Continued clear faith

So that I don't have to go back and write step 3, I ask you to continue the discussion from page “Continue Clear Faith B”

I didn't understand why you said (your last response on the “Question for clarification” page) that I disappear for extended periods and don't respond to your responses, etc.
Now I noticed that there were other inquiries to you (from different periods) whose authors are referred to as “So-and-so”.
My only inquiries to you were on the questions pages of “Clear Faith” and ”Attitude to Halacha”.
My inquiries to you will be without a vow from around 3:00 PM to around 7:00 PM (at least until further notice).
I greatly appreciate your efforts to please those who contact you and to respond to everyone despite your other commitments.

I said this because that is the case. But it is a waste of time, and let's continue. It doesn't have to be continuous either, but without gaps where I forget what it is about.

I am inserting the message of stage 3 here, and let's continue.
You wrote there:

When you look at the Bible (even if you don't understand all the contents precisely), you notice that in addition to factual historical messages, there are also factual metaphysical messages and another type of messages.
The factual metaphysical messages include, among other things: the reality of spiritual beings (angels), the possibility of a mystical connection with the Creator (prophecy), the Creator's intervention in the world (providence and ways of guidance), a certain order in the spiritual world (example: Ezekiel's chariot vision), etc.
The other type of messages is: words of the future (prophecies such as: the war of Gog and Magog, world peace among the nations, etc.).
Assumption A: The Creator wants to convey messages to the creatures.
Assumption B: The Bible is the book of the Creator's messages.
Assumption 3: The Bible contains factual metaphysical messages.
Assumption 4: The Bible contains messages of future events (prophecies).

Conclusion: The Creator wants us to know the metaphysical facts and future events according to the Bible.

I didn't understand why this is another or additional step. You are almost repeating things, except for the details about metaphysical and future facts. Please try to be focused.
Agreed. Onwards.

So what has happened so far?
The Bible contains normative messages (laws and behavioral guidelines) and factual messages (historical, metaphysical, and prophetic) and the Creator wants us to know the facts and abide by the norms according to the Bible.
If a person is interested in realizing the Creator's will, then he needs to study the Bible and thus know the facts and abide by the norms.
However, when a person studies the Bible, he discovers that the Bible is not always clear and that there are different options for understanding the text. This is especially true when it comes to understanding the details of the laws, the warnings and punishments for which are so severe and sometimes it is even impossible to understand at all what the Creator wants to convey to us through it (even in general terms), etc.
Question