Oh, this is embarrassing.

"There are people who think that keeping the Sabbath, kashrut, or prayer is primitive. In your opinion, does that mean that someone who does these things is desecrating God’s name and should stop doing them?"

No. Because that’s an obligation.
By contrast, writing "I’m more Jewish than secular people because that’s what I think" is not an obligation (and as I’ll show in a second, it also isn’t necessarily true for you).

"There is no arguing with that, and anyone who does argue is simply confused. So if someone is offended by facts, that really is his problem. And even if there were room to be offended by facts and by the truth."

Who decided that there’s no arguing with it?
Did you receive it by prophecy? Did you read it explicitly in the Torah?

I claim that someone who cares more for the Jewish people as a whole, like Herzl, Kochavi, Emmanuel Moreno, or Ben-Gurion, is actually more Jewish than you are.
I’ll also add that this is a fact and truth and there’s no arguing with it.

Or I could claim that someone who speaks with his Creator with deep intention
and with all his heart is more Jewish, even if he is completely secular,
than someone who keeps Jewish law only because that’s how he was educated.
Here too I’ll add that this is absolute truth and anyone who disagrees is confused, and even a heretic. Come on.

You were embarrassed? I apologize. One does not deal with fools.

I’m being substantive in my response—
Who says you’re right?
That technical, cold commitment to Jewish law defines me as more Jewish (essentially) than others?

Sorry if this sounds dismissive, but did you receive this by prophecy?
Is it a tradition?
Was it given in the Written Torah?

I’m sure not. So where did you conclude that it is?
Please explain the logic.

Only God knows the calculations of Heaven

The logic is explained in the series of columns on the definition of who is a Jew. The Rabbi lays out his view there at length, and you’re welcome to read and agree or disagree.

But beyond that, even if he has no source or it isn’t logical, why is there desecration of God’s name here? Then he’s just wrong.

Eitan answered well. I explained these things at very great length, unlike you, who explained nothing but accused me of not explaining. Beyond that, you also didn’t understand my argument: I claim that even if I’m not right, there is no desecration of God’s name here, since in my view it is true. That’s all. I’ve had enough of this nonsense.

I wasn’t impressed by the explanations. Long and unnecessary texts (as usual) that are far from being an exact science, to put it mildly. Unnecessary and tiresome philosophizing (as if it were “wisdom”).
Who exactly appointed you to decide that the truth about this is with you, when you go around declaring that you are “more Jewish” than others?
"I claim that even if I’m not right, there is no desecration of God’s name here, since in my view it is true"
According to this very smart sentence, Yigal Amir also did not desecrate God’s name, since murdering a prime minister was right in his view.

It’s time secular people knew that you think you’re more Jewish than they are.

Lol, why do you think anyone would care

Think whatever you want, and let the Rabbi think whatever he wants, and good health to you
No one appointed anyone to anything, everyone is welcome to philosophize as much as he likes
And if you can’t distinguish between possibly mistaken thinking and murder, then I think I’m done too 🙂

Eitan,
A. There’s no problem thinking whatever you want. The issue is what is appropriate to actually express in front of others (especially on a blog read by secular people), and then to really go on and on trying to define it in the most precise way possible (supposedly, of course; in practice it’s nonsense, as I’ll show in a few more lines).
For example, if someone thinks men are smarter than women, is it right that he express that in front of everyone, or is it better that he keep his opinion to himself?

B. Have you yourself read columns 336–339?
If so, you’re more than welcome to do me the honor of convincing me what the winning argument is for why commitment to Jewish law is the essence of the Jew. I don’t see a sufficiently good argument for it. I hardly see any attempts at all, apart from lots of text.

Attempts written in 337 (quote):
"The Sinai covenant, to which we are supposed to belong and commit ourselves, is the covenant to observe the commands of the Holy One, blessed be He, that were given to us there. That is all. No value, belief, insight, or anything else can be part of the touchstone of Judaism"

Very interesting. I was sure that according to Michael Abraham it is impossible to understand what the Torah tells us. Interesting that he does manage to understand what the revelation at Mount Sinai says. Only commandments. Not values, not beliefs. Only commandments and Jewish law.
Now the question is: why did he decide that?
After all, he himself is known to hold that you can hardly understand anything from what is written in the Torah.
Answer: I don’t know. Ask him how he can infer something from something that he said you can learn almost nothing from.

