Suppose it is a spiritual improvement without divine intervention.
Does that improvement in the spiritual sense affect the person *as a natural creature* in a positive way?

I dont know. My impression is that not directly. That is, there are no indications of a direct effect of a commandment or prayer on any material condition. But as I said, I have no way to rule it out categorically.

Its literally idolatry to think that there is no "unity in reality," that there is no unity between heaven and earth.
As if a person studies Torah or performs other commandments and it affects a spiritual dimension, but it has no effect at all on the earth.

Sorry, that is idolatry in every sense.
That is not Judaism.

Ehud, please cite sources in the Talmud and in Maimonides for the above Jewish-law ruling.

Rabbi Tarfon and the elders were once reclining in the upper chamber of the house of Nitzeh in Lod, and this question was asked before them: Is study greater or is action greater? Rabbi Tarfon answered and said: Action is greater. Rabbi Akiva answered and said: Study is greater. They all answered and said: Study is greater, because study leads to action.
And it is not the exposition that is the main thing, but the action.

If a seah of terumah fell into a hundred, and he removed it: if they were untithed produce, he makes them terumah and tithes for another place, or designates the tithe-terumah within them by name. If they were tithe-tevel, he makes them terumah and tithes for another place, or designates the tithe-terumah within them by name. If they were second tithe, he redeems them onto money according to the value of the terumah, excluding the value of the terumah within them. If they were of the new crop, he waits until Passover and gives it to the priest.

It wasnt claimed that Torah study is great because it protects and saves.

Also, back then Torah meant the Written Torah; today people do not engage in the Written Torah at all, and the learning in yeshivot does not protect and save.
Also, we didnt find in the Holocaust that the learned were saved. Quite the opposite. The corrupt Judenrats survived.

Can you explain the connection to the seah of terumah, because I didnt understand?

My apologies. I thought you had come to prove from the above passage that Torah really does protect and save. I saw no connection, so I tacked on a Tosefta of my own. (And after writing it I realized that with Heavens help one can see there that action is greater, since we require lifting it up and knowledge alone is not enough, and think it through.) On the matter itself, of course there is no proof at all. It may be that study protects and saves and that commandment-performance protects and saves, and we would still need to know which is greater than which. The Tannaim dealt not only with the Written Torah but also with the Oral Torah, and in general the distinction is not sharp at all; and that is exactly what they do today in yeshivot as well. The question from the Holocaust is a good one; papyri have been torn over similar questions.

The only mechanism by which one could claim that reciting a text protects and saves is a mechanism of magic.
And about something like this the Torah warned against those who instruct boys to keep studying Torah because of sorcery and magic…
"There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, one who practices divination, an augur, an enchanter, or a sorcerer."

And not only that, but in the coming days everyone will see how all those smooth-talkers and factionalists, who perpetuate disputes and ignorance and stupidity, are all going to get smacked in the head. The main thing is that they should be careful about their shtreimel and their clothing when it happens.
"And the Lord struck every firstborn… and there was a great cry."

And above all, as Rabbi Michael rules, the main thing is that the economy not collapse. Thats what matters. Let everyone die.

What do you mean by magic? In their view, the Creator of the world guides the world, and He gives reward in return for Torah study and commandment observance. And even without the Creator making new decisions, it is certainly possible that He built into creation mechanisms of spiritual influence. After all, mutual influences from spirit to body (the psychophysical problem) are accepted by anyone who believes in mind-body dualism. If it works, that is not magic, and if it doesnt work, then yes, it is magic? One just has to check whether it works or not. Do I need to remind you that the entire Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is overflowing with promises that serving God protects and saves? The Torah itself is full of this, the whole book of Judges revolves around it, likewise the book of Kings, which also explains each time that reality seems to contradict it (such as the failure in the days of the righteous Josiah) why it did not work then ("the Lord did not turn from the fierceness of His anger, from the days of Manasseh"). All the prophets prophesy severe punishments in this world for transgressions and great reward in this world for commandments. "And if you will surely listen… I will give grass in your field"  is that magic in your view?

