The difference between the Mount Sinai situation and stories of revelations in different nations

Indeed, that is what I wrote. But in the other thread, the Rabbi did not express his opinion on what was written, and that is my request here.

A reasonable argument, and it can be added to the whole. Your description is too decisive and ”overwhelming” in my opinion.

The determination is only in the matter of the difference between the revelations, and after the clear division we returned to the revelation argument which joins the other arguments.
Without this point the argument cannot be considered at all valuable, even in conjunction with the other arguments, since there are many mass miracles.

And again I disagree vehemently. There are not many mass miracles. And even if there are, they have some weight even without the commitments they received (albeit less).
But I think we understood each other.

Dear A.,
No one tells miracles for nothing, the meaning of Jesus' miracles was to consider him a great man. And therefore believe everything he says. Now reconsider what you said “Miracles do not cause religious obligation” and you will be convinced that the opposite is true. Do you believe that he would perform a miracle for no reason? Did he walk on water?! Come on…
Between us – I almost didn't understand at all what you were saying to the rabbi and what the rabbi answered you but I said I commented like that from what came to my mind.

If so, Rabbi, then we have a disagreement. There are certainly a lot of mass miracles, and without my refinement there is nothing special about Jewish revelation (the “mass revelation claim”), but it would become an event that we would prove by other things.
Miracles:
Jesus walks on water, raises the dead, heals the sick, feeds the masses with little food. All in front of the masses.
Muhammad crosses the moon, causes thousands of his soldiers not to have to drink in battle, throws dust on his enemies in battle and causes them to be blinded.
In the Bible: Crystal stones from the sky in front of all the people, the standing of Mount Carmel in front of all the people, the crossing of the Red Sea, the crossing of the Jordan, the ten plagues with a warning.
And so on.
And here comes the division between “mass miracle” and “mass revelation” Which causes practical commitment.
Obviously there is some weight even if there are a lot of revelations, otherwise it becomes circular, but this should not be seen as an argument that is even worth raising for discussion, if we have found so many myths that enter the tradition.

Hello dear E’. May you be blessed. I am adding important places to all who delve into the depth of the issue. Without them, the picture will always be incomplete:

I recommend reading the beautiful argument in Dishon's book “A skeptic in his art will live” in which he convincingly argues that precisely because the story of the revelation at Sinai appears in all four Torah sources (j,e,i,p) despite the assumption of their geographical and chronological dispersion - it may indicate that there was indeed a historical event that was burned into everyone's collective memory. This also makes quite sense from the arguments in the first person in S”D's speech, which is accepted as late: ”You saw...you knew” etc. as describing something known among the listeners (the congregation of the covenant as it is known to those who know the law) as an unquestionable convention.

The two books of the Covenant (the Great and the Small, as is known) are also assumed to be northern and southern (see Yair Hoffman's article on this) - and again, as above, the parallels are surprising. Both are based on ancient law collections that were passed down according to tradition from Sinai.

Jacob Licht's comprehensive article on the "foundation claim" seeks to convince us that the claim of the establishment (from the root word) of the people before they had a territory, and this around a covenant with God, is unique and exceptional among all the founding traditions he has listed, and the best explanation for this cardinal difference is that this is indeed what happened. (Without going into the question of revelation, but mainly for the receipt of laws and proceeds to a covenant with a single God around a charismatic figure in the pre-settlement era).

But your very argument that the story of the revelation is what establishes the acceptance of the yoke of the commandments (which is indeed different from the stories of Christianity and the like, which mainly abolish customs - the burden of the Torah laws - and lighten or convert an existing custom into another, and do not take a people devoid of sin and seek to impose a yoke on them - which is already very difficult and incomprehensible), must be proven. Prof. Baruch Schwartz, in his article on the meaning of the story of the giving of the Torah, seeks to argue the opposite, that the laws were already accepted in the ancestral tradition and the stories of the revelation came later to give them narrative validity. Against this, it is not enough to make slogans, but rather to give a crushing blow.

Personally, I was not convinced by Rabbi Michi's arguments on this matter. It is much more evident to prove from the uniqueness of the people of Israel the providence of God over them - which could also have led to the acceptance of the law of the Torah as we have it even without there actually being a theatrical revelation (according to Tamar Ross's "Continuous Revelation"), than to cancel the concept of divine providence - as is customary with Rabbi Michi - and consequently try to hang the uniqueness of the people of Israel on some one-time and extraordinary event that granted them this gift.