Second, let’s go along with Michi and stick to the text:
"I shall speak to you all the commandment and the statutes and the ordinances that you shall teach them, and they shall do them in the land that I am giving them to possess."

Amazing!
If we go along with Michi’s approach of looking at the Sinai covenant, it comes out that commitment to the commandments is only in the Land!
But wait, on the other hand Michi held that you can’t understand anything from what’s written in the Torah—so it’s not only in the Land!
Ah, we breathed a sigh of relief—Jews of the Diaspora who are committed to Jewish law are also Jews in their essence.
But then again it comes out that we also aren’t obligated to take the text at face value, that God’s purpose for us is only commandment-observance and Jewish law . . .

In short: not to the point. Not serious. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not an argument.

"If you check now, you’ll see that this commitment is indeed exclusive."

This whole exclusivity business is just nonsense piled on nonsense.
What does it even mean?
That my essence is my ID number?
Or that my commitment to work 250 hours a month (which no other employee has) is my essence as a company worker?

Wabapat, I don’t understand what you want. He acts according to the values of Judaism (at least in his view), and therefore on the value plane he is more Jewish (= behaves more according to Judaism).
As for exclusivity, the question is what makes Judaism Judaism? If it isn’t unique, then why isn’t it just philosophy or anything else? For something to be Judaism, obviously it has to contain something that distinguishes it and makes it Jewish content. Unless you define everything as Judaism, in which case it becomes empty of content.

In my opinion, and I think Rabbi Michi agrees with this, there is absolutely no problem expressing what you actually think, and it’s even more obvious that I’m obligated to define it as precisely as possible. What sense is there in deliberately doing things imprecisely?
It’s also in your interest, as someone who disagrees with him, that he express his opinion publicly so you can disagree with him and he can retract
In the example you brought, if I think men are smarter than women and I keep it bottled up inside, then I’ll just remain stupid, but if I say it out loud people can come and correct me and I’ll retract and become wiser. Best possible outcome.

Second, Rabbi Michi does not say that you can’t learn anything from the Torah. That’s demagoguery. He says that you can’t learn values from the Torah (except for a few clear things, like that humility is good). In practice this doesn’t work, because people read their own values into the interpretation. That’s not even his innovation—the Maharal already wrote this.

Beyond that, of course the Rabbi agrees that there is such a thing as the Oral Torah and the binding interpretation of the sages, from which of course one can and must learn. So the whole question never gets off the ground.

Forgive me, but it looks like you heard two central quotations he wrote—"You can’t learn anything from the Torah," and "A Jew, in the essential sense, is someone loyal to Jewish law, and nothing more"—and just started attacking them without seeing the Rabbi’s arguments or his qualifications. That’s not appropriate and not serious.

And of course even if my entire explanation is wrong—I’m glad the Rabbi chooses to publish what he writes in public so that we can see it and discuss it and decide whether to agree or disagree.
Obviously there is no desecration of God’s name here.

Eitan, I think you’re mistaken, at least about one thing. Michi has written more than once or twice that nothing can be learned from the Torah. Period.
But let’s go by the principle of charity and assume that every time he expressed himself that way he was simply being careless and actually meant to say that one can learn from the Torah, but not values. But then you add that in his view one actually can learn “clear values.” Wait, what’s going on here? So yes, something can be learned—and something important at that! How does that fit with the categorical claim that values cannot be learned (which, as noted, was hardly ever what he actually said)?

