What about the whole vision of Judaism and the prophets? Do we have no goal at all? So why did God choose us to be a treasured people?

How does that contradict it?
"And through you all the families of the earth shall be blessed," and "Torah shall go forth from Zion," etc. — these are laws for the messianic era. In that time the nations will accept the Jewish law relevant to them (the seven Noahide commandments). And that's it. Or maybe they will also convert, according to a minority of the medieval authorities (Rishonim).

Ideas of morality and justice and all that — keeping the seven commandments as a moral or intellectual imperative, or out of loyalty to other monotheistic religions — has already existed for a long time. Precisely the end-times vision teaches that Judaism's message to the world is reduced to obligation to Jewish law, and that's all. Or conversion. Or being among the righteous of the nations.
And the rest — go and learn.
Of course one can discuss by what method they would accept the seven "commandments" of the children of Noah: according to Michi's approach, or Leibowitz's approach, or perhaps according to Hasidic approaches, that of the Lubavitcher Rebbe or Breslov. Whether Noahides would be open to secular literature and outside wisdom or not. And by what methods they would study — according to the plain sense or pilpul.

But all that is just a dispute about facts and values, which is simply determined by a person's judgment as to who has the truth in hand: Rabbi Nachman or the rationalists, the Hasidim or the Mitnagdim. And that has nothing to do with the essential definition of obligation to Judaism.

The question is whether in the end of days there will also be different types and sects of ways of serving God, and whether we will have Noahides of every type and shade. Rabbi Sherki says yes, and he has been working for years on establishing centers for Noahides of all approaches. He even had a correspondence with a nice non-Jew from Ukraine who asked him what to do, because he doesn't understand whom to follow regarding the way Torah should be taught to non-Jews — the Chabad rabbis, or Rabbi Uri's approach that permits them all the commandments. And he was really angry and demanded that there be general agreement among all the rabbis on this matter, because, according to him, the Noahide community in Ukraine is internally divided over this issue.
I read it and burst out laughing:
https://ravsherki.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7922:2020-04-24-07-53-01&catid=82&Itemid=100512

Why did you burst out laughing?
I'm familiar with Rabbi Sherki's approach; it's a direct result of the idea that Judaism is not only Jewish law.

Hello Yishai,

I didn't mean to belittle or mock Rabbi Sherki or his teaching. I also know, though superficially, his doctrine, his teaching, and I got the impression that this is a wise man with fascinating insights and an interesting perspective. In fear of Heaven, love of people and Torah, knowledge and labor in Torah, he certainly surpasses me by several levels. What made me laugh was not Rabbi Sherki or his teaching, but one specific correspondence of his with a non-Jew from Ukraine.
This whole "Noahide" enterprise is really a nice thing, fascinating sociologically and historically, and also theologically. As a religious person, of course I have no objection to seeing non-Jews elevate themselves and become among the righteous of the nations, who are promised the World to Come — just as I have nothing against organizations that receive ba'alei teshuvah or righteous converts and guide them.

Yes, it amuses me to see a correspondence between some non-Jew and a rabbi when both of them relate to reality as though the messiah is already standing behind the door. Not only behind the door — he's actually ringing the bell and about to come in. The whole world is just about to recognize the Jewish people as the chosen people. The House of Israel is, any second now, mostly returning in repentance. And all that remains is to decide a Chabad–Religious Zionist dispute over how a tiny and marginal sect of commandment-observing non-Jews should conduct itself. After all, in another moment they will fill the whole continent and wipe out all the other false religions. My own eyes, as a person — and I say this with no mockery at all! — who has not merited such an optimistic view of reality, and does not live with the consciousness that the messiah is about to arrive,
simply make me chuckle a bit when I see such a correspondence. Because from my perspective, this tiny sect of non-Jews who keep commandments is not going to change anything historically anytime soon. I don't understand how that nice Pavel from Ukraine plans to raise his children when the number of people around him who believe as he does is negligible, and when the odds are that he and his few fellow believers — meaning their descendants — will be swallowed back into the Western-Christian landscape or into a Reform temple in less than a generation (or, alternatively, in a more right-wing scenario, they will simply convert without too many complications and headaches) before they manage to "decide" the weighty question of whether a non-Jew may eat from the Passover offering or keep the Sabbath. (That is, of course, from my perspective as someone who does not see a change in reality anytime soon. Part of the whole concept of the movement to Judaize the nations is the idea that the messiah is already at the threshold and they just need to help by ringing the bell a little.)

