Time of the compilation of the Torah.

Very difficult with the answer that could be a later editing (massive additions). If there really was a later editing in periods like Hezekiah or the people of the Great Knesset, and it comes in prophecy, that is completely legitimate, but then that means the Torah is not really true because it tries to portray as if everything was received and finalized during the wilderness period. Why not declare a later editing when it is done?

Who spoke of massive? We are talking about individual verses (“to this very day” and so on).
Beyond that, these verses declare themselves, and therefore I see no need for the editor to indicate that there are additions. The Torah does not try to paint anything. It writes what it has to write and that is it.

It is very difficult to accept this.

Because Moses wrote and put it in the ark and this is the book in question!!!

And the people of Israel copied and passed it exactly to future generations and learned laws from him. Why would someone come with an unfamiliar edition and accept it from him?! After all, everyone has a different book?! And why shouldn't they force him to indicate that he was a proofreader?!

After all, Moses also wrote twice that it is forbidden to add or subtract

There are laws of writing a Torah scroll that are meticulous about every letter and this has always been the attitude of the Jews. Jews died and gave their lives that nothing would change.

Why did the generation of the proofreader agree to this change?!
Where is the book they held before me?!

“Who spoke of massive” ???

I understand that you do not support biblical criticism, but you are also invited to study the words of quite a few scholars of great importance (Ma'ale Gilboa Yeshiva) who believe that large parts of the Torah were written in much later periods. They do not believe this just because of the research of biblical criticism, but because it makes more sense (this is the best way to explain the differences between the laws of the mother, for example, and many other things).

Shavi,
I wasn't talking about something massive. Since he quoted me and not the rabbis of Ma'ale Gilboa (some of whom are my friends), I replied that no one here spoke about a massive addition. That's all.

Elchanan,
When editing is done in the Holy Spirit, it's like adding books to the Bible, and the public accepts. I don't see a problem with that. And as for the grammar of not adding a letter, who told you that this is ancient halakha? Even the writing of the Torah changed over time, so talking about adding a letter or a word or words is a pishita. Simply put, this is halakha after the editing and prophecy are complete, and from then on the text is not touched.

The rule of not adding to the bad is learned from an ancient verse, isn't it?
This is a verse that talks about Moses giving commandments to the people of Israel.
So I didn't understand what you meant:
The editor added it later as if it were Moses?!

The question is when this halakha was established, not when the verse from which it was required was created. The verse in the Hadith in Nidah was also apparently ancient, and yet R”A required it differently from previous generations (Shabbat 6d).
Incidentally, in halakha as such there is no prohibition on adding a verse to the Torah. There is a prohibition on adding or subtracting from the halakha. And an addition or subtraction in the biblical text invalidates the book, but in simple terms it is not a prohibition on not adding.

But the study of laws comes from the verses themselves. If there is permission to insert or remove, that is, edit, the verses of the Torah, then de facto laws can be derived from this. And then what would be their Torah source? How could they be the word of God? After all, this is nothing but an ordinary interpretive application of thoughts that a person has merely conceived.
This undermines all methods of inference.

First, as far as I remember, these additional verses do not teach laws (“to this day” and so on). Second, if you have come to the conclusion that the verse is an addition, then indeed, in principle, there is room to disagree with the halakhic conclusion. What is the problem with that? And third, these additions are part of the text, and the assumption is that the editing was in prophecy. Therefore, there is no problem in learning laws from them.