Certainty of choice and knowledge

So, as a religious person, what do you base your answer on?
Regarding your answer, it reinforces that the Torah is not from heaven.

Hello Israel.
If you are looking for confirmation, I am small. There are those greater and wiser than me who said that it is from heaven and those greater and wiser than me who said that it is not. I personally do not seek confirmation from people but rather find out what my opinion is on the matter. I do not care what such and such a person or an unknown person thinks.
To my impression is that the Torah (or at least its core) is from heaven, and I explained this in detail in the fifth notebook here on the site, take it from there. There I also explained why I am committed to the Torah system. On the other hand, you asked for proofs here, and proofs in the strict logical sense, in my opinion, are not possible. I explained that there too.

According to you, logical proofs cannot be made. So how, in your opinion and according to the Torah, do you explain that all the rabbis and even some of the Samaritans bring various proofs. And your honorable rabbi, you say that in fact this is not possible?

And what would you say to the skeptic? I personally take a neutral position, examining things to reach an informed decision.

It seems to me that you don't understand what is meant when the Rabbi says there is no proof (maybe new to the site). According to the Rabbi, there is no proof of anything in the world, but we can still talk about probability.
In his opinion, there is a reasonable chance that the Torah came from heaven. He explained the reasons for this in the aforementioned notebook to which you referred.

Yes, completely new. Can you please provide a link to the above notebook? I couldn't find it + an explanation of what it means that there is no proof of anything in the world and how do you prove it?

https://mikyab.net/כתבים/מחברות-בענייני-אמונה/

– Notebooks 2-3 discuss philosophical evidence for the existence of a Creator.
– Notebook 5 deals with evidence in favor of revelation and the Torah.

Another question: Did the calculation of the brick precede the iron?

It seems to me that they copied the calculation from the Greeks or Babylonians, so the argument about the incredible divine knowledge that came from God – is wrong.
Agree?

I don't know about this specific issue, but R’ Avraham ben Rambam already wrote that the Chazal wrote according to the scientific knowledge of their time. Therefore, it is possible. For the same reason, incorrect scientific information that appears in the Chazal is also meaningless (in addition, there were cases in which the Chazal wrote according to what is visible to the eye and not according to scientific reality, because the law is determined according to what is visible to the eye and not according to scientific facts, etc.). Therefore, this evidence is indeed problematic (although perhaps there are places where there was scientific information that was transmitted in the tradition from Sinai. But we don't know).
In any case, I'm not sure that we need this evidence at all (see the author, and there are other good sources on this).

Hello Rabbi (I haven't finished reading the 5 booklets yet.)
But one question that I must get an answer to with sources, is there a non-biblical document from any of the neighboring nations that tells the story of the exodus?

I don't know. That should be clarified with historians or archaeologists.

Because this is a question mainly about factual claims, and not about philosophy, I will answer briefly, since I have quite a bit of (independent) knowledge of Egyptian history.

I have summarized here a significant part of the evidence that I know of for the story of the Exodus (which I am willing to defend and which are not hand-waving / demagogic / taking facts out of context).

I have tried to indicate sources here and there. If you want more – you are welcome to ask.

Of course, if you are only interested in the part of the extra-biblical documents – go straight to part three.

(Introduction – I assume the Exodus based on the theory of Professor Joel Elitzur, i.e., at the time of Pharaoh Amenhotep III during the 18th Dynasty).

_______

First,
there is various circumstantial evidence for the story of the Exodus:
– Existence of a pro-Semitic Egyptian dynasty 200 years before the year of the Exodus (approximately) – see about ‘Hyksos’ on Wikipedia
– Overthrow of the pro-Semitic dynasty and establishment of a dynasty that tried to erase the memory of the aforementioned dynasty – see about ‘Yamses’ on Wikipedia
– Employment of Semitic slaves in Egypt in the same dynasty (Eviru/Epiru) – see about their name on Wikipedia
– Sudden decline in Egypt's power after that period after the days of Amenhotep III (many of Egypt's allies collapse)
– The above-mentioned king”s succession by a son who is not the eldest (who died prematurely) – see about ‘Amenhotep III’ on Wikipedia
– Religious schism in Egypt after that period – see about ‘Ankhenaten’ on Wikipedia
– Evidence of the worship of a god in Midian with a name similar to the God of Israel (and who is forbidden to be represented in a statue) shortly after this period – This is reported by Professor Knohl and others.
– Complaints by the kings of Canaan about the intrusion of various peoples who are conquering the land (also mentioning the Ophir) Egypt does not send military support to protect the kings of Canaan – see the El-Amarna documents on Wikipedia
– The penetration of many words from the Egyptians into Hebrew – This can be explained in much more detail. See the book by researcher Avraham Shalom Yehuda Merkaz for dozens of examples of this (available in English online).
– Mutual penetration of customs between the two peoples (circumcision, the shape of the Mishkan, the Song of the Sea, various monotheisms in Egypt, and more) – Yehoshua Berman has written extensively about this in various articles.
– Adaptation of the story to the period's reality – See a long list of examples of this in the book ‘Exodus from Egypt Reality or Fantasy’
– Explicit mention of the people of Israel as a people in conflict with Egypt 100 years after the alleged exodus – See ‘Marpanthah Monument’ on Wikipedia
– There is also a mention of Semitic slaves building the ‘Temple of Ramesses’ but the dating of this evidence does not fit the dating that I assume as the time when the Israelites left Egypt.