Your understanding of Rabbi Michaels "ruling" is really childish in an astonishing way. As though "the economy" were some abstract institution whose destruction or survival only matters for the technicalities of marriage law. Moreover, even in ordinary times one always sacrifices a small number of human lives for the sake of many benefits for many people. One could invest the entire state budget in training doctors and buying medicines, and forbid everyone from spending even a penny on anything that does not help prolong life. One could forbid building tall houses so that workers will not die, and all citizens would crowd into tents. Some students also commit suicide because of academic pressure, so let us forbid academic studies altogether and make do with the safe cultivation of corn. Of course it should also be forbidden to park a car, lest a dispute over a parking place arise and end in murder. It should even be forbidden to form human relationships at all, because a tiny fraction of them deteriorate into injury and murder. When you examine these absurd examples, youll see that there is no difference. And in the simplest and most direct sense, if the economy is missing, say, 100 billion shekels, that is money with which thousands of life-years could have been gained. In developed countries life expectancy is high not because of the weather, but because a stable economy makes it possible to invest in healthcare services and gives citizens free time and disposable income to take care of their health.

Read again about the difference between accidents and a plague. You didnt understand at all. It seems you didnt think about it at all, so dont try to explain it to me; first try to understand why you are mistaken. If you cant find it, then ask.

In any case, the Haredim violated "and you shall guard yourselves carefully" and "do not stand idly by your neighbors blood," and more and more. See elsewhere what I wrote.
And in general all punctiliousness and stringencies are idolatry.
"And it shall be, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe and do all His commandments and statutes that I command you today, all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you:
The Lord will make the pestilence cling to you…
If you do not observe to do all the words of this Torah written in this book…
And He will bring back upon you all the diseases of Egypt which you dreaded, and they shall cling to you…
In the morning you shall say: If only it were evening; and in the evening you shall say: If only it were morning  because of the dread in your heart which you shall dread and because of the sight your eyes shall see."

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

I see youre strong on quoting verses, in line with your approach that attributes loftier powers to the Written Torah than to the Oral Torah. From the sidelines I would actually recommend engaging more with the Oral Torah in order to get closer to what is correct. And if all punctiliousness and stringencies are idolatry (not accurate, but lets grant it), then why isnt that magic according to your method? Does bending ones back before an idol have some natural power that twisting ones lips while studying Torah or waving ones hand with the lulav lacks?

You are welcome to criticize the Haredim to your hearts content, and I did not address that point  only your attack on the principle of "protects and saves," whether from the Torah itself or from claims of magic, etc. I do not understand what distinction you are making between accidents and a plague. There is some sort of price list for human life relative to money (many benefits for many people, and money also maps quite unambiguously onto additional human life-years), and you are welcome to argue about the price list and include in it criticism of current decision-makers if they are thinking in terms of different price lists. Ridiculous demagoguery, such as making a mighty effort to kill the Jews in order to "save Germanys economy," is as relevant to the matter as a man dancing under the moon at the sanctification of the moon ceremony.

Hello Gimel,

Here are the words of Rabbi Kook:

Deep within the heart, in the chambers of its purity and holiness, the Israelite flame grows strong, demanding with force the firm and constant attachment of life to all the commandments of God, to pour the spirit of God, the full collective spirit of Israel that fills the entire expanse of the soul, into all its many unique vessels, to express the full Israelite expression in complete prominence, practical and ideal. And this is the root of the yearning for the Land of Israel, the holy land, the land of God, in which all the commandments take on concrete form and stand out in their complete shape.

Hello Ehud. Quoting a paragraph from Rabbi Kook is not enough to establish Jewish law in serious matters. And it is not even certain that this paragraph says that the commandments have an effect on the land and not only on the spiritual dimension. It says that in the Land one can fulfill the commandments in a fuller way (because many commandments depend on the Land, on the majority of its inhabitants dwelling in it, and on the Sanhedrin, and because of "set up signposts for yourself"). It also says that through the commandments one highlights the Israelite expression, but even that does not mean that taking the lulav does something in the world; only that the person taking the lulav is affected by it (probably through his consciousness).

Gimel, what blessing do we recite over a commandment?
What do you think that means?
Its just so obvious…
Thats exactly the same reason Maimonides (if I am not mistaken) does not count the commandment of belief in God…

"Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the redemption of a firstborn donkey." What do we see from this formula? That the Jewish people were set apart from all other peoples and were commanded with unique commandments. And even if the meaning is that the one who performs a commandment becomes sanctified and refined by doing so, that too is a spiritual matter and not a physical one. Do you think holiness can be measured in a laboratory? About an effect on consciousness I cannot claim anything, and I really do think that sometimes performing the act of a commandment affects the consciousness of the one doing it.