It's true that Rabbi Sherki sees in Judaism much more than Jewish law and religion. In many things, it seems to me that he often gets caught up in semantics, in a certain style, or in illuminating things from another angle, rather than in any actual innovation. (Like this discussion about whether the Jews are a religion or a nation. He says emphatically that Judaism is imposed on Jews and therefore cannot be considered a religion. To my mind that's semantics, because the fact that Judaism sees itself as a religious faith imposed specifically on an ethnic group doesn't mean it isn't a religion. And likewise all the unnecessary insistence that one cannot distinguish between religious and secular Jews because both are obligated in the commandments. When people make that distinction, they don't mean that the secular person is not obligated in the commandments, but that in practice he does not observe them. And therefore his way of life is not Jewish-religious, but secular, detached from Judaism. Although in his case this connects to Rabbi Kook's doctrine, which sees every good and positive action done by secular Jews as part of a historical process of the development of Judaism. But again, that is at most a metaphysical claim about reality. It doesn't mean that people whom the Holy One, blessed be He, uses in order to repair the world are actually living with religious consciousness, when in reality they are not.)

In short, this whole genre of making metaphysical claims (and even if they're completely true — I'm not saying they're not), or logical claims about how the religious way of life ought to look (loving life and developing it morally, or living with a universal consciousness), and turning them into the essence of Judaism or an inseparable part of what is defined as Judaism — from my point of view, that is simply logically mistaken.

Corrections:
that one cannot make the distinction*
that the messiah is about to arrive*

Considering that his organization was started 10 years ago, as far as I know, I actually think he has had success. He caused 25,000 non-Jews to become Noahides. By the way, there really was a case where a man walked into the Kol Nidrei prayer and decided that Judaism was the truth, so the rabbi told him to become the first non-Jew to observe the seven Noahide commandments — but he didn't have a community, so he went to a Reform temple to preach to them that they needed to keep Jewish law. I just think it's an interesting story.
The fact that you are Jewish because of your ethnic origin makes Judaism a nation. Where's the semantics there? Rabbi Michi also wrote that Judaism is a nationality.
Besides, I didn't understand how all your claims refute the fact that Judaism has a universal purpose.

Hello Yishai.

1. Obviously Judaism is both: a people and a nationality, and in fact the Jewish people are defined by their religion. The point is that saying you can't call a Jew secular because against his will he is obligated in the commandments is, in my opinion, wordplay, because when people define a certain group or a certain person as secular, they mean that in practice he does not keep commandments and does not live a halakhic Jewish lifestyle. One can engage in hairsplitting and say that someone who lives a traditional life is certainly halakhically Jewish too, just on a lower or weaker level, and therefore one should not make a dichotomous distinction between him and commandment-observant people. And with that I agree. But complete atheists like, for example, Yaron Yadan, Menachem Froman, or millions of assimilated Jews in the United States — in practice they have no connection to halakhic Judaism. They are obligated in it and will presumably be judged in Heaven for that. But in actual, physical reality — they are not connected to it. (Just as one cannot say that all the non-Jews in the world are connected to Judaism because each of them has the duty and potential to become resident aliens.)

