The fact that something can be interpreted in several ways does not make it something that "in practice teaches nothing."
Religious Zionists read the Torah and conclude that the Land must be conquered.
Neturei Karta read the Torah and learn the exact opposite.
That's learning in the fullest sense of the term.
Maybe you can reach different conclusions, true, but that doesn't mean it isn't learning.

Suppose I studied the Holocaust as a sequence of facts and concluded that the Jews need a state of their own.
Someone else studied the Holocaust as a sequence of facts and reached a different conclusion.
But there we're talking about known facts, so it's clearer.

Here's another option that doesn't deal with facts:
I read Anselm's argument and concluded that there is a God because it's a perfect argument.
A second person read it and decided it's a good argument, but not a perfect one.
Dawkins read it and decided it isn't good enough.
A fourth person read it and decided it's completely foolish.

Does the fact that Anselm can be interpreted in several ways mean that it doesn't count as learning?

It doesn't mean that, but it does allow for it. In my experience with interpreting the Hebrew Bible, because there are quite a few interpretive options, everyone chooses what they already thought beforehand, and so de facto nothing is learned from it. The same goes for history. But this topic has already been chewed over endlessly on this site.

Hello Rabbi,
I don't understand. If the stories of the Hebrew Bible were written in order to convey a message to us, and in practice they don't convey a message because "de facto nothing is learned from them," then why were they written? Did God want to satisfy His urge to write, so He gave us meaningless literary descriptions?

If it was written to teach a message, there must be some way to learn the message. If it was written to convey a message and it's impossible to learn the message, then there is no point in the writing and transmission.

What is this comparable to? To a person who sent a letter to his friend, but the letter is written in code. If there is no chance that the friend will understand the content of the letter, what is the point of sending the letter?

I'll answer you with what I've already written and what I've answered dozens of times on the site. You are absolutely right. So can one now learn from Scripture? As a matter of fact, no. Do you have a difficulty as to why it was written? Excellent difficulty. I'd be glad to hear an answer.
And in your analogy: if someone now comes to you and tells you that it isn't reasonable that the sender sent the letter without intending to convey some message to you, would that help you decipher the letter? If you can't, then you can't, and declarations don't change anything here.

If I understand the Rabbi's approach, it comes out that the Rabbi doesn't care that the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote "nonsense" in His Torah that was not meant to teach anyone anything?? So why did He write it? He shouldn't have written it.
Moreover, if you don't know why the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote what He wrote, that is a problem with God, who is supposedly perfect and not supposed to write things for no reason. If the things in the Torah contradict the definition of God, you ought to abandon the religion that believes in the Torah.

Ro, the Rabbi already answered me that he has no answer to the question of why God wrote the Hebrew Bible, but in any case that still doesn't mean that one can now learn something from the Hebrew Bible.

As for the second point, if I don't know why God wrote the Hebrew Bible, the problem is with me and not with Him. Just like I don't know why He created me, and that's a problem with me and not a deficiency in Him.

Ben, you're right about the first point; I really didn't notice that he answered you.

As for the second point, it seems to me there is still some deficiency in God. Since God should have written a text that we understand what we are supposed to do with. After all, it's obvious that God wrote the text so that we human beings would do something with it. If there is no possibility of knowing why God wrote the Torah, that implies that the "perfect" God did not write the Torah. At the very least, you need to provide some additional possibility for why God wrote this text, besides learning something from it.

So there is a deficiency in Him (or at least that's how it seems to me). What does that have to do with the discussion?
If you can show that people do in fact learn things from the Hebrew Bible, then my original claim falls away regardless of assumptions about the perfection of the Holy One, blessed be He. And if you can't succeed, then it can't be learned from, despite your impressive claims and declarations. So what exactly is the argument about?
We've exhausted this.

Michi's answer is nothing more and nothing less than the answer of the standard skeptic: nothing can be learned from anything, not from the New Testament, not from the Quran, not from Pinocchio, not from history, not from soap operas. We know nothing. Yeah, right. Nothing can be learned from what Michi publishes either (including his statement that nothing can be learned).

So here's a small suggestion—besides Ben's suggestions—of what can certainly be learned from the Hebrew Bible (if one chooses to believe what is written in it): that there is a God, that He created the world, that He gave the Torah to a certain group, and that He expects us to draw close to Him through it (and through the books of the Prophets and Writings that rely on it). As stated, there are a million other things that can be learned from it, and Ben himself listed some of them. It's worth noting that the learning being discussed here is not merely theoretical and detached; it actually shapes the lives of many people who indeed learned in practice (at least from their point of view) how one should act.

Doron's comment is nothing more and nothing less than a repetition of a baseless claim that has come up here countless times and has been rejected (with reasoned contempt). I see no need to go over it again.

So we're doing declarations now?

A lot of passages in Maimonides too, for example, can be interpreted in several ways. So is there no such thing as "learning Maimonides" either?

"Everyone chooses what they already thought beforehand"—interesting where free choice suddenly disappeared to…

Your words too can be interpreted in several ways, some of them ones you did not mean at all.

Not Clear, see my reply to Don't Understand above.

Michi, I've noticed that a lot of times you write to people, "This topic has been chewed over endlessly."
Indeed, it's hard to ask you to give the same answers over and over and over again.
On the other hand, it's hard to find through the search engine what you answered in the past. Besides that, not everything has a column; there are also things that were written only in comments.

I recommend that you create another page on the site for topics that points to the exact place for topics that have already been chewed over endlessly, so readers can examine the response.
For example, that page would contain detailed information on all the discussions, questions, and your final comments regarding providence, vegetarianism, learning, ethics, and more. The page would contain precise links to answers you gave in columns or in comments.

Usually, a topic that I said has been chewed over endlessly probably appears here quite a few times, so it's reasonable that it can be located. Whoever wants to make indexes for the site is welcome to do so. I don't have the time or energy for it. Sorry.