All of this fits very well circumstantially with the Torah story. Some dispute this evidence (and its connection to the event) but from my familiarity with the material, although it is not unequivocal evidence and has difficulties, it is certainly plausible.

_______

Second,
– The famous (philosophical) claim is well known that the Egyptians had no interest in documenting the event (and indeed there is quite a bit of evidence that there were events that the Egyptians simply ‘hid’ and we happen to know them from the historian Nathon).
– Another claim in the same area code, the people have no interest in inventing a myth about being slaves (usually the myth glorifies the people). In addition, the Bible presents the people as childish (the exodus from Egypt, the golden calf, etc.) and even criticizes the leadership. This reduces the likelihood that this is a book to come up with a myth. (In my opinion, this point was not mentioned in the notebook "It may be necessary.")
– The dominant tradition of the above story among the people strengthens its plausibility (and this is a point that also arises in the fifth notebook). It is important to understand that the Exodus is not just a Jewish myth. It is the only founding historical event that the entire people agree with (Samaritans, Jews, etc.) and therefore there is a good probability that it constitutes historical evidence (like most founding historical myths of other peoples). In addition, the above event itself is the reason for a large part of the commandments that the people kept, and what is more, if you pay attention in the Bible there is no effort to convince the people that the event occurred. If you read the text, you will see from the wording that it is simply because it is clear to everyone that it happened. It always says things like, “God helped us in Egypt! Why are you worshipping idols?” as if there is an implicit assumption that this is a historical event (and it is simply like that in all the books of the Bible. Even in those that undoubtedly present accurate historical events). It seems that it is clear to all the people in every situation of rebuke or one situation that the above event occurred, there is no discussion about it at all. There is no need to convince them of this. This is a point that is not paid attention to and greatly strengthens the credibility of the event. (The above is perhaps worth adding as a point to the notebook).

(For an expansion of the entire above process, see Notebook 5 in the book ‘Skepton in His Sole Belief’)

_______

Third, to the question of ‘extra-biblical’ documents for the story itself.
There are 4 “mini-documents” that supposedly pertain to the event, none of which (in my understanding) is beyond doubt. But the fact that there are several of them (+ what I have cited above) may make them strong:
1. The testimony of Manton, the father of Egyptian history – Manton was the historian who documented all of Egyptian history in the 1st century AD. He wrote it based on the material that was in the Alexandrian libraries at the time and has been lost to us (in general, most of what we know today agrees with his testimonies and the entire archaeological basis of the Near East is based on his writings. He had inaccuracies here and there, but he is considered an unequivocally authoritative source). He brings the story of the Exodus (but in a different and anti-Semitic version than ours): he tells of a foreign people of slave class who settled in Egypt, later took over, spread diseases there, and finally were expelled through the desert, reached Canaan, and built a kingdom there called Judah. Various historians see this as evidence of Egypt's vague historical memory of the above story (mixed with the story of the Hyksos). Click on "Manetho" on Wikipedia.
2. Testimony of the aforementioned Byzantine historian Procopius, from the 6th century, mentions the story of the Exodus (also in a different version). He testifies that he saw with his own eyes an inscription in Pinicia that mentions the escape of a Canaanite tribe from the land from the “robber Joshua ben Nun.” To the best of my memory, we have another historian who claimed to have seen the aforementioned inscription. The assessment among scholars that the inscription is indeed authentic is that there is disagreement as to whether it was actually written at the time of the events or was written under their inspiration later. In any case, I think this is important evidence.
3. The testimony of the Greek historian Cataeus of Abdera, from the 4th century BC, who also brings the story in his history book on ancient Egypt in great detail (there are other Greek historians who wrote about it). As in point 2. Some say they were influenced by the Jewish myth. On the other hand, their versions contain accusations of Jews spreading diseases and expressions of ‘anti-Semitism’ (this is how this study is prepared) so to say that they had an interest in glorifying the people of Israel is far from the truth.
4. The two famous papyri in Egypt, Nefer-Hero and Ifwar. The truth is, their story is a bit complicated. The above papyri describe chaos, slave revolts and various types of natural disasters in Egypt (see the light blue quotes in the first link, after the phrase “The Bible and Archaeology – Tradition versus Science” in Google. Ignore the rest of the above article at this point) and this is apparently what we were looking for. However, the complex part of them is the dating. As far as we know, the inscriptions themselves were indeed written down in the period relevant to the Exodus (+ -). The problem is that most historians date their origin to a period of 300 years before the biblical dating, mainly for linguistic reasons (and consequently assume that they are copies of older inscriptions). On the other hand, there are indeed serious Egyptologists who dispute the dating of the above inscriptions for various reasons, and indeed date them to the period when the Exodus supposedly took place, but these (to my knowledge) are fewer scholars. Therefore, the certain attribution of the above papyri to the story of the Exodus is problematic, but still possible. What is certain is that the fact that there is evidence for a later dating of the above papyri makes it difficult to claim that there is “0 evidence” in Egypt. There are documents written at that very period, but the dating of their origin is controversial (and of course the fact that it is a research document with a religious connotation is not helpful to the discussion.).