Finally, it is somewhat regrettable that there are two giants in the United States who deal in our generation with the question of revelation, and they are Rabbi Michi and Rabbi Sharkey (we can also name Rabbi Neugerschel if we accept classical arguments) - and it seems that they did not read each other all night. There are no references and no drawing of common ideas or criticism. This will not mention it and this will not acknowledge it, and everyone will convince us to believe in the ”revelation of his heart”. While on the Internet one can find a cauldron of criticism against the arguments of revelation in general and Sharkey's interpretation in particular - we do not find any concrete reference from Rabbi Sharkey against the sites that thoroughly polish his subtle musings, nor does Rabbi Michi mention at all Sharkey's arguments, the criticism of them, and the videos and Internet material that ridicule the entire proof of revelation. If this were academia - and even a light seminar work in it, it would be unthinkable to write an article without knowing the material in question in the field and mentioning it in references, K”s son of a son of a neighbor in a field as fundamental and sensitive as this - the unique revelation of the Creator of the world in human history. And there will be no priest as a surrogate!!

And with all this - a great, immense and great thing that Rabbi Michi (and Rabbi Sherki) took upon himself, and I would have fallen if he had - his hands were in everything (and since the opening of the website - also "hands in everything") and his many occupations according to the needs of your people, the House of Israel - we had to ask and beg him to delve into the depths of this tiny issue - precisely - but all the bodies of Torah depend on it (perhaps).

On the 17th of Nisan 87

The hypothesis that it was possible to formulate one Torah and one national consciousness from different tribes and different traditions is devoid of any “sustainability in life.”

After all, there was almost never political unity, except for a few decades during the reigns of David and Solomon, after which everything fell apart again; and a few years during the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, after which the tribes, which had almost never been united, scattered to all corners of the world, while all of them, including the Samaritans (!), had the same Torah with minor changes.

So who was the magician who, without any political power, managed to unite the opinionated and stubborn tribesmen and made them give up their previous traditions, and how did this mighty feat of unification leave no trace in the national memory?

The reality of a shared national consciousness and a Torah scroll common to all the peoples of a ‘dispersed and divided people’, could only take shape if they all had a common basis. Such a thing cannot be invented alone.

Best regards, S.C. Levinger

Shalom ‘ Your claim that the religious obligation resulting from the revelation distinguishes the Mount Sinai status, in that the weight of the religious claim will cause much criticism and even opposition sounds plausible and logical, the sages tell us that the Israelites wept when they were commanded about fornication,
But there are historical assumptions in your claim that need to be examined, you seem to assume that before the Mount Sinai status the Hebrew people did not have any religious burden and that at Mount Sinai the mountain imposed it on them as a gigit.
In addition, you assume the proximity of the revelation with the acceptance of the religious obligation as if in a moment, in one status an entire people changes its face and adapts to itself a different way of life, different religious perceptions and a new religious sensitivity…
See the words of Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim, Part 1’ As I don't think I have the strength to quote, but there he tells about the fathers of the nation who belonged to the Sabean tribe, idolaters whose religious lifestyle was unbearable. There are examples of their extreme austerities, for example in the matter of niddah, where even a breath blown across the niddah defiles the one it touches, and even the one who touches an object that niddah has touched becomes impure, and so on. There are many extreme prohibitions.
After this historical background, the Rambam claims that the Torah came to make religious work easier (!!!) so that, according to the teacher, the situation at Mount Sinai made the religious lifestyle easier (!!!).
In addition, many of the commandments are a reversal or inheritance of an ancient pagan religious act, but the practice itself remained quite similar even after its conversion, see for example the teacher's words about the sacrifices.
Nida, as I mentioned, was practiced among many peoples, circumcision was practiced by Egyptian priests even before us, the laying on of hands and many others for those who know little about the history of the ancient East, so that the notion that a people, culture or religion suddenly became Christian is historically ridiculous.

He was talking about the covenant in miracles. Not about the acceptance of the commandments.

Once a religion is based on miracles, it is easy to hold on to another miracle.

To this day, if you tell a Sephardic Jew about Baba Sali and another rabbi who performed a miracle, he will certainly believe, but if you tell him about a priest, he will certainly not believe.

Why?
Because he is held (in terms of his religion) to be able to perform miracles and he is not held.

The same thing in Judaism, the difficulty is the initial acceptance, then of course it is easier to believe in miracles for the good and the better.