If one does not count the commandment of the core belief in God, it is because there is no point in commanding beliefs (a command concerns what to do, not what to think; a person has no control over that. And if he believes, there is no need for a command, and if he does not believe, the command will not help at all). One can command further investigation, or prevent further investigation, etc. In any case, from the formulas of commandments one cannot prove either the factual claim itself (that the commandments or the Torah affect the physical dimension) or the ruling you pronounced (that anyone who does not think so is an idolater).

Gimel, what is "blessed"?
After all, if we wanted to bless God Himself, we would say, "May You be blessed, Lord."

What is "blessed"?

Just so it should be known: Maimonides does count the commandment of belief. Positive commandment no. 1.
Now the discussion can continue.

Please reveal to me what the answer is and how it connects to the topic.
I would appreciate it if you took into account that searching the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) shows that even regarding flesh and blood, living things, vegetation, or even an abstract noun, one says "blessed" ("Blessed are you to the Lord, my daughter; your latter kindness is better than the former." "Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your soil." "The day on which my mother bore me  let it not be blessed").
And also regarding God there are places where one says "may He be blessed" ("May the name of the Lord be blessed from now and forever").
And also regarding a non-divine subject one says "may it be blessed" ("And now You have undertaken to bless the house of Your servant, that it may be forever before You, for You, Lord, have blessed it, and it shall be blessed forever." And in Rashi there: that is, Your servants house shall be blessed forever).

To Rabbi Michi: perhaps it is Nachmanides who does not count it. To the best of my recollection, one of the sages who enumerate the commandments does not count belief in God as one of the 613 commandments. (I noted there that I was not 100% sure that it was Maimonides.)

Gimel, before I answer your question, you answer me  what is blessed?
What is a blessing?
What is "the blessing"?

This enormous difficulty from positive commandment no. 1 in Maimonides reminded me of an aggadic story.
The son of the Vilna Gaon challenged several rabbis: it says, "The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth  no less and no more." And it says, "The daily offering is brought on the ninth, the tenth, the eleventh, and the twelfth," but it does not say, "no less and no more." Why?
The rabbis strained themselves in their pilpul, one saying this and another saying that. The first approached and laid out his answer; the Gaons son shook his head and said, "My father gave a better answer." The second approached and presented his answer, and again he was met with a head shake: "My father gave a better answer." So he rejected all the answers until their hands grew weak, and they said to him: Well then  what did your father answer? He said to them: My father answered that in fact it also says there, "no less and no more."

[Indeed I did not remember what Maimonides says and did not open the book, because I remembered that in any case there are discussions and positions about it. That is why I said that the core commandment of belief cannot be counted, and if it is counted then one has to explain it as an obligation of deepening ones understanding or a prohibition on further inquiry after a person currently regards himself as a believer  though Im not sure that helps, but technically one can forbid it.]

Ehud, I dont know how to answer.

Gimel,
And I know that the world tells that story about Rabbi Chaim of Brisk: "There is no such Tosafot."

In the story "There is no such Tosafot," I interpret it to myself as meaning that he interpreted the Tosafot in a fitting way. It is hard for me to believe that someone can really say about something (that was told to him by a reasonably learned person) that it is so idiotic that there is no such Tosafot. Or else, if there were such a Tosafot, he would remember it, since he went through the entire Talmud at least once, and something so astonishing people do tend to remember, and the later authorities would point it out, etc.

It doesnt matter. Its like stories about the Baal Shem Tov. One has to believe that it could have happened. In practice, who says there was even such an incident? Why go looking for explanations and resolutions?

Meaning, there was no such story.

Gimel,

Ill answer in 3 sections. If you think it appropriate to respond, Id be glad if you could answer according to each section.

1. "Blessed"  God is the source of blessing. Exactly like the words gracious and merciful.
"You"  comes (ata in Aramaic).
And thus it is written in the Torah: "And He said: The Lord came from Sinai, and shone forth from Seir… and He came from myriads of holiness, from His right hand…"

That is, God brings abundance when we bless (of course also over the commandment). We are vessels for receiving the abundance
that comes.