There are other points that some say should strengthen the above event from an archaeological point of view (Wilkowski, Rothenstein, Etzion, and more) but they are controversial and this requires a longer and more comprehensive discussion, and so on. (See the article I referenced in point 4).

_______

In conclusion –
There is various kinds of evidence for the story (circumstantial, philosophical, and direct). The accumulation of so much indirect and direct evidence makes the story very plausible, and therefore there are scholars who definitely accept it (even the most extreme of opponents accept the fact that it has a historical core!), but this (like everything in this problematic 'science') is not beyond doubt and is controversial.

I did not address the archaeological evidence (which is very abundant!) for a later invasion of Canaan by a foreign people. In my opinion, this evidence also greatly strengthens the plausibility of the story of the Exodus.

Thanks to the Rabbi and M for the responses. I would be happy to receive more sources.

Can you elaborate on what exactly you are looking for? A source of a specific claim? Books that deal with this? (It all depends on the level of background you have..)

See a discussion with some links on these topics on the site here:

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%99%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%a6%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%91%d7%90%d7%a8%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%92%d7%99%d7%94-2/

Hello Rabbi and m, I started reading the discussion and since I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the material, I went to ask those who are more knowledgeable than me. And here I am copying answers that I started receiving in connection with Joshua Berman and Adam Zertal, and here are the responses that I received on some of the materials in the discussion.

No Israel. You are not doubting. All you are doing is looking for material that will strengthen what you believe in.
You are not checking credibility, you are just looking for confirmation of your belief.
##Take Poemat Kadesh for example, I don't know who Dr. Joshua Berman is, but I know he is a liar.
Ramesses II (reigned 1279–1213 BCE), also known as Ramesses the Great, recorded his greatest achievement at the beginning of his reign: it was his victory over Egypt's great enemy, the Hittite Empire, at the Battle of Kadesh## he writes, but the ones who won a strategic victory were the Hittites and the Egyptians were forced to retreat and failed to retake Kadesh and were also forced to sign a forced peace treaty with the Hittites.
There are no sketches of Ramesses' tent in the Kadesh poem, nor anything resembling the sketch in the article you cited – The Kadesh poem was not distributed anywhere because only the king's scribes could read and write – The description of the battle is not and cannot be similar to the description of the confrontation between the Beni and the Egyptians, for the simple reason that there was no battle there… -No, my friend, I don't think you doubt, you are looking for confirmation of your belief. This is called in psychology – confirmation bias.

Zertal's ”altar”.
Here is a letter sent to Haaretz after Zertal's ”find” was published there.