2. Define a universal purpose. I pretty much deny exaggerated presentations of this matter. It's true that there are many prophecies of consolation about world peace and about non-Jews and many peoples coming under the wings of the Divine Presence. But to say that this is the historical or primary purpose from Judaism's perspective is quite a serious historical distortion. How much major intellectual emphasis did thoughts about this world peace and the expectation that the nations would repent actually occupy in the worlds of Rabbenu Nissim, Rabbenu Bahya, Tosafot, Rashi, the Raavad, Rabbenu Yonah, Maimonides, or, say, the Shulchan Arukh? What bothered them more — heated and important disputes over halakhic rulings and definitions, or these matters of expecting all the nations to recognize the Holy One, blessed be He? (And by the way, when there was discussion of the future and prophecies of consolation, what stood out very strongly was the consolation of Israel and their repentance. And if the nations of the world appeared in their writings or thought, it was more in the expectation of vengeance against those marauding peoples around them, and much less — if at all — in anticipation that a different kind of non-Jews would repent. And I'm not saying this as criticism; I would probably have behaved like them. But it's worth sticking to the facts.) So presenting things as though all the purpose of Judaism and its essence is a universal message — when both the masses (including those who observe commandments) and most of the sages of Israel were, most of the time, no more interested in non-Jews on the positive plane than you or I are in stray cats or dogs — is distortion. Nadav Schneur wrote an article many years ago about character refinement and modesty, about how today they try to portray all this as the essence of Judaism and an inseparable part of what should be in the soul and aspirations of a believing Jew, whereas in the responsa, the Talmud, the Mishnah, and Jewish law these things occupy almost no place. And to present this as the essence of Judaism is distortion. (And here too it's the same thing. Even now, when I somewhat qualify my words and say that indeed there were sages more interested in the universal issue — with all due respect, it was never "the essence of Judaism".)

1. I agree with you that defining a secular person as not secular because he's obligated to be religious is meaningless. And a little respect for Rabbi Menachem Froman, even if you disagree with him.
2. Listen, maybe he does exaggerate on this point, but that's true of anyone who latches onto something — they usually exaggerate. Take, for example, people who deal with the harms of the internet or the harms of environmental damage. Usually there is truth in what they say, but they exaggerate. The role of the rest of us is to take the truth in what they say.
What, in your opinion, is the meaning of the verse "and through you all the families of the earth shall be blessed," and the meaning of the verse "and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" ("priests" means servants of God, implying there is someone to serve), and the meaning of the verse "for Torah shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem"? Doesn't that mean the Jewish people have a universal mission? If there is no universal mission, then why were they chosen?

Hello Yishai.

1. A mistake and slip occurred on my part. I didn't mean Rabbi Menachem Froman, but Ram Fruman, chairman of the "Secular Forum."

2. I have no problem with universal emphases in Judaism. It's just that one shouldn't say that this was always the essence of Judaism from time immemorial — just as I have no problem with religious people who fight to advance helping the poor, without turning the commandment of charity into the all-encompassing umbrella of Judaism (see, for example, the Rabbi Ilai Ofran controversy). One can state an opinion, place religious emphasis on certain things, say there are disputes, and decide in favor of one side, without saying that this was the precise way our ancestors thought 200–300 years ago.
"And through you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" is a prophecy about the messianic era. And indeed many (most?) relate to these prophecies also as prophecies of consolation for non-Jews who will turn out righteous or repaired at that time.
But notice that many thinkers and halakhic decisors are far from saying that the nations are the main purpose for which these prophecies are fulfilled, and far from saying that the Jewish people were chosen for their sake. According to the Maharal of Prague, for example, the Jewish people are the main thing, the cherry on top of creation, and the non-Jews who at that time will be redeemed together with them are of course auxiliary instruments serving the Jews. In his view, the Jewish people were not even "chosen"; rather, they were superior and created superior from the outset. The Ramchal, and I think most kabbalists as well, argue that the nations are a product of Adam's sin, and that there were not supposed to be many peoples in the world; rather, everyone was supposed to be like the Jewish people. So it turns out that the nations contain a certain defect. The best among them will merit salvation, but of course as secondary, and with far less spiritual delight and indwelling of the Divine Presence than Jews. Notice that some kabbalists who discuss this issue, like Chesed Le-Avraham (Avraham Azulai) or Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen, relate to non-Jews almost as dirt or a stain on all creation. (And as for the conclusion of both of their specific views, I never really got to the bottom of why non-Jews exist at all.) But in any case, let me explain a certain point: I am the last person who thinks you need specific sources in order to say that non-Jews are also human beings and they too have free choice and a role and so on. I am also the last person to think that on questions like this one cannot decide in favor of the side that seems more logical to you. Personally, I also really don't need a "source" in order to think that.