But even that is not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that at the center of the Torah stands a supreme value on which its entire normative dimension—the commandments—depends. That value is the centrality of the Torah, a value that it itself places before us. Now it is incumbent upon Michi (and upon you, if you buy this) to clarify for us whether this central value can indeed be “learned” from the Torah. If not, then you have cut away the entire basis on which Judaism as a whole rests. If yes, then expect to look in the Torah for additional values that are essential to it and derived from that foundational value. For example, the distinctive value of the Jewish people (compared to other nations), for example the special status of the Land of Israel, and so on. In short, I don’t see how you can escape this dilemma, and whichever side you choose does not fit with the position that Michi, and apparently you too, hold.

Of course you can learn things from the Torah—otherwise how could you know what to observe? The sages expound the Torah, and that obligates us.
What I meant by clear values is that they’re written explicitly and aren’t subject to interpretation. I think the Rabbi wrote that somewhere.

In that sense the commandments are not a value but technical obligations—commands that need to be fulfilled, not values—and therefore they are not in the same category as the distinctive value of the Jewish people or the special status of the Land of Israel.
The main difference, in my opinion, is that commandment-observance is not open to interpretation because it is written explicitly, while the other values are things not learned from the Torah but imported beforehand from the reader’s value-world.

All this, of course, is just my understanding; it’s quite possible I didn’t manage to aim at what the Rabbi meant to say.

Doron,
It seems to me that the confusion is about the plane on which Rabbi Michi is speaking. Rabbi Michi is not claiming that in principle nothing can be learned from the Torah, but that in practice it can’t be done, because everyone pushes his own conclusion in advance. When things are simple, like clear values and so on, then those can be learned. That is, you don’t need to learn beyond what is learned in kindergarten (or elementary school) from the Hebrew Bible. In my humble opinion, that is Rabbi Michi’s view.

Yishai, according to Michi, “the values of Judaism” have no advantage over “the values of Judaism” according to a Reform rabbi, or over the “values of Judaism” of Hasidism (service of the heart), or over the issue of the Land of Israel as presented by a Hardal rabbi. None of them can justify their position well enough (if they even tried to justify it).
For example, Michi will come and say that for him, not stealing, not committing adultery, using a third vessel on the Sabbath, and being meticulous in choosing etrogim for Sukkot (is that sport really Jewish law?) is being as Jewish as possible, because that is commitment to Jewish law.
The Reform rabbi will claim: "Love your neighbor as yourself," "The Ten Commandments are the essence of the Torah," or "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow."
The Hasid will also quote verses from the Hebrew Bible like: "Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart," or "His heart was whole with the Lord his God, like the heart of David his father."
The Hardal supporter of nationalism will simply show how from the moment the Jewish people came into being until the end of the Hebrew Bible, the whole movement of the Jewish people and the Land of Israel revolves around the Land of Israel. Therefore the essence of a Jew is to be in the Land.
The follower of Kook will argue that the matter of “the Jewish people as a whole” is the most important thing, and therefore people like Ben-Gurion and Herzl are Jews of the highest order.

Who is right?
I have no idea. I believe only God knows who counts as more Jewish (if that even matters).
What I do think is that Michi’s “argument” sounds the weakest and most detached. All the more so when it comes from someone who holds that nothing can be learned from the Torah, and even more so
when in the verses speaking about the revelation at Mount Sinai, the observance of the commandments is mentioned within the Land.
So wait—is the Jew more essential only in the Land, always?

And again, what’s funniest is that Michi really believes the sun shines out of him.
As I show pretty clearly—absolutely not!
Oh, and of course let’s note once again Michi’s great desecration of God’s name—
The Chabadnik, the Reform rabbi, the Hardal rabbi, and the follower of Kook generally won’t tell any secular person, "I’m more Jewish than you," even though in a certain sense maybe they do believe that in their hearts (maybe).
But Michi will publish thousands-of-words articles about nothing at all.

Michael Abraham?
Utter nonsense.

Fine, what I wrote to Yishai also basically answers Eitan’s claims. So there’s no need to elaborate further.