Adam Zertal is doing exactly what Yadin did at the time, he is trying to rape the find in the field so that it will match [in his opinion] what is written in the Bible. It seems to him that the altar he uncovered is Joshua's altar on Mount Ebal, because its dimensions match what is said in the Mishnah in the measurements of 3:1, and if we add to the words of our own archaeologist Yoav, it seems that Zertal's words are refuted by the hundreds of texts on which he relies for the measurements.
Later on it says: “And when the children of the exile went up, they added to it [the dimensions of the altar] four cubits from the south and four cubits from the north”. If so, then the altar in the first house was, according to the scripture, 28 by 28 cubits, not 32 cubits.
And so that the believer, who so much wants Zertal to be justified, does not fall into the same pit in which Zertal falls, we must mention the scripture in the Bible. In my words in the days of 24:1: ” And he made an altar of brass, ten cubits long, and ten cubits wide, and ten cubits high.” – no longer fitting the dimensions that Zertal found.
The dimensions of the altar that Moses was commanded to build were even smaller – Exodus 27:1:” And you shall make the altar of shittim wood five cubits long and five cubits wide in the direction of the exile.

But there is a thorn in it, it seems that Zertal's trouble was in vain because according to the Talmud, Joshua took the stones of the altar from Mount Ebal and built them in Gilgal, as it is written in Sota 36:1: “And they gathered the stones and brought them to us at Gilgal” and on this Rashi writes in La column 2: “After they had built the altar from them on Mount Ebal, they gathered them and brought them to Gilgal and set them up there” If so, the stones of the altar of Mount Ebal must be four cubits long, and its height three cubits; and if Zertal says that the altar on Mount Ebal was built by Joshua after the death of Moses, it is clear that an altar with the dimensions of Moses had to be found, and not an altar with the dimensions of the Second Temple, which Zertal continued to search for in Gilgal. But in order for him to know what to look for, he must be told that he must look for only twelve stones, because it is written in Joshua 4:2: ” And those twelve stones, which they took from the Jordan, Joshua set up in Gilgal. ”
And most importantly, if and when he finds the stones in Gilgal, in order to identify them with certainty as the stones of the altar of Mount Ebal, what is written in Joshua 3:2 must be fulfilled on them: ” And he wrote there on the stones the second part of the law of Moses, which he wrote before the children of Israel”.
Of course, in order for the identification to be complete, Zertal must also make sure that these stones are intact and that no iron has been lifted on them, as is written in Joshua 3:1 “Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal. As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, on which no iron tool has been lifted. Therefore, when you find any artifact in the field, it is extremely important not to rape it so that it will fit the faith of the finder.

Hello Israel,
You should not be overly impressed by the confident tone of the answer you give. There are many unfounded assumptions in his words and assumptions that he makes behind the scenes.

First, Professor Yehoshua Berman is a biblical scholar by profession, as is Professor Zertal, who was one of our greatest and most respected archaeologists. Indeed, some have disputed this research of his (and many claim not dishonestly), but in his book “The Altar of Mount Ebal” he goes through the objections of his critics one by one and answers them with answers that I consider good (mostly).

As for Berman, the works you saw are part of a series that he is going to publish soon. Indeed, it is possible to dispute his conclusions and the fact that he is a professor should not be exciting in itself. But using statements like “he is a liar” against them without proving why, or “there was no fight” Which is not at all relevant to the discussion (because it is supposed to be a victory poem), shows that the answerer to you (according to the style it is freedom) uses the expression "little" and not substantive arguments. These are professionals, like anyone else, they may be wrong (I think not), but their statements cannot be canceled without basing my case on claims that mean nothing. Evidence must be discussed in an orderly, honest and substantive manner. It seems to me that the answerer does not do this. By the way, I also do not see anything decisive in the arguments of Berman or Zertal if they stood on their own, it is precisely the accumulation of evidence (indirect, philosophical and evidence) that makes the whole event credible.

It is important to understand that there are indeed archaeological disputes about the Bible. There are arguments that are not bad for those who see it as a historical source and others see these arguments as nonsense and empty. Every time you raise any corroborating argument, the opponent will simply send you the opinions that were opposed to it. And so it will happen again, God forbid. Since you, as you say, are not familiar with the material, it will be difficult for you to decide between the 2 researchers. You have 2 options: either decide a priori as a specific opinion (someone you trust), or, you must study the opinions of both sides and formulate a position yourself. True, it takes time, but if you want to find out, this is the only way. Again, if you are looking for evidence that is beyond dispute, you will not find such in any field of archaeology, let alone a subject related to religion and politics.

Personally, I can tell you that having studied the subject (independently of faith), I find most of the claims that confirm the story to be a *more honest* interpretation of the findings. I may always be biased, but this is still the interpretation as I understand it.