2. Can this abundance be measured (however it manifests) in a laboratory?
No. Love also cannot be measured in a laboratory. So what does that mean? That there is no love in the world?
Obviously there are things that exist on earth (spiritual or otherwise) that cannot be measured.
Thats why your and Rabbi Michis "I dont see it" is simply irrelevant.
If I follow your method, I will also decide that there is no love in the world.

3. At the beginning you asked for proof that it is written in the Talmud or the sages that commandments also have an effect on earth.
I didnt really understand the question, because in my opinion examples are not lacking.
To the best of my recollection, there is a story in the Talmud about a Babylonian amora (I dont remember his name) to whom an economic disaster happened and all his wine jugs broke. After he became distressed and did not understand why this had happened, he examined his deeds and in the end he found that he had committed a transgression, and therefore he was punished from Heaven. So this is an example that even in the Talmud it is mentioned that commandments (positive or negative) affect what happens here.

1. Not true at all. Barukh with a qamatz is a present-tense qal verb form, like broken, locked, sealed, and in the language of the grammarians in Spain it is "quasi-adjectival." Gracious and merciful are in a noun pattern, like oven or chief, and therefore the first radical has a patah and is followed by a dagesh. (Merciful has no dagesh because the het is guttural, but the patah vocalization indicates that it is a noun and not a present-tense verb.)
Therefore barukh means someone who has received the action of blessing (that is, someone blessed him  like someone was broken, locked, sealed), whereas merciful means someone who has certain qualities (here: mercy).
And even without relying on a grammatical consideration (a completely basic one), one can understand it from the usages in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) as I pointed out to you earlier. Does "Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl" mean that this windblown basket of straw is the source of blessing?
And in plain Hebrew, ata means "you"  think it through.

2. There is a bit of confusion here. I did not say one word, not half a word, against the claim that in the canonical literature there is reference to commandments as affecting reality in the form of reward. On the contrary, I elaborated in arguing against the honorable Gaon, The Last Decisor, may his light shine, that the entire Torah is full of this and that there is no magic involved, etc.
All I asked for was a source for your Jewish-law ruling that anyone who does not think this is an idolater. "The law is severe," in the words of the Hazon Ish, and dealing with it must be done carefully and with reasons. When you brought a paragraph from Rabbi Kook, I told you two things: (a) one does not derive Jewish law from isolated paragraphs (as I often say in such cases: are you issuing rulings about my life?), and (b) this paragraph does not speak at all about the effect of commandments in the physical dimension.
But I certainly agree that all the writers of the Jewish canons held the view that God exercises particular providence and that the commandments have an effect (although, in their view, it is probably mediated by God and not by some mechanism embedded in the world).

As for the wording of the blessing  which really is something quite basic in Judaism and it is awkward to argue against it  I said that even if the meaning of "who has sanctified us" is spiritual holiness (and that is not the meaning), there is still no problem here. Because indeed, a person is sanctified by performing the commandment, and who denied that? Let a person be sanctified as much as he can, and let his soul be refined like crystal. Holiness indeed exists, and it is a spiritual matter. It cannot be measured, nor can its consequences (apparently), in a laboratory, and therefore there is no objection in the world to the hypothesis that a person becomes sanctified, and in that sense the commandments have a spiritual effect (that is not mediated through consciousness).
In short, my only question to you on this issue was about the laws of idolatry  not what the sages thought, and not what is true in their opinion.

1. Without getting into the grammar and the proofs you brought from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), when I bless (use the word barukh), I take upon myself (or upon that which I bless) the abundance.
In the context of the word "barukh," you can see my intention 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 expression idolatry not in the context of some Jewish law.
For me, idolatry is accepting something partial and deficient, and cleaving to it.
For example, if for a person a certain value is sacred (when detached from the Holy One, blessed be He), then in my opinion he is an idolater. For example, people for whom the value of "health" is sacred  they are idolaters. They relate to health as if it were God. What happens if tomorrow it is discovered that the person must undergo bypass surgery and afterward have a pacemaker implanted (meaning he is no longer considered a healthy person)? Then thats it  the highest value has collapsed, the person is no longer healthy, so life is over?
Likewise, someone for whom "family" is the highest value  what happens if tomorrow the family falls apart (which happens not infrequently)? Then thats it  life has no meaning?