But Rabbi Sherki is doing here what, in my opinion, amounts to smoothing over the edges a bit. His whole doctrine is based on the kabbalistic-spiritual thesis of a holy people chosen in a metaphysical sense. From there he proceeds on the assumption that if there is a holy and chosen people, then necessarily it must also have a role and point of connection with the other nations. And in the end he decides, following Rabbi Kook's teaching — whom in his view was the greatest of the kabbalists and the greatest of the greats of the generations in matters of thought and worldview. That's of course perfectly fine: to cling to your rabbi's teaching and say that he has the most correct and truest interpretation of all his predecessors. But one should not omit the fact that there were kabbalists and people from the school of the specialness of Israel, on whom he relies, who — like it or not — were far less humanistic and far less fond of non-Jews than Rabbi Kook. That's all. Otherwise it just creates a false impression and a flattening of the thought.

*a false impression*

Labor is part of the punishment for the sin of the Tree of Knowledge.
Jewish law is part of the punishment for the sin of the Golden Calf.

Judaism is faith in Moses our Teacher as the sole and exclusive leader of the Jewish people. And none arose again like him, and none ever will.

What is the purpose of the Jewish people according to your approach?
I definitely agree that many rabbis disagree with Rabbi Sherki, but I think it's clear to everyone that ideally there is more to Judaism than Jewish law, no?

Decisor,
Non-Jews are also obligated to believe in that truth; that doesn't make them part of Judaism.

A non-Jew who believes in Moses our Teacher and his instructions becomes part of the Jewish people.

Yishai,
Personally, I don't think there is a historical answer to this question. Certainly specific values are also reflected in specific commandments.
But to say what the purpose of the world is and what the purpose of the commandments is, why the Torah was given — that is a question several leagues above me.
I don't know what the ideal in Judaism is. I know what obligations Judaism demands of me as a Jew.
I would be very happy if there were some ideal that historically could be presented as Judaism. At the moment, all I know is that Judaism requires me to keep the 613 commandments. On social-philosophical questions, and on questions of morality and justice, I simply decide according to my own reason and personal opinion.

Listen, I just think you've taken all the power out of Judaism — I couldn't find a better word. It reminds me of something Rabbi Chaim Navon wrote, that Religious Zionism is not some elite commando unit or anything of the sort, but a minority trying to survive. I think that when you reduce all of Judaism only to Jewish law, we become a miserable minority that's just trying to survive in the current situation, with no vision.

Yishai,

First of all, I don't understand what you mean when you say "we." Do you mean the Jewish people? After all, it's obvious that the Jews have always been a minority. And I don't think there is any obligation to try to recruit masses of converts into the Jewish people.
I assume you mean the public that keeps Torah and commandments. First of all, I don't think the number of Torah-and-commandment observant Jews is such a tiny minority. In this generation, alongside masses leaving religion, there are masses returning in repentance; young people who suddenly become Haredi, Breslov, find their way into Religious Zionism, and in general among the public that does not keep Torah and commandments, the attitude ranges from some traditional attachment and fondness — sometimes strong — to indifference in the "worst" case. The phenomenon of a clear, elitist, ideological anti-religious / atheist-national secularism sweeping the people, in the style of Ahad Ha'am, Brenner, A. D. Gordon as cultural heroes, is a phenomenon that has pretty much disappeared and no longer exists. Today it is represented mainly by angry internet figures with a small following of devotees. I don't think there is some magic formula that will bring all the Jews back in repentance, and that if all commandment-observant Jews gather together with a refreshing, sweeping narrative, all Israel will suddenly keep the Sabbath. There are masses of workshops and industries devoted to drawing Jews close through presenting the teachings of Rabbi Kook / the Rebbe of Lubavitch / Rabbi Nachman, and likewise masses of workshops that present Judaism as an exalted universal religion. (Uri Sherki didn't "invent" this formula.) If someone discovered the light in Judaism through Rabbi Nachman, or Rabbi Kook, or the Ramchal — as a religious person I have no problem with that. I'm happy that the person begins keeping commandments. And if he thinks the hidden light is found in the Maharal of Prague or in the writings of the author of the Tanya — good for him. It's even possible that he is right and that in another 60 years it will turn out that I was mistaken in having missed them. All I'm saying is that Judaism, historically and objectively, is observance of Jewish law, along with a few principles of faith that were added to it (Maimonides' thirteen, for example). And one cannot say that what places a person outside the boundary or brings him inside it is some Hasidic / Zionist / universal-humanistic / socialist ideology. At most, these are claims that need to be examined to see whether they are true or not. But they are not what defines Jewish obligation.