See here and here a demonstration of these principles:

http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/190230

https://musaf-shabbat.com/2016/12/05/%d7%a1%d7%93%d7%a8%d7%94-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%95%d7%94%d7%95-%d7%95%d7%91%d7%95%d7%94%d7%95-%d7%99%d7%95%d7%90%d7%9c-%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%9f/#more-24214

By the way, as I wrote before, even scholars who in principle do not accept the Bible as a source Historically, we see the story of the exodus as a story with a kernel of truth (as the great opponent Finkelstein writes). The debate is only about the number of those who left (in their opinion, a small nucleus of priests. And between us, you didn't scream more than that and that's it).

In any case, I would suggest one of two things:
1. Read books on the subject. Start with Rabbi Bezeq's "Until This Day" (Be'ad Yom HaZeh) . It's not very comprehensive but will give you an initial background on the subject. If you're in the central region, I can lend you one (I have quite a few books on these subjects).
2. Do as the Rabbi advises. Contact a professional who understands this world (I know a few academics who can answer this for you. The Rabbi probably knows more). And talk to them.

The last thing, if you notice, I write in a tone of "maybe" and "maybe I'm wrong" and that can be confusing. This is not due to my lack of confidence in the statements I write. On the contrary, I think they are quite well-founded. The difference between me and the person answering you is that I try to be honest, with you and first of all with myself, because it is always possible that I am wrong. I have simply grown out of thinking that I am right about everything. This does not contradict the fact that I still stand behind my statements and am prepared to defend them. I suggest you ask yourself whether the commenter whose words are full of ”obviously…” is trying to be honest with himself and examine the arguments honestly or dismiss them just because it is clear that they simply cannot be true.

Best regards.

https://www.hofesh.org.il/yodea_lishol/personal_stories/spinoza/spinoza.html
Interesting article with sources I received, I would love to hear well-founded counterarguments.

Israel, if you would like to discuss, raise a question and let's discuss. Sorry, I don't have time to do research and read articles for every questioner.

Hello Rabbi, in continuation of my previous questions, I want to change the angle to a slightly different direction because I am in the process of moving from materialistic to idealistic thinking and trying to polish it in all dimensions. Although I am still doubtful about the status of revelation, certainly towards certain parts of the Torah, but I am trying to explore from all angles. I found an article that talks about the different religions that are related to idealism in at least some ways and criticizes them very much. I will join in writing. I am interested in knowing the Rabbi's opinion on the subject
I will quote the main points.

Below…
The dialectical process: When one advocates the position that philosophy is correct in its time, an antithesis arises that says that if philosophy only expresses its time, something is missing. The antithesis cancels the thesis, a negation of the thesis, it is not parallel to it. When there is a clash between the thesis and the antithesis, a synthesis is created, this expresses an ascent to something higher while combining two things. This is the dialectical process, a thing and its negation that create a higher truth. This is the process that happened until Hegel, but it is a teleological process, since each thesis is higher than the previous thesis and contains additional elements. Therefore, we finally arrive at what Hegel called - the absolute truth, the non-relative one that stems from its time but encompasses everything. His philosophy, he claims, is the absolute truth because it contains within itself the entire history of philosophy. It does not give rise to an antithesis because it contains everything.
Hegel's philosophy of religion: The history of religion is parallel to the history of philosophy, but religion is the popular and formative version of philosophy (which is the concern of the educated only). The spirit of the time (Zeitgeist) that philosophy expresses is expressed among the masses in the form of religion. Religion is a reflection of the spirit of the world. The history of the world is the history of the changing spirit of the world. The spirit of the world understands itself - this is the meaning of reaching the absolute truth.
How does religion develop? The Greek and pagan religion was a religion that expressed the spirit of the sensory world of the people of the time in which the aesthetic and the sensual were at the center of the spirit of the time. This religion failed to contain the more spiritual sides of human existence. As an antithesis, Jewish monotheism (a complete reversal) arose, which ignores the passions, the emotional and the aesthetic, and posits an abstract religion of laws. Engraved morality - a dialectical reversal of the Greek gods. The new spirit of the world, as expressed in the Jewish religion, fails to explain the physical existence of man in the world, and therefore ascends to the Christian religion, which is the religion of love in which both passions and laws are embodied. The Protestant movement is, in Hegel's eyes, the absolute truth.

This refers to methodological materialism.

