More power to the Rabbi for this answer to a question that also troubles me from time to time, and I can’t find within myself a satisfying answer to the matter. I’d be glad and grateful if the Rabbi could expand a bit more on this issue (for example: how is it possible that reliable revelations would contradict one another on matters of the fundamentals of religion and faith / belief? And so on).

Who said they’re all reliable? What I said was that he should follow what seems reliable to him. The claim that there are several contradictory revelations is itself a consideration in the question of their reliability. By the way, revelations don’t deal with the fundamentals of religion and faith / belief.

In my personal opinion, our revelation has several advantages: a. It was first (so the others may be imitations). b. It was mass revelation, whereas those were of individuals. c. It survived under persecution and difficult conditions, together with such a complex system of Jewish law that accompanies it. d. Everyone agrees it happened (Muslims and Christians believe in the revelation at Sinai, unlike the reverse).

Thank you, Rabbi, for these words!

But still, my question is directed at those individuals who experienced that revelation—what is the nature of their revelatory experience? After all, if we assume it is unreliable (for example, that it was a hallucination or the like), then why shouldn’t we say the same about a mass revelation? It doesn’t seem serious to me to assume that a revelation is true just because it was to the masses, and thereby dismiss explicit revelations just because they were to individuals!

No argument is categorical. Still, the number of people who experience something is very significant in any context. I’m speaking from the standpoint of someone who accepts the testimony about that experience (later generations). From the standpoint of the person himself, the discussion isn’t relevant. Let him decide for himself. Still, even for the person himself, if others experience the same thing, that strengthens his sense of it. When you hear someone calling you and you’re not sure, if others tell you they heard it too, you’ll take it more seriously, no?

I came across a nice discussion of this question at this link (starting from page 61 onward):

יש ללחוץ כדי לגשת אל Proofs.pdf

There’s also good material at this link:
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/publications.htm

Indeed, thanks for the answer!

I don’t agree, Rabbi.
Changing religion doesn’t go by the majority—absolutely not—do I need to explain?
On the one hand you told him to decide for himself; on the other hand you hinted that the majority determines it. That’s not a way to arrive at truth.
If I ask ten people a question—nine say identical things and one gives the actually correct answer—am I supposed to think the nine were right? No!
When deciding, you need to connect to the views of both sides, and it has nothing to do with whether they’re the majority.
There are a million Chinese people, so should I go and become Chinese?

I’m not proficient in Christian theology (thank God), but as I understand it, the claims about Paul’s revelation raise two significant difficulties.
– This was a one-time event (with a single witness..) and not a sequence of events, which could much more easily lead to a real event that was simply interpreted incorrectly (schizophrenia or something). In our case there is ostensibly a sequence of independent events with several witnesses, and that reduces the possibility of that. See, for example, Jerusalem syndrome.
– The claim that Paul had no interest in lying because he was originally a Pharisee is very problematic. Our support for that claim about him is he himself… We have no proof whatsoever (as I understand it) that the story is true. Even if there are additional proofs, I don’t find that especially compelling… If he really became convinced that Christianity was correct (and that could have happened for many reasons), it’s possible he decided to pay the price for it, and in order to strengthen his position he lied that he had received revelations (after all, we do find people who lie in order to persuade others of their view)….

So as I understand it, we have no proof that the event happened, and even if it did, relying on his interpretation is extremely problematic.

With God’s help, 25 Adar 5777

One who claims prophecy, prophesies in the name of other gods, or seeks to lead Israel away from the commandments of the Torah is contradicted by the Torah of Moses our Teacher, for the entire people heard at Mount Sinai that God spoke to him, and such a person is certainly either a liar or delusional, as explained by Maimonides, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, chapter 9.

Regards,
S. Z. Levinger

I’d like to add that maybe one shouldn’t relate to every revelation in such a binary way—either all false or all true. It could be that part of it is true, part of it is a distorted truth that wasn’t interpreted correctly, additions by the one prophesying, etc. And of course there can also be revelations that are entirely false.

The Vilna Gaon already noted the difference between revelations in the Land of Israel and outside the Land, and in his view, outside the Land the revelation mixes grain with chaff.