Eitan,
1. I explained that in many cases Michi claimed categorically that nothing can be learned from the Torah. No qualifications, nothing of the sort. Nothing. Don’t you think that’s puzzling?
2. I argued that even if we give those statements a serious charitable reading (that he really meant only that one cannot “learn values”), now suddenly “clear values” pop up. Don’t you think that contradicts the first sweeping claim (after the charitable reading)? Because what is the difference between that statement and, say, a Kookian who sees the return to Zion as a clear Torah value? Suddenly the value discussion is reopened…? Just like that?
3. Even if the commandments are not values, the Torah teaches us that accepting them and fulfilling them is a foundational value. Observance of the commandments is a basic Torah value. Therefore the basis is not the commandments themselves but the principle that makes them possible. So we return to the centrality of the normative dimension in the Torah and its priority over dry “Jewish law.” Exactly the opposite of what Michi says.
4. I have explained on this platform a million times what I think is the root of the confusion behind Michi’s position (or Leibowitz’s, who in this respect holds a very similar position). In exchange for a non-symbolic payment, I’d be happy to lay out my argument again.

Dear Yishai,
You again aren’t reading your own words and reflecting on their meaning… sorry for the bluntness… According to your latest description of Michi’s position, it follows that there is actually no difference between his conception and any other conception, Jewish or not, of Torah interpretation. Everyone agrees, after all, that one can “distort” the Torah and confuse the main thing with the secondary thing, or even dress it up with things not in it at all. There’s nothing special about that, and that’s not what Michi says. Simple as that. Michi presents an approach that pretends to distinguish itself from “naive” conceptions like Chabad, the Reform, etc. (as Wabapat demonstrated).

Wabapat, what does “advantage” mean? Obviously everyone holds his own opinion and thinks he’s right. Rabbi Michi explained his opinion and his method. Therefore he arrived at the conclusion that follows from it. The fact that you think only God knows probably means you have no opinion on what Judaism is. And by the way, there really is much greater virtue in observing commandments in the Land of Israel. What’s the problem? You don’t know Nachmanides on “set up road markers for yourself”?
It seems the expression “more Jewish” bothers you because of the baggage it carries. So try for a moment to focus on the fact that he didn’t mean that in a practical sense he is more Jewish, but that he behaves more according to the values of Judaism, and therefore on the value plane he is more Jewish.

Doron, you didn’t read me carefully. Everyone agrees that it is possible to distort the Torah; Rabbi Michi claims that this is almost unavoidable, and therefore almost nothing is learned from the Hebrew Bible and there is no point investing effort in it.

What? Nothing is learned from the Hebrew Bible? All of us, including Michi himself, learn from the Hebrew Bible a host of basic facts that are critical (certainly for a religious Jew). For example: that there is a God, that He created the world, that He revealed Himself at Sinai, that He gave us the Torah, that the Jewish people and the Land of Israel are central, that the Torah tries to place the normative sphere at the center, and so on and so on. All these are basic facts and/or values that have not only enormous theoretical significance (as matters of learning) but also practical significance for people’s lives.
If this is what Michi calls learning nothing, then what can be learned at all? By that same logic, nothing can be learned from any text: religious, philosophical, moral, literary, and perhaps even a scientific text.
That is the principled meaning of his words—radical skepticism (albeit well hidden under “metaphysical” rhetoric), and it deserves the same fate as any other skepticism—to invalidate even its own claims by force of that very doubt.

It is impossible to learn *almost* nothing from the Hebrew Bible = it is possible to learn a few things (basic values and generalities, and also basic facts).
What you mentioned are indeed general things. Rabbi Michi’s criticism is of learning from specific things. Those can definitely be learned from other texts.
It seems this connects to what you wrote elsewhere in praise of Christianity, that it is not precise in words and only takes the general principles behind them (there was some quotation from Paul). In your view that counts as learning Bible, and it does not. Really learning Bible is trying to understand each and every passage and its meaning, not just talking in general outlines. And it is precisely that kind of Bible study that Rabbi Michi claims there is no point in studying, because people just inevitably force their prior conclusions into it. (Which I, the small fry that I am, do not agree with; rather, one must make the effort to understand in accordance with intellectual honesty.)