Regarding your argument with the commandments that came to make it easier:
Everyone has hands, both Jews and Muslims.
So they copy one from the other.
Both circumcise the foreskin, etc., etc.

The essence of religion, and every religion, depends on intention.
Do you worship the God or the idol x.

And you need to remember that the innovation of Judaism is the connection between the commandments and the Exodus.
Many, many commandments are linked to one thing: “Remember the Exodus.”

And to be honest, it’s not just “just” unclear commandments that are linked to the Exodus, but commandments like eating matzah, “Let it not be seen or found.”

What’s more, it’s certainly very difficult to say that in the first generations of the inventors of the Exodus myth, it would have been very difficult to say that they could have assimilated a myth of the Exodus with all the commandments associated with it (and even if they had had difficulty before) because the stories of the Torah have a voice, and too much voice. So we can only come up with the claim of forgetting (apart from the fact that it contradicts chapters of the Torah). Is it possible to assimilate a myth with the claim of forgetting that is puzzling?
But it’s clear that the myth, if it did, came from the people.
And even there, for a people who are not united to accept a myth that will unite them is quite difficult.

And if we have evidence (and there is such) that the Beni arrived from outside and very possibly from Egypt (rings and an Egyptian construction method)
and kept the commandments upon entering the land, then certainly this greatly strengthens the validity of the claim.

Shmaya, just a comment. The Tzaba apparently did not exist and were not created. Commentators and scholars claim that they never heard of such a people or group, and therefore the Maimonides probably invented them and their books, which he himself read (probably in the same sense that the Tanna sat on the grave of a wayward son and teacher) for the purpose of conveying his messages. I also do not remember him claiming that our ancestors belonged to them.
Beyond that, a general comment on the argument of obligation. When the Torah was given, it seems to me that the halakha was not as detailed as it is today, and I highly doubt how much this would have been noticeable and annoying in everyday life. It was a general ethos and not specific instructions such as how to tie your shoelaces or how much matzah to eat and when.

Forgive me, but not exactly.
The sect and its books existed in reality (as far as I know, there is no dispute about this. It is even mentioned in the Quran). They simply were not as ancient as they tried to portray themselves. They did this so that the Muslims would not be massacred and would allow them to preserve their religion. Therefore, they faked their books as if they were ancient, etc. The assessment among scholars is that Maimonides probably fell into their trap and believed that they were ancient. That is the accepted assessment.

Recently, scholars have been painting a slightly more complex picture, in their opinion that their books did contain ancient customs that they introduced in order to deceive as if the religion was ancient. Today, more and more people believe this and their opinion is visible.
There are those who have argued that the sect is really ancient, but the latter opinion, to the best of my knowledge, is still considered unacceptable.

Maybe. I didn't look deep.

I am familiar with the criticism of the Sabeans and their writings
I did not pretend to claim the absolute correctness of the above view
but only to cast doubt on the naive – popular perception of the development of religions, in any case the main point of the argument still stands regardless of the Sabeans, the cultural background of the peoples of the East is familiar.
I also wanted to address a common intuition that has acquired the status of a clear truth – supposedly the harder it is for me, the more right I am, the more strict I am, the closer I am to the truth, I act contrary to my own interests because the truth is a lamp to my feet and this is proof that it is not my personal needs and desires that guide me but only the binding truth
And I ask what that intuition would say about a man who sacrifices his son to Molech?

A person who sacrifices his son to Molech wants the Molech to fulfill his desires, as if the price the sacrificer pays for his request.

Intuition = an internal feeling. Everyone has a different intuition.
Instinct is any immediate and almost involuntary response that is imprinted in us.
Interest is the aspiration of a social factor to achieve a certain goal in a certain way.

Answer, according to the same intuition of a person who has the truth at his feet and it is what obliges him, he will sacrifice his son to Molech if he feels that it will lead to a worthwhile goal than for his son to remain alive and not be sacrificed to Molech. Because such a person certainly loves his son too.
I don't understand why you specifically wrote to Molech and not to his God. Although Molech can also be his God, but you understand that Molech is a false idol.
To begin with, if an educated person does not understand that false idols have no power, then it is possible that even if he sacrifices his only son, his wish will not be fulfilled – He will sacrifice another son and so on until he dies, because he will also realize that his idol does not love him.