Of course there are lower values too (to which people really cling), like "six-pack abs," "Maccabi Tel Aviv," etc.

The entire scale of values must always be a derivative of faith in God. Nothing else.
That much as an introduction, to show what I call "idolatry" (partiality).

The claim that commandments do not bring abundance into the earth is idolatry, in my opinion, because it turns the blessed Infinite One into something very deficient and partial  there is heaven, there is earth, and there is no influence between them when commandments are fulfilled. There is no unity in reality. Where there is no unity in reality, that is idolatry.

"In that sense the commandments have a spiritual effect (that is not mediated through consciousness)."

Again, with that I cannot agree. There is a spiritual effect that in the end also actually affects nature itself, even if one cannot see it in a laboratory.
As stated, to say that there is a "spiritual dimension" and a "natural dimension" and there is no direct relation of fertilization between them, meaning no unity, is a very problematic thing.
If your approach were correct, the Men of the Great Assembly would not have instituted blessings involving "natural" abundance (as in the Amidah), but would have instituted all sorts of mystical blessings, etc.

1. I understand the meaning of the blessing in a much more simple way, but I have no objection to other interpretations. Barukh is without doubt in a verbal pattern. (If it were compensatory dagesh, then in the plural it would not follow the reduction rule as berukhim but barukhim, like thoughts / sharpened  but it is superfluous, since in the plural it remains harutzim.) And I do not see in the link you cited the imprecise comparison to gracious and merciful.

2. I thought you were speaking about idolatry in the halakhic sense. Truthfully I just pounced on the word and went into pedantic mode. Since you never wrote that, I dont really have many complaints here either. Maybe there really is an aspect of idolatry in accepting values completely detached from God (as distinct from detached from Jewish law). But I do not think at all that if the commandments do not bring abundance into the earth, then the Infinite One is very deficient and partial. (And that argument is double-edged as a proof that the Infinite One is very deficient and partial.) In any case, it turns out that at least in my eyes we dont have much of a disagreement. Mount Sinai was entirely in smoke, and the children of Israel encamped each man by his banner.

Regarding "barukh," here is a link explaining the matter (from my rabbi and teacher, Rabbi Uri Amos Cherki, may he live long and well). You can read just 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 seeing the following segment (17 minutes):

Thanks. I read Nefesh HaChayim, Gate 2, chapter 2, and I think Rabbi Cherkis formulations there are not so precise. Nefesh HaChayim does not distinguish between barukh and mevorakh, or between rahum and merachem, and does not compare barukh to rahum.

It does not distinguish between barukh and mevorakh  because I did not find that there. And I also pointed out above a verse where the expression mevorakh is used regarding God.
It does not distinguish between rahum and merachem  because I did not find that there. And what will Rabbi Cherki do with the verse "The Lord is gracious and righteous, and our God is compassionate," after he explained that regarding God one can say only "gracious" or "merciful" and under no circumstances "compassionate"?
It does not compare barukh to rahum  that is not what he is discussing there, although according to his interpretation it does come out that both are adjectives. He explains there that barukh is an adjective (participial verbs also function as adjectives), and that the root bet-resh-khaf means addition and increase. And he explains that God is the source of blessing.
Then he addresses another question: how one can use adjectives regarding God Himself at all. And to that he answers that we describe only what is accessible to our apprehension and according to His actions (like "and they shall name you according to your deeds"). He gives gracious and merciful as examples, which happen to sound similar to barukh, but these are only examples of adjectives and how one understands their meaning; he could just as well have given examples like mighty or pious.

The Hasidic quip that "You" is from the expression "and He came from myriads of holiness," which Rabbi Cherki mentioned there, I did not see in Nefesh HaChayim. (If he really says that, I will reconsider. At first glance it seems far-fetched to me.)
I would be glad to read your further explanations, but I suspect I will not continue writing my own opinions, because the topic does not interest me enough.

Bottom line: you are right mainly in what you said about barukh, since Nefesh HaChayim explains it as the source of blessing (an adjective. And apparently "Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl" will remain a passive participle). My last message dealt with the other surrounding points, though they really are not significant and were not part of your main point.