“No” — the Rabbi can’t explain?
“No” — the differences outweigh the similarities?
… and so on …

Benjamin,

Since you didn’t catch the rebuke: if you didn’t understand, the Rabbi was implicitly criticizing you for not spelling out your question and asking it in an obscure way. Or else you asked a question whose answer would be a whole series of books. So why are you complaining that his answer was vague?

Dear Immanuel, I got it, believe me I got it. The Rabbi understood what I meant, and there is no implicit criticism in his words.
Best regards, Benjamin
P.S. If the Rabbi does in fact address my question in one of his books, I’d be happy for some guidance.

There actually was criticism, exactly on the points written here. I don’t know what that Judaism is, and I assume we’re talking about a whole doctrine, and I’m supposed to put a doctoral dissertation in comparative philosophy here?
If you want, raise one specific point as an example and we can discuss it.

It seems to me you’ve already opened a thread in the past about the Conservative rabbi, about the difference between him and Zecharias Frankel or something like that.
There have also been lots of threads here on the question of where the line runs between Orthodoxy and the Conservatives. And if I remember correctly, the Rabbi said that the right wing among the Conservatives touches the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy, and as long as there is seriousness and commitment to the rules of halakhic ruling, the labels and their belonging to this or that organization don’t interest him.

From the question itself it’s really impossible to understand anything—which school are you referring to? That of Zecharias Frankel? That of Solomon Schechter? The Lithuanian Saul Lieberman? (Three conservatives, and the third among them is distinctly conservative.) Or that of Heschel and Green, who are Hasidic? Maybe that of the Rabbi’s brother Amichai Lau, Binyamin Lau’s brother, who really borders on the Reform camp?

To all those who for some reason don’t understand: of course I meant Zecharias Frankel, the originator of the approach.
One point, for example: the source of the authority of tradition depends on its acceptance by the collective; the collective is what grants validity to the tradition, and not necessarily its divine anchoring. From this also follows the attitude toward the Sages, who are seen as creators and innovators, and not only as interpreters of an unchanging tradition.

I hope the Rabbi will be able to respond. Thanks in advance.

I’ve written about that more than once. I agree partially, but only specifically regarding the Talmud. When there is a Sanhedrin, its authority does not derive from the acceptance of the public but from ordination “from above,” one person from another all the way back to Moses our teacher. After ordination ceased and the Sanhedrins were abolished, the Talmud received its authority “from below.”
But I don’t see the connection between that and the question whether the Sages were interpreters or creators. They could be interpreters or creators whether their authority came from above or from below. In general, the Sages tried to interpret the verses and the tradition they received, but their authority does not stem from the fact that they necessarily succeeded in that attempt. Therefore the distinction between interpreter and creator is not sharp and needs more explanation.

Where did the Rabbi find this ordination “from above”? Who was the “Sanhedrin” before the Sanhedrin? Who were the halakhic decisors in the time of King David?
I would ask for proof of this.
Does the Rabbi not see any advantage for the Sages over any other halakhic body that would be accepted (as a possibility) by all Israel?
The connection / difference between interpreters and creators is completely clear: from where did the Sages draw the authority to invent new laws beyond those transmitted “from above”? If the Sages are creators and the source of their authority is the collective, then it’s clear why acceptance is binding. But if they are creators and the source of their authority is not the acceptance of the collective, then why are we obligated to obey them? From where did they get the authority to create and attribute their creation to “above”? I proceed from the assumption that the entire Torah, written and oral (as it is known to us today), was transmitted at a given time and its validity endures for all generations forever.

As described in the Talmud and in Maimonides, the original ordination was from the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses our teacher, and he began ordaining onward, one ordained sage from another. Therefore, in principle, ordination is from above and not from below. Anyone ordained within this mechanism who creates some Jewish law, that is binding Jewish law. On the contrary, to view Jewish law created by a body that receives its power from below as binding Jewish law seems to me a much greater novelty. But as I said, regardless of what is the greater novelty, the question is what actually happened.
In principle, the Sages have no advantage over any other body that would receive the official stamp. I don’t think they necessarily had exceptional abilities, and even if they did, their authority did not come from that but from the acceptance of the public.