if each individual is subject to the laws of physics, then so is the whole. Therefore, the burden of proof is on whoever claims otherwise.
And in general, there have been quite a few events that aroused mass prayers (Nachshon Wachsman, rain, the illness of a great rabbi, and more). Has anyone ever done a systematic check to see whether the results there deviate from the norm? My impression is absolutely not. Of course there is a prohibition against testing it (“Test Me in this”), and thus the system protects itself against refutation.
I think part of the dispute between us is the question of what the starting point is and on whom the burden of proof lies. You are looking for evidence that prayer does not work, and I am looking for evidence that it does. For me, the scientific outlook is the starting point, and whoever claims it is not correct has the burden of proof.

Yigal Allon once said that Safed in the War of Independence was saved by deed and by miracle: the deed was the prayers of the elders of Safed, and the miracle was the Palmach platoon that arrived and saved them. Note this well.

First, I thank the Rabbi for the long response, and I would be very glad if the Rabbi sees fit to read my reply, and even respond.
****************************************************
A. “That proof is not compelling. It could certainly be a natural result. Even if the probability is small, in one place it can happen.”

If you see a person leaving his house for 100 straight days wearing a blue shirt, it is very worthwhile to conclude that he likes the color blue. One can of course think that by chance, on each of those hundred days, he happened to take out a blue shirt from the closet (indeed theoretically that is possible). But that is so improbable. But according to the Rabbi’s approach, I understand that there is still no necessity to conclude that he loves / is addicted to / is committed to the color blue, right?

The probability of abiogenesis (the “beginning” thesis), which says that a primitive living cell could arise very gradually from inanimate matter, is also a very low probability (even though we are talking about a very gradual process leading to a very primitive cell). So should we conclude that this is naturally possible, or should we conclude that God probably guided it?
From the way I understood the Rabbi’s answer, the Rabbi does not reject abiogenesis because of the (very slim) probability that still allows it . . .

Let’s narrow it down to a binary world—suppose there are two options: either the scientific abiogenesis thesis is possible, or God led to it. There is no conclusive proof either way, and assuming it is better to decide and not sit on the fence, what would the Rabbi decide?

Let’s narrow it down to a binary world—suppose there are two options: either the wondrous story of the Jewish people is something totally natural and accidental (because of the very small probability that such a unique thing would happen), or this is general providence. What would the Rabbi decide?

“There are prophecies that this would happen, so they knew it in advance even without the prayers.” — The very knowledge of the Holy One, blessed be He (and prophecy), does not negate the possibility that the power of prayer (which was also known in advance) also played a role here. The Holy One, blessed be He, is not subject to the dimension of time. Prayers that are being prayed these days prevented great suffering for Jews who perished in the Bar Kokhba revolt and in the destruction of the First Temple. That is my opinion.
******************************
B. Jews live longer (are healthier):

https://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3775129,00.html

Even settlers (who are considered the periphery), the very leaven in the dough in terms of fear of Heaven, live longer than wealthy Jews who do not live in the periphery. In fact, from what I understood, the average lifespan there is among the highest in the world (I note that I did not check this myself, but I rely on the words of Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, may he live a long and good life)
**************************************
C. I agree that Jews were probably wise even before the Men of the Great Assembly. But who says that before the Men of the Great Assembly instituted prayer, Jews were not praying spontaneously for wisdom?
Just as it is reasonable to assume they prayed for a match and for rain,
so it is reasonable to assume they prayed for wisdom.
The “Amidah prayer” that I used is only an example of the broader concept of “prayer.” So yes, prayers probably affected wisdom then too.
*************************************************

My conclusion after analyzing section D (the issue of present providence over the State of Israel):

D. From the Rabbi’s words I infer two things:
1. There is a quantitative advantage.
2. There is a technological advantage (a qualitative advantage).

According to the Rabbi’s words, what matters is the technological advantage, since it is known that the Egyptian and Iranian armies are much larger than ours, but the Rabbi assigns no importance to that at all.

Criticism of the Rabbi’s method of ignoring quantitative advantage
Rabbi, I would be glad if you could examine yourself—isn’t this also a kind of “assuming what you need to prove” in order to fit your approach that “there is no general providence”?
Did you really check that a “numerical surplus” does not in fact constitute an advantage?

