You are right that Obadiah's book was originally intended for close audience. The book is condensed from perhaps two hundred or so of his lectures, I wouldn't call them speeches.
Obadiah's style is typical of Talmudic scholars (he is not a one, but he studied the writings a lot, and likely they affected his style). Talmud cannot be read like a book. It is a whole. You start to understand the ideas only after you read it all carefully, digested each paragraph, and did that over and over again many times. Similarly, Obadiah's book may be understood, even felt, as a whole; each particular paragraph may be arguable and even not clear or not substantively argued.
I recall Japanese and some Chinese authors also wrote in what you call "fastball phrases." Take Miyamoto Musasi: many of his phrases are self-contained treaties, like "In fight, the fighting spirit is paramount." I imagine Musasi wrote like Shoher, reworking the text many times over, and condensing pages into sentences to avoid distracting or non-beautiful extra words. Shoher, thus, wrote, "Conflicting interests are not conflicting axioms," meaning that people proceeding from different axioms can never settle, but people with different interests but similar axiomatic platform (the rule of negative reciprocity, do not do unto another what is hateful to you; the axiom which allows resolving conflicts in mutually acceptable way) can settle.
My initial reaction to those 9 pages is that I found a number of lines that I thought were worth underlining, meaning a lot of strong ideas there. But I found the opening, the "theory", to be in need of editing for the sake of clarity. Someone reading it for the first time will have a different reaction from someone who is familiar with it, and I'm reading it for the first time.
Just as a quickie from the first paragraph, I didn't really get what was meant by "the religious prescriptions precede the prohibition of murder". It went right past me and I had no idea what the author was talking about. When I went back to it later I realized that he meant the proscriptions, not the prescriptions, and he was referring to the first five commandments as religious proscriptions, and saying they come before the commandment prohibiting murder.
A phrase like "conflicting interests are not conflicting axioms" is the kind of thing that is like a fastball being thrown by the hitter. My reaction is "huh?" What is the distinction you are making between an interest and an axiom? He's jumping a little ahead of himself because his mind works that way, or rather I should say he's jumping a little ahead of me because his mind works that way.