Mount Sinai status

What should be in such a situation?

What should be the minimum in such a situation to be a source of positivity.
And how do you think it could be carried out in practice
In the connection between the transcendent and the material reality in the world.

Sorry for confusing the mind…. But this is a point that is not clear enough in your argument beyond a general sentence… that was..

That was what?

Shabbat Shalom

What is supposed to be common is that there was an interaction between G-d and a group of people from our ancestors. This nucleus is what is important and the other surrounding details don't really make a difference. But it is natural that such an event would add various "decorations" to itself.
The question of how the connection was created was already asked by the Rashba (I think in the response to Ch. 11, Si. Sheled), but I have never understood what the problem is. Why can't G-d reveal himself and speak to people? Who or what prevents him from doing so? Those who make this difficult claim that if the recipients do not fulfill the conditions of prophecy, they cannot experience revelation. I see no difficulty in this. It is G-d's decision as to whom he decides to reveal himself.

You are still evading how such an event is possible
(not because of God's limitations) but because of man's limitations….
How did our ancestors know that this was the ’ that was revealed to them…

Rabbi Y’, what am I avoiding? I said I don't see a question and you didn't explain it to me. Please explain the question to me and I'll try to answer it.
If God can create a world, and humans, and cause all sorts of things in it, why can't He talk to someone He wants to talk to? Kill me, but I've never understood this strange question. You keep asking but don't explain to me what the question is. Help me: What should I answer?
Can't God move air and create sound waves like you and I can? Can't He create an image that we see? Can't He create within us an experience of encountering Him? I can think of countless ways to reveal Himself easily. As I told you, I think this question arises among the commentators (like the Rashba), but there it is from a different angle: they assume that in order to meet the Holy One, a person must reach the level of prophethood, and therefore they wonder how the Holy One reveals himself to an entire people. This is a completely different question, and let's say that I have already seen good questions from her as well. By the way, this is also what the Rashba answers there.

Your question about how they knew that the Holy One was revealing himself to them is similar to the question of how you know that there is a chair in front of you. Think of a blind man who asks you how you know this? You will answer him that you see. And he (who does not know this experience) will ask you how your eyes do not deceive you? He can bring the phenomenon of peta morgana to his aid. What will you answer him? Nothing. So is he supposed to not believe you?
A similar question is asked by Sir Kierkegaard about our father Abraham in the book of Aqida: How did he know that it was truly the Holy One, especially since for him it contradicted everything he knew (moral principles, the promise that Isaac would call him a seed, etc.). And the answer to that is that when a person meets the Holy One, he probably knows and understands that he is meeting with him, even if it will be difficult for us as those who have not experienced it (=blind to these phenomena) to understand it, and it will also be difficult to explain it to us.
Likewise, any scientist who sees a new phenomenon can always ask, perhaps there was a mistake and how does he know that he saw it that way, etc. If there are a number of people who report that they saw something, I tend to accept it, until proven otherwise. Especially when additional aspects are added to it that strengthen it.

The question is Kikgur's question
Is his answer serious or sufficient … on what basis does he claim it….

The people's report does not convince me…. When the official report is riddled with contradictions….

Well, I have no answer to that and there can be no answer: How does any person know what he says he knows? Especially when the questioner does not have the tools to sense what he senses, and therefore it is no wonder that he is skeptical (like the blind man).

As stated, the contradictions are not in the report but in the ”colors” that were added to it later.

Especially if, in your opinion, they somehow cannot hear or see in the normal sense, then what is the wonder that one source chooses a metaphor of sight and the other of hearing? After all, according to the difficulty you raise, both ways are metaphors. In fact, the author himself feels this and writes that they “see the voices”. If so, there is no contradiction here and it is also possible to treat these as reports by the perpetrators themselves (and not necessarily later “colors”).

It is necessary to define or rather conceptualize what the meaning of a person experiencing the ’ speaking to him/her is.
This is a subjective feeling (which today would probably hospitalize anyone who would claim this)
Not only is this not a ’ normal’ phenomenon in which even a skin can receive from other people something that may be reasonable (in your language, a priori sanity) but a one-time, individual experience, how can one understand that this is indeed the ’

Note: And all the people see the voices I don't think it's necessary to say that they saw the sound waves (or that the ear was amplified to the nerve of sight really not.

Of course, returning to the essence of prophecy
What is prophecy?
We don't really know
But we see that the Rabbi in the lesson made an effort to explain what it is… because otherwise how would they ‘ understand’ the first two commandments.

It's not for nothing that Maimonides spoke of the presence of prophecy in the ’air’ and that the person who has reached the right level is able to draw it…
But it's not Maimonides who is the subject
But the level of certainty that a one-time event a huge public understands that ’is speaking to him
Perhaps the pyrotechnics were intended to answer this question.

I also don't think we need to talk about connecting the eyes to the hearing center or vice versa. What I proposed here is completely different. Because in any case, we are talking about metaphors, since there was no normal sight or hearing there, so there is no contradiction between using a metaphor of sight and a metaphor of hearing. To each his own metaphor.

You see the voices …. This is a comment

The issue itself is what is the meaning or what is the experience that’ speaks to a person (especially to your perception that the Torah understands that he does not have a body and does not have the image of the body)
What is the meaning of a one-time experience in history of an experience that many people have experienced other things.

So what is this experience that a person can say I heard the voice of the ’ and it was the voice of the ’ God of Israel

I, for example, would think I was going crazy…..

And that's why I wrote to you that even the blind would think that the one who sees has gone mad. And the skeptic also thinks that anyone who is not a skeptic is crazy (because what evidence do you have that what you see really exists?). The fact is that a person reaches conclusions that concern the reliability of his knowledge and feelings. Someone from the outside who has not experienced it cannot understand. Especially when there are many who have experienced it, the obvious conclusion is that not everyone has gone mad, but there really was something there that we did not experience. A person heard (at least metaphorically) clearly that God revealed himself to him. What's the problem? That I have never experienced it, is that true. So what? They all did experience it.

An initial and one-time experience is unlikely to be experienced by everyone in a uniform way.
The difference between a skin is that even if you can't see, you can theoretically understand what's happening and a tall tree is not. The knowledge of its surroundings is knowledge that has been acquired and understood by generations and not something one-time.

A one-time, unfamiliar phenomenon... It's hard to attribute it to someone or something and have everyone think similarly.
I'm not convinced.

I'm probably skin for your understanding?

Well, so we just saw that it really wasn't uniform (even in the prophecy of Chazal they say that no two prophets prophesy in the same style. It is revealed to each one in a different way). You yourself explain why.
After the generations processed and understood these collective experiences, the tradition about the status of Mount Sinai was created. But they were honest enough to convey all the reports and not organize them into one uniform report. Like Schwartz's claim about the interweaving of the various sources for the biblical text, which was made out of a commitment to each of them.

There is a huge difference between a blind person who is among the wise who know the experience and he just needs to trust them
and between
a group of blind people who do not have a single wise person near them, how can they trust them when they have no tool for comparison.

I hope I explained myself….

I think you took the parable somewhere else.
In our parable, the people of Mount Sinai are the seers and you/I are the blind. The question is whether we trust them or not.

How did their eyes open and understand the meaning of something they had never experienced?

Like a baby who constantly experiences things he has never experienced before. That's how you learn.

A baby who saw a one-time experience and then was disconnected from that experience would learn?

We're going into corners but it seems like we're both enjoying it
And the difference in everyone's perception is clear
But let's continue, it's nice and maybe we'll get to the ” truth”

Yes (he would study). Of course, a large number of times is more beneficial, but it is built from studying a little at a time.