Criticism of the Rabbi’s remarks regarding technological advantage
It is very interesting that precisely the enormous qualitative-technological advantage that the Arabs had at the beginning of the War of Independence (the data is on Wikipedia) did not help them. So it is very interesting that there is no general providence (according to the Rabbi’s words, of course), and yet a very technologically limited army (0 tanks and planes until June 1948) copes well with armies with technological superiority. How does that fit with the Rabbi’s words, which assigned great importance to technological superiority when that fits his thesis?
As someone who advocates technological superiority, why at the beginning of the War of Independence did the Arabs fail to exploit their enormous advantage?
Is it still impossible to make some rational inference here in favor of the Jewish people?
Rabbi, it is really not clear to me that you infer there is no evidence for general providence when the Jews come out victorious regardless of which side the technological superiority is on (and of course we haven’t even talked about the Six-Day War yet). . .

Refutation of a straw man the Rabbi used
It is really a shame about the straw man the Rabbi is using against me. I did not mention the War of Independence. There is no “folk legend” telling of “the few against the many”—the order of battle is actually described nicely on Wikipedia, with the (quantitative) advantage clearly mentioned for Israel.
Where did I mention that specifically in the War of Independence there was a numerical advantage for the gentiles? (Did the Rabbi project ignorance he heard from someone else onto me?)

A broader response than just the War of Independence
But why take this to the place the Rabbi took it—to the War of Independence (even though, as I showed above, here too it turns out the Rabbi “came to curse and ended up blessing” the approach of general providence)? Maybe we should talk about the Yom Kippur War or the Six-Day War, where the enemies had an enormous numerical and technological advantage (not to mention the mental one)?
Has the Rabbi heard about the natural miracles described regarding Operation Focus?
Was there no general providence here?

Summary in response to section D of the Rabbi, who holds that there is no general providence nowadays for the people dwelling in Zion
To sum up this issue, even if the Rabbi is right (and I am in very great doubt that this is so) and indeed in the military history of the world one sees that a “numerical surplus” does not constitute an advantage,
then regarding the current situation I choose to see our technological-qualitative advantage over the Iranians, and also the “peace agreement” with Egypt, who hate us so much, as general providence.
Why? Because our technological superiority is general providence of “Jewish wisdom” (which enables the technological-qualitative advantage).
And a peace agreement with an entire people (the Egyptians), most of whom hate us so much, is also general providence, because in natural terms one could also infer that it goes against logic.
Here too, as with the Iranians, this is the choice I make in order to believe (again, a belief based on logic) that there is general providence.
And regarding the past—the Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, and to some extent also Independence, are actually very nice evidence for general providence over the Jewish people, from a rational standpoint. . .

********

Regarding the details of cases where mass prayers did not help:
A. The Rabbi proceeds from the assumption that prayer is answered the way the people praying want, whereas Judaism says that every prayer is answered, even if we do not see the result of exactly how it is answered.
That is, the prayers for Nachshon Wachsman of blessed memory did not fall on “deaf ears,” and they had a good effect in other places.
But I admit that this is completely tautological.

B. I admit that it is probably very hard to test the significance of general prayers for the particular desire that was prayed for. But as one sees in the case of “the return to Zion,” the results sometimes actually are seen in the end for that very subject that was prayed for.

C. Following the previous two sections, if the Rabbi wants a rational inference, one could say that prayer for a “specific desire,” whether general or personal, cannot be answered (always, or even in a statistically significant way) for the following two reasons: :
1. It would negate free choice.
2. There is the divine will, and prayer of course has place and influence, but a prayer that always changes—or even in a highly significant way changes—the Creator’s will turns the Creator into something limited, in my humble opinion . . .

In summary, I just want to say that I’m happy to be in a situation where faith is made up not only of rational inferences, but also of other things like “intuitions,” “feelings,” “mental state,” and so on.
To be “a block of intellect” seems pretty scary to me. . .

Thank you very much, Rabbi!

Hello,
Forgive me, but it’s hard to respond to something this long.
A. A person going out in a blue shirt is an act of choice, not a random event. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
The probability of abiogenesis is small, but if there were a large number of attempts, then it is still naturally possible. That is also what happens regarding the return of the people to its land (one people can succeed). Wearing a shirt, by contrast, is a single act and not part of a collection of many random acts.
The Holy One, blessed be He, is completely subject to the dimension of time. I have discussed this here more than once. If He knows in advance, there is no choice. You can read about this in the second book.
B. For some reason, people in the periphery also pray less effectively.
It’s hard for me to continue. Sorry, but I’m under time pressure these days.