Well, Michi is now standing embarrassed before the extreme diet that you and Eitan have put his view on. From the sweeping statement that nothing can be learned from the Hebrew Bible, you came down to the statement that “values” can’t be learned, and from there you narrowed the claim even further and set it at “nothing can be learned from specific things.” Well, if that is indeed his statement—and I’m not so sure—it’s pretty reasonable.
But even here you still haven’t brought his position into really safe waters. An example that came to mind: what would the Torah say about the status of LGBT people in a Jewish state? Clearly one has to be careful here about historical anachronism (and many, and not the good ones, get confused here). It is obvious that modern concepts like state, civil rights, concepts from psychology and sexuality, etc., have changed beyond recognition since the days of the Torah. In any case, any such discussion contains a deep speculative dimension (it’s not Jewish law or halakhic ruling), and of course one cannot arrive at certainty in it. If that were all Michi wanted to say, I would sign onto every word. But it seems to me he was in a hurry to convey a much more radical message, with much less room for self-criticism. On his approach, nothing can be said, absolutely nothing, about this issue (or other issues). Very strange.

Instead of arguing from above, let’s make it simple—let’s ask Michi’s students and followers about matters written in the Torah, analyze the answers, and try to understand whether according to Michi one can learn something or not.
Please, Michi’s students, answer every question and explain the answer. Here is a short set of questions.

1. According to Michi, can one learn from the Torah that the world was created, or that it is eternal?

2. According to Michi, can one learn from the Torah that there was a “first man,” and if so, was he a physical/material human being?

3. According to Michi, can one learn from the Torah that there was a flood that covered the whole world about 5,000 years ago?

4. According to Michi, can one learn from the Torah that there was a human/personality of flesh and blood called Abraham our forefather?

5. According to Michi, can one learn from the Torah how many people in total left Egypt?

6. According to Michi, can one learn from the Torah that there is significance to serving God inwardly, with the heart?

7. According to Michi, can one learn from the Torah that the manna descending from heaven was a miracle that broke nature?

And the decisive question—according to Michi, can one learn from the Torah who is defined, essentially, as more Jewish than others? If yes, please present from which verses this can be understood, and exactly how it can be inferred from them.
If you have reached the conclusion that this can be learned from Torah verses, please explain why other things, which are actually written much more clearly and simply, cannot be learned from the Torah.
If, for example, the students’ answer is that according to Michi it is impossible to learn whether there was a flood that covered the whole earth, they must explain why precisely this issue, which is written so simply and clearly, is not understandable,
but drawing the conclusion of “who is considered essentially more Jewish,” which is not written explicitly, is something that can indeed be learned from the Torah.

Thanks, answerers!

Wabapat,
I had a whole invested response, and then when I sent it there was no internet and the response got deleted. So now I’ll be more slapdash. (It happened to me again, but I learned to copy the text before I send it.)
Of course, all of this is guesswork based on what I understand.
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Here I’m not sure. Maybe not (though in my humble opinion it is more likely according to the Torah that there was).
5. An exact number? I don’t think so. As for the figure of 600,000, Rabbi Michi could claim that it is a typological number.
6. I don’t understand the question.
7. Apparently yes, because the Torah gives a description of how the manna descended, and that implies it was not according to nature. (Your question should have been whether from the Torah one can know that there really was manna that came down from heaven and broke the laws. In other words, not what the plain meaning of the Torah is, but what actually happened. But never mind.)
As for the decisive answer: precisely because things like the above cannot be learned from the Torah (though that is a less critical question—the more critical questions are what message the Torah wants to convey in these sections, and that is what Rabbi Michi says cannot be learned), whereas the commands (that is, Jewish law) can indeed be learned from the Torah, therefore observing Jewish law is fulfillment of the values of the Torah. Meaning, behaving more according to Judaism, meaning, in Rabbi Michi’s terms, being more Jewish on the value plane.
Hope I delivered the goods.