Shalom Israel.
Hegel's slogans really don't impress me. And his megalomaniacal reference to himself as God who encompasses all philosophy is, of course, foolish. Reminds me of our centrist cousins' investigation into whether Rabbi Kook is universalism itself or is he just one of the streams included in it.
What do you want me to say about this empty collection of slogans? There is sociological-metaphysical speculation here about what all religion and the spirit of the times express. That is a matter for sociologists and/or metaphysicians. I am asking whether the claim X that someone claims is true, not what religion it is in and what it expresses about the spirit of the times. If there is a certain argument/claim that you want to examine, respect it and write it down, and not what it expresses and whether it is relative or absolute, general or partial. All of these questions are completely uninteresting to me.

Well, it seems that I stepped on a problematic point because I recognize a somewhat aggressive tone. In any case, I am not really familiar with the material, I only saw this anecdote and I liked the general idea. Personally, I take it as a place of combination. Therefore, in a certain sense, I connect to things that seem more fundamental in religion, at least to me, such as the equality of form, the correction of the world, and so on. And not laws like a selector, or whether to cut the paper on Shabbat or not.

(I come from a Haredi home and there it is usually more blunt. I once stayed with a Haredi family and there was a debate about whether it is permissible to spin the spinner on Shabbat (a meaningless toy) and I simply refrained from laughing out loud)

Therefore, Christianity or a combination of things seems to me in certain ways to be more fundamentally correct in these ways. I say all this so that you understand my point of view.

Israel Do you want permission from the kindergarten teacher to follow your path?
I will try to get you a signed permission from Miki to convert to Christianity
on the condition that you give him a free diagnosis

If you don't have more intelligent ways to respond then don't respond! Don't insult me!!

Hello Israel, no sore point. It wasn't anger but impatience (and I apologize for that). I simply don't like unreasoned slogans, especially when they are presented as philosophy (as Hegel does).
I'll illustrate what this is like with an example. Suppose I claim that capitalism is the correct socio-economic path. Now someone comes and tells me that I express the spirit of the times, that is, rejects my words without reasoning but by slogan. Now he adds that in fact this is a partial truth, while his own claims (which are not detailed at all) are the absolute and complete truth.
I have no problem with someone saying this, but why should I address this? There was no claim here. Why should I address this here?
And in the parable, let's suppose that the Jew claims that God appeared at Sinai and commanded us and that we have an obligation to obey Him. Now someone comes along and says that his claims are a primitive and popular expression of the spirit of the time at that time (while he himself constitutes a generalization of all the claims of the universe together. The complete and absolute truth). To that I ask: What do you expect me to say about that? In essence, he says that I am talking nonsense (my words are not truth, but a technical expression of some spirit. The devil knows what), without reasoning. No wonder I have nothing to say about that. When he comes up with a reason and explains why I am wrong (and only then associates it with the spirit of the time) I will be able to address his words.
I hope I was clearer (and more tolerant) now. 🙂

Clarification: The move I am trying to make is to criticize and question the Jewish religion to the Japanese who bring me reasonable evidence for this. So that the claim that with the Torah from heaven then there are no questions does not come.
Here are the questions..

1 How do practical commandments such as a switch, cutting toilet paper on Shabbat (with a change it is allowed how does this change fundamentally?) meat and milk, for example if you eat meat then you wait 6 hours but if you eat dairy then you don't even wait at all. Supposedly the Torah would say wait 6 in any situation then it would be more reasonable. How does all this connect with the equality of form, the correction of the world and all these things that are supposedly in the world. This puzzle does not connect. And all this is just a tip of the iceberg..

2 Why does it seem that the God of the Bible has needs such as revelation, that we worship him, “Give courage to God” And the worst of all, the childish and selfish characteristics such as anger, rage, jealousy, and even worse, anger. At least that's what it seems like?

Don't stone me, please.

That the Torah is from heaven*

Israel, are you trying to work on the wording a little? The matter is completely confused. You are mixing different questions together, and are not clearly worded. I ask that you work on the wording a little (if only as a consideration for me. I try to answer everyone, but it is a shame for me to spend time just to understand what is wanted of me).
1. You ask: How are the mitzvot practical? How what?
From the rest of your words, I assume that you intend to ask how they repair the world. But in the midst of this, you suddenly ask why the wait between meat and milk is not symmetrical? What does this have to do with your general question? Symmetry would repair the world and asymmetry interferes with the repair?
To your question (if I understood it), I do not know what kind of repair of the world there is in the Torah. You probably assume that it is a moral repair, but I do not think that it is a moral repair (see column 15). When we know what exactly is being repaired, we can think about how meat in milk repairs or spoils.
You write that the question is without the Torah being placed from heaven. But I have no answers for this nonsense. Without the Torah from heaven, I see no value in most of the commandments. It is the belief in the Torah from heaven that gives me confidence that they have a purpose and that they fix something.
And as for the asymmetry, what is the problem? The Torah does not want us to have meat and milk in our stomachs together. And since milk is digested faster than meat, there is an asymmetry.
2. To you, anger and wrath seem childish characteristics, but I assume that these characteristics are forms of description that address us. They are not characteristics of Him but forms in which He appears to us in order to educate us and to be clear to us.
Regarding the needs of Give us courage to God, this is not about childishness (again, you are not working on wording and arrangement), but rather about the principle that seems puzzling to you. But apparently He created us because He really needs us (that He was given courage). There is nothing childish about Revelation either. I assume that here too you intend to ask why this is necessary. But I really don't understand that anymore: it is clear that it is necessary so that we know what to do and so that we may believe in Him.