One more point:
Alongside those who may remain unconvinced and not want to come closer because Judaism in its "dry" halakhic version is not sufficiently "sweeping" and "exciting," there are also those who become distant and leave because they are promised all the answers to life in Rabbi Kook / Rabbi Zvi Yehuda / Rabbi Nachman / the Maharal of Prague, and they are disappointed when they don't find the answers there. A person's psyche is a very complex and highly individual thing. I don't think a person should be false to himself and say things he doesn't believe in in order to sweep people along. Rather, each person should state his view as it is, without these calculations that usually haven't been shown to help anyway. A "dry" Jew like me shouldn't have to pretend — just as I don't expect (and I'm not comparing myself to them) Jews filled and saturated with ideology like Rabbi Aviner or Rabbi Sherki to pretend and say that their opinion is like mine. Every person should say what the truth is in his opinion.

By "we" I mean the Jewish people. We have certainly always been a minority in number. But I am not speaking quantitatively. Even the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit is a minority in number, but they are the most prestigious unit in the IDF. The question here is whether Judaism is the leader of the world — which, in my opinion, is what belief in the coming of the messiah means, no? — or a persecuted minority just trying to survive. When you reduce the entire Jewish people to Jewish law, the whole aspiration is only to survive, and it has no national direction at all.

Hello Yishai.

First: from what point of view is the survival of the Jewish people important? From the perspective of national feelings? An instinct? Preserving the genes?

From my point of view as a religious person, the survival of the Jewish people is important because all Jews are obligated to keep commandments, some of which carry a national-religious character. (How can an individual fulfill the commandment of prayer if there is no quorum of ten, for example?) Whether commandment observance is in a "dry" form, or for the higher purpose of refining character, or a mystical connection with the Holy One, blessed be He, in order to repair the chain of the ten sefirot, and so on — that alone, from my perspective, justifies the existence of the Jewish people in religious terms. And I really see no need to be "a light unto the nations" in order to justify my existence, both personally and nationally. Notice that prophecies of the end of days that speak about non-Jews coming and learning Torah in Jerusalem and the like do not say that we, in activist terms, need to do things in order for that to happen. It is a promise that the world will reach such a repaired state in the end of days, when the Holy One, blessed be He, will roll events along to lead to it, whether through war or through peace. (Rabbi Eliyahu Rahamim Zini once gave a lecture on this issue of the relationship between the Jewish people and the nations of the world, and indirectly criticized ventures such as those of Chabad and Brit Olam, without mentioning them explicitly, by saying that he found nowhere in the words of the sages that "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation," or "a light unto the nations," or the prophecies of the end of days, are interpreted by them as a command or even a recommendation to go and spiritually tend to non-Jews and make sure that they keep commandments. Usually, he said, the idea is that the very observance of commandments by the Jewish people itself brings nearer the redemption of the whole world, and automatically also of the nations. And historically, in fact, he is right, and that is the prevalent approach.)

*even*

How is that connected to what we need to do? It still shows that there is more to Judaism than Jewish law.