Yishai
We agree, because you/you all agreed to climb down from the high tree of “nothing at all can be learned from the Torah” in favor of a more modest discourse of “it is possible to learn even specific values” (such as the attitude toward LGBT people), even if this is problematic learning. Therefore the whole radical and pretentious picture they tried to set up here (whether or not it represents Michi’s position) turns out to be an almost trivial state of affairs. A consensus that has prevailed throughout history, in which human beings not only agree that specific things can be learned from the Torah, but in many cases even agree what those things are.

Doron
It seems to me you’re not relating to Bible study in the sense that everyone relates to it. Let’s take the Balaam passage as an example. The questions I would ask are: why did the donkey open its mouth? What does it mean that it opened its mouth? Why didn’t Balaam see the angel from the outset? Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, first object and then agree that Balaam should go? What is the connection between the different sections? And so on and so on. To these questions Rabbi Michi claims no answer can be given, and therefore studying Bible is pointless. Basic and general things can indeed be learned. (And the attitude toward LGBT people is learned from the commandment section in general; it’s not the same thing.) Actually I think this is quite a novel approach (more within Religious Zionism, which emphasizes really studying Bible, unlike the Haredi world).

We may agree on the main point, but you’re ignoring the dramatic gap between it and the way things were presented on this site several times. In my opinion, not by accident.

Now if someone relates to learning only in the specific sense you give it (for example, why did the donkey open its mouth?), you need to take into account that these are utterly secondary questions even from the standpoint of historical Orthodox Judaism, at least on the practical level. I can’t think of halakhic, economic, historical, etc., implications that hinge on the debate over Balaam’s donkey’s mouth. If you know of any, you’re welcome to correct me.

Finally, even with regard to these secondary questions, one can find more or less reasonable and intelligent answers. This is contrary to the anti-hierarchical basic claim you tried to defend (in which every “learning” is equivalent to any other kind of learning, since after all “nothing can be learned from the Torah”). For example, I would try to examine how concepts like speech, mouth, and donkey are perceived in texts from the period and in cultures of the ancient Near East. Of course it is not certain that the answer I came up with would necessarily be better than competing answers, but the assumption in the background is still that there is a hierarchy of explanations, and that is what I am looking for. In any case, I do not categorically determine in advance that no such hierarchy exists. It seems to me that the position you are defending (even if only for the sake of discussion) does do that.

Doron
Maybe because of their secondary nature, Rabbi Michi also doesn’t attach much significance to them.

As for there being better or worse explanations, on what basis do you determine the criteria?

Up to this point I was mainly defending Rabbi Michi’s view. In my humble opinion, I think there are more or less plausible explanations, and one cannot really say any nonsense within Torah interpretation. Actually, in my opinion this is very important; it is clarifying the word of God. If you believe that God gave the Torah, there is probably a reason He wrote these passages, and therefore we need to clarify the interpretation of these passages and understand their nature. It seems to me that a person who believes that God gave the Torah and wasn’t just messing with our heads will necessarily want to understand why every word is written and what it means, and that requires inquiry and study. In my humble opinion, it is possible to reach the true plain meaning (or at least get as close to it as possible), and one should indeed try. Rabbi Michi thinks that is hopeless from the outset.

All right, I’ll sum up what I think:

1. Overall, it’s really strange to see that one can draw totally non-necessary conclusions from all kinds of things written in the Torah, but from things written explicitly, “you can’t know” whether they’re true or not.

2. In any case, Michi’s feeling that “this is the truth” is not serious.

3. The explanation given by Yishai is not good enough. “A son should love his father as much as possible.” A person is considered his father’s son even if he doesn’t love him as he should. There is no “more essential son.” There is a son who loves more. Exactly as there is a Jew who keeps more commandments than another Jew.

4. As for desecration of God’s name—the comparison Michi made, in the context of saying “the truth” that causes desecration of God’s name, with putting on tefillin that could cause desecration of God’s name, is simply ridiculous. Putting on tefillin is an obligation. Saying things that can cause pain to so many people (and, as I demonstrated, this is far from being the truth) is not only not an obligation, it is an outright desecration of God’s name.