Hello Rabbi,
Is it possible that the Babylonian Talmud (which is our “Oral Torah,” if I’m not mistaken) is not based on a tradition from Sinai???

That’s too general a question. And first you’d have to define what “based on” means. It is an interpretation of what was given at Sinai, not that it itself was given at Sinai.

I’m taking advantage of this page to ask what’s been bothering me. You claim that in matters of factual belief our predecessors have no authority. Therefore you can disagree with Maimonides’ principles of faith, and in your view the Holy One, blessed be He, is not currently involved in every act in creation, and so on. My question is: there are halakhic categories regarding someone who denies the principles of faith, such as with regard to libation wine and so forth, so it turns out that just as with any conceptual investigation from which one can derive a practical difference in the laws of a woman’s betrothal, so too every question of faith—at least the fundamental ones—can be anchored in halakhic force.
A. Either you hold that with respect to principles one may disagree even if they have practical implications.
B. Or, in your view, everything is a matter of interpretation, and your views on the principles of faith can also be interpreted within Maimonides or the other standard-bearers of Jewish tradition.

What I am claiming is not a factual claim but a principled one. Authority cannot exist in matters of faith, or in matters of fact בכלל. If you want to stone me for my views or forbid my wine—that’s perfectly fine. But that cannot be a consideration for me in whether to adopt or reject any opinion. If I believe it, then I believe it, and what practical difference does it make whether there is a prohibition involved or not, and whether Maimonides thought so or not?
But I would add that since this is a matter of compulsion (in beliefs), it is also wrong to impose sanctions against the “heretic” in this way. At most, one could impose sanctions on someone who expresses views he does not actually believe. But that would be a very strange case, and certainly hard to identify.

After all, you don’t know what really happens in heaven. Natural processes seem to you entirely statistical. That is indeed an excellent and possible explanation, but since I see that tradition found it so important to insist on these principles of faith, I will accept their theory regarding divine providence, because again, in the end no one knows what is happening above. The statistics of nature do not necessarily contradict providence, because perhaps that is the way divine providence works—hidden. That is, we have no empirical proof of providence, only a priori knowledge because of our trust in the tradition, even if it is an idea that is hard for the heart to accept. Shouldn’t we have at least a bit of humility before our great sages and before the divinity that is greater than us by far more than a few measures? [By the way, once you wrote to me that one should trust in God that He acts for our good even if it doesn’t seem that way to us. Another example could be the trust you place in your father if he tells you something that doesn’t seem very logical to you, or, say, a medical opinion based on the intuitions of a veteran doctor with decades of experience.]
I’m not talking about sanctions; I’m talking about a practical question such as libation wine. If I wanted to come stay with you (assuming you host bothersome people), and I am somewhat concerned for Maimonides’ view, should I be concerned about drinking your wine, based on how you defined yourself in the column “Am I a Heretic?”

The arguments you raised are completely unfounded, but we’ve already discussed them ad nauseam in several places on the site, and I see no point in going over them again and again.
As for your halakhic question, doesn’t it sound a bit odd to you to ask halakhic questions of someone who is a heretic? If you do not accept my positions—that’s perfectly fine. But clarify your own position for yourself. You want not to drink my wine but to accept my halakhic rulings? Then I hereby rule for you that you are forbidden to ask Jewish law of a lawless person like me.
[Needless to say, I’m not writing this angrily. Not at all, since in my view a person should make decisions based on what seems right to him. Both you and me. Everything I wrote here is simply what seems to me to be the right answer to give you.]

I understand the rebuke—entirely justified. Indeed, as you wrote, I thought you wouldn’t be angry, because you are the only rabbi who discusses publicly and matter-of-factly whether he is considered a heretic, and so my question too is entirely matter-of-fact, in that same genre.
The reason I’m asking you is precisely because I value you very highly and have gained great, practical benefit from many of your articles and lectures, and I’m trying by every means to get a full picture דווקא from you, including on matters of faith, because my intellect is more limited than yours, and I don’t know anyone else suitable.
(Yes, maybe my half-emotional argument can annoy someone who doesn’t have my issues—I have mild Asperger’s.)

I wrote quite clearly. There is no rebuke here at all. Nor did I see any emotional argument, and I have no problem at all with what you wrote. I simply do not understand the rationale of your question. In my opinion I am not a heretic. If in your opinion I am, then don’t drink my wine. I don’t understand what I’m supposed to say, from your perspective, beyond that.