I didn’t understand why the Rabbi doesn’t want the Sabbatical year to already apply, with most of its inhabitants upon it?
That would seemingly be progress toward the complete redemption.

Proof for the Sema that nowadays there is no “And I will command My blessing”:
The fact is that many organizations collect piles of money, and they say it’s for the sake of the farmers. Why do the farmers need help? After all, there’s a promise?
It must be that nowadays there is no promise.

But with some difficulty one could reconcile it by saying that perhaps there is indeed a promise for the farmers. But there is no promise for the activists — and how will the activists fill their pockets with money?
For that you need piles of organizations with piles of money…

I wasn’t talking about progress in redemption, but about a situation in which it would be possible to test the “promises.” That situation can have both positive and negative aspects.

1. I didn’t understand what the difference is between a blessing from the Holy One, blessed be He, and His promise.
2. Regarding the prayer — the Rabbi writes sarcastically but seriously; what does that mean?

Correction
A blessing from the Holy One, blessed be He, and a promise

Thanks to whoever asked this question — I laughed a whole lot

Who said there is a difference between a blessing and a promise? I am writing that in my opinion, if this were checked systematically, this blessing would not materialize. So how can the verses be reconciled? In several ways. Either the verses deal with a situation in which the Holy One, blessed be He, was involved in the world, but in later generations that changed. Or this is our assumption so that we will observe the Sabbatical year without fear, but not really a promise. Something like those who go out to the battle lines, who are forbidden to be afraid. Does that mean nothing will happen to them? Of course not.
As for the prayer, I explained it. Without any sarcasm.

1. “Who said there is a difference between a blessing and a promise” — you said it in your first answer to the question.
2. What do you mean, our assumption? Didn’t the Holy One, blessed be He, write the Torah?

What I wrote is that there is a blessing, but no promise that it will always work.
I explained.

A. As is known, the Hazon Ish disagrees with the Sema, and his words are very persuasive.
B. Someone told me a proof against the Sema from the Talmud in Pesachim. The Talmud asks how we drink the four cups and are not concerned about pairs, and answers that the night is a night of protection. But it is still difficult: how do we drink on the second festival day of the Diaspora? It is proven from here that even with a rabbinic obligation the promise is fulfilled. What does the Rabbi say?

Since I am not concerned about pairs at all, and I don’t think pairs do anything, I too could have told you not to worry in the case of a rabbinic obligation.

I didn’t understand — the Talmud was concerned about pairs, and nevertheless relied on there being protection even in a rabbinic case. No?

I was joking.
But in any case, there is no proof from there. There is no biblical promise there, only the Talmud’s assumption that one who performs a commandment will know no evil, and certainly not mystical evil. Tzitzit also has four corners, and we are not concerned. In our case we are not talking about passive protection from harm, but about an active blessing above nature. The bedtime Shema is rabbinic, and yet it still protects from harmful forces.

The Talmud says that the night is a night of protection, not just ordinary protection from commandments.

Of course, but that is the Talmud. There is no promise in the Torah there, as there is with the Sabbatical year.