The truth is that the solution to the quash is quite simple, the story of the exile of the Sioux tribe is actually written in a book written by a British author who claims to have heard the story from a wanderer, the story has a clear Christian influence related to the status of Mount Sinai and is not a story of the Native American people.

Adding two criteria will lead to the downfall of all kinds of revelations.
A. The Khazari principle says about the revelation to the whole nation and not a group within the nation – because just an unknown group of a thousand people is something that is really not difficult to invent that someone was part of it, and that whoever heard about it simply had to believe. In contrast to this - when it is a revelation to the whole nation – there is no room for lying because when it came to telling the story of the revelation to the people they should have already known it because the whole nation, he claims, had already witnessed it. Therefore, they will not believe if he tells them something they did not already know, and therefore it is impossible to convince them otherwise than by revelation to a small group of people. Likewise, they should not pass on to the people a tradition that is not contradictory regarding that event - for it provides evidence that contradicts the tradition of revelation.

B. There should be difficulty in interpretation - in an ancient world where there are many things that are not understood (such as the lights at the pole, etc.), it is not difficult to interpret a miracle and revelation about something unknown.. (the cross created from clouds and the sun, etc., as well as sun rays that increase the effect of the cross, and more..) On the other hand, something that is very difficult to interpret is the fact that God himself speaks to each and every one of the people directly and everyone hears.. And there is in this matter stronger proof than if I myself were to hear God at this moment because I could always suspect that I am schizophrenic, but in that there is something that has not happened in history at all (and on the other hand it is a violation of legality) and that is that the claim of an entire generation that God spoke to everyone at the same time and told them “I am the God who rules over you” and the fact that it is not repeated in all the multitude of beliefs and peoples shows that it is impossible to draw

1. Can anyone find the original story of the tribes that claim to be revealed? I emphasize that I do not want academic research or an external story, but the original story. Does anyone know how to get it? I am tired of heretical websites that claim that there are thousands of peoples who claim to be revealed. I would be happy if someone could give me sources that I can trust.
2. Doesn't the Rabbi think that there is a fundamental difference between a revelation in which it is unknown to whom the revelations are made and the revelation at Mount Sinai that was made to a known group?
3. Doesn't the Rabbi think that there is a difference between a miracle and a revelation?

Things are much simpler than the cauldron of arguments that have brought about a livelihood for many who are mistaken and misguided:
The source of commitment is home education (which causes fear) and the fear of being separated from belonging.
And for those who have repented, the source of commitment is the desire to belong to something higher (which stems from the fear of emptiness).

Commitment always stems from fear without exception. Anyone who denies this does not understand a single thing about the human soul.

Yishai – I delved into this and read the research material. It is really tough. I cited the scientific sources in a footnote in the Yedaya Institute article on the witness argument.

I will say that in my opinion this search war about revelations is wrong on a methodological level. The very existence of traditions, even if we say that such lies are almost meaningless in the course of the argument and it is a game played by the atheists. But I will not go into that here

Can you direct me to your articles? They sound fascinating.

Not that fascinating, but look up “Knowing to Believe”. There is an article there (I was just one of its writing team along with several historians and rabbis, including Rabbi Michi) about the witness argument (although I don't completely subscribe to his path).

At the end of the discussion about revelations there are scientific sources (or at least authoritative information) about all the revelations in atheist literature. Regarding Muhammad, for example, I consulted with Dr. Laislam, etc. Regarding the Indians, I read the text and looked at the research literature on their myths, and that's the way to go about it.

But again, I think these comparisons are methodologically flawed. Ask yourself, for example, whether the discovery of a fabricated murder tape or a false witness should cause you to stop treating tapes that have no positive proof that they are not fabricated or as witness testimonies in the future? Now ask yourself why you wouldn't do so? It's simple – because the credibility of a type of testimony is tested before the rule – and not according to the exception. If the testimonies of peoples are reliable even in most cases – the isolated cases are of no systemic significance given that this is reliable testimony of its kind in combination with other considerations.

The fact that the dozens of miracle stories of atheists always amount to the 3-4 known examples shows exactly that they dig through thousands of myths and manage to find only a few such crumbs. So yes, the stories they bring are nonsense (see there) but they would also find even 15 such testimonies – This does not change the premise that basic traditions usually have a kernel of truth. And that is what is important in our discussion. All this attempt to refute the cases (by the way, it is not too difficult, because in reality they are mostly distortions) plays by the atheist rules of the game, which themselves are devoid of any foundation.