Just a note regarding the side issue of the asymmetry in the delay between meat and milk, it is not because “the Torah does not want us to have meat and milk together in our stomachs. And since milk is digested faster than meat, there is an asymmetry.” The Torah does not care what is in the stomach. The delay is a teaching of the Sages so that there is no mixing of meat and milk in the mouth and throat: meat also gets stuck between the teeth, and sometimes when there are digestive difficulties it also comes back up from the stomach towards the pharynx, which is not the case with soft and easy-to-digest dairy foods, where there is no great fear that they will get stuck between the two or will come up in the regurgitation.

I apologize for the wording, I had an autocorrect on my keyboard.

1 How do practical commandments lead to the improvement of the world,

2 Derivative of question no. 1. There are thousands of commentators on basic commandments that at the end of the “evolution of interpretations” you simply do not see and find a connection. It is simply distorting the text to make it seem so. ,(Regarding the asymmetry in meat and milk that I mentioned was simply to intensify the question)

3 Regarding childish characteristics. I accept the explanation but why is there violence against women and children in the Bible?

4. I understand there are many definitions of God such as He is perfect, the greatest thing imaginable, etc.

I was taught that God is a whole thing so if He needs us then is there a certain paradox here?

(I don't think it can be defined)

5. Why do we need practical commandments in the twenty-first century?

(I hope I am clearer)

And I have no choice but to say the final line. It is better for man not to be created. Now I understand this more than ever.

but*

Dear Israel, it seems that you already have the answers
You are just looking to define the questions
And that is fine
1,2,5. I think we have answered them for you that we do not really understand or need to understand how once we agree on the existence of a mitzvah and our commitment to it.
3. You are stating a fact or asking a question
4. I think the question is what and how we define a need
But it matters less as long as it is agreed that there is a mitzvah (see answer 1)
The ending clause neither raises nor lowers unless its purpose is to create ambiguity of ‘the honest and postmodern man in his eyes will do’

PS: There should be a pause between the word ‘how’ and ’at the moment’

M, indeed. My intention was only to provide an example of an explanation for the asymmetry that is not related to the question of whether or not there is a world correction. There could be an explanation even if it was a Torah law.

Israel,
Sorry to put you off again. Please focus on one question at a time. We are moving between questions again and again and this will never end. For example, you write:
Regarding childishness, I accept the explanation, but why is there violence against women and children in the Bible?
What is the matter with the Shemita at Mount Sinai? What is the “but” here? You moved on to another question without paying attention.
Beyond that, where is there violence against women and children in the Bible? I cannot discuss this like that. You will need to invest more in formulating and defining and separating the questions, and explaining your assumptions and the facts you bring. Each one separately and clearly.

Israel,
Regarding your questions here, I have answered some of them and you keep asking. For example, about the repair of the world. And that has nothing to do with the 21st century. The commandments are as necessary today as they were then. What has changed?

Ok question question,
( I will accept even without understanding practical commandments that are written in the Torah because there is evidence that the Torah is from heaven assuming that I accept the evidence with yes.. (But = reservation) Regarding the various and strange interpretations I wrote in question no. 2 I would be happy to receive an answer that puts the mind at ease?

There is a difference between a mitzvah and a personal interpretation. This is supposedly a "Torah that the rabbis invented," and I didn't receive an answer to that.

And another question that is accumulating here on the discussion table. About religions and the Jewish religion in particular. What is the meaning of a choice (assuming there is one) that you are motivated by fear of the biblical God?

To Rabbi Shalom,

If I may, I must note that from your recent answers, there is a scent of patience, goodwill and a conciliatory tone, which is usually less characteristic of your answers (especially to laypeople). How pleasant and satisfying this is…
May you continue to do so. (On a personal note, I can only say that the somewhat alienated tone bothered me a little).
With great appreciation.

Hello, I understand from your words to the Rabbi that you are calling me a layman. There is some hidden ad hominem here. I do not pretend to be knowledgeable about the material. And as far as I am concerned, at least some of the questions are valid.

Hello Rabbi, from a brief look at the forum, it seems that you are clearly addressing question #2, at least in certain things. It seems from a brief look (as I already said, I come from an ultra-Orthodox background) that all of the “lawful prohibitions” that I grew up with are, in terms of “lawful prohibitions” and I will mention examples here, prohibitions on possessing smartphones, kitinas, etc. It is like some kind of evolution that takes a practical mitzvah and cuts out of it other things and makes it difficult for those who come. And these things do not always line up with common sense. Hence the question of the Jewish religion. At least the one that I know..

Apologies in advance for the
omission of words here and there (I don't see an option to edit again here). I write incredibly fast.

Shrol, it seems you really didn't know Mikhi enough
He's the last one to defend the Judaism you know
You finally started reading, keep it up
I believe, try hard, Margaliot and answers to the rest of your questions
And not’
Mikhi, in my opinion, is a model and symbol of practicality and patience
There's no problem with being an idiot as long as you use your reading comprehension, the rabbi writes the same things and
And debates the same arguments dozens of times
And the wise man will always jump in and ’reveal Mount Sinai to us’
Without making a minimal effort, to go through the posts Mikhi writes morning and evening.
And without checking if someone might have already asked the question

Hello.
You are still presenting two different questions here at the same time (interpretive evolution and selection). Also, you have split them into several messages, which is very confusing and difficult.
Since I have already rejected you several times, I will answer your questions now. But please focus on one question in the future and move on to the other after we have finished discussing this one. In addition, think in advance about the wording of the question and write it clearly and in one sentence. It is very difficult for me already with the flood of questions that come to me from all directions, so please try to make it easier for me to formulate it.

The Torah was given quite obscurely, and therefore a reasonable assumption is that the Giver of the Torah gave it to us with the intention that we would interpret it as we understand it. If He did not want our interpretations, He would have to interpret it Himself. Furthermore, He Himself writes, “For nothing will surprise you.. Do not turn aside from anything that He instructs you,” meaning He commands us to listen to the interpretation of the Sages. Therefore, even if the interpretations of the sages did not hit the original intent, the Giver of the Torah still told us to act as they instructed us.

Of course, this does not mean that every baseless invention is a binding prohibition. There are things that have no root in halakhah (not only that they have no root in the Torah), and especially if they are invented by entities that do not have the authority to enact new laws (only the Sanhedrin or the Talmud, which we consider the Sanhedrin, have such authority, or the Mera Da'tra in its place). The examples of the prohibition of smartphones or ketaniyot are baseless inventions that lack any halakhic basis. Therefore, this is not a halakhic interpretation by an authorized entity that binds me even if it is wrong. If my neighbors suddenly decide that it is forbidden to stand on one leg, I am not telling you that I am obligated to obey them because of “You shall not deviate”. I am talking about the interpretation of the Talmudic sages or Sanhedrins for their generations. There is a certain weight to the words of the first and last, but even that is not absolutely binding. But inventions that are created in different and strange forms certainly do not have binding validity.

Choice does not mean that there are no rewards for each of the paths that face us. On the contrary, the fact that there is a good path and a bad path is what gives meaning to our choice. Without this, it would be a lottery and not a choice. The meaning of choice is not that we decide what is good and what is bad, but that we can decide whether to uphold the good or the bad. I explained this in column 72 (the discussion begins in column 71).

In addition to notebooks, which are indeed difficult to demand from ADD sufferers in our generation (not to mention books), I personally, after an hour of browsing the site, have already learned the answer to most of the questions that have been asked over time.

No, I forgot to mention it.
Nice answer, Moished. I have a hard time with the flood of questions, and especially with people who don't consider my workload and don't formulate their questions clearly and don't read things I've already written in a sharp, clear and detailed way (unlike those who ask or comment on what I've written, which is excellent of course).
It turns out that I repeat the same topics over and over again (by the way, that's why sometimes I'm sure we've already talked about something, when in fact it's another thread that's going on at the same time). That's why I lose patience a little sometimes. I hope I'll get better at it, and thank you for your encouragement. It definitely helps with that.

Many thanks to the rabbi for the response. I will try to formulate it less awkwardly and more clearly, as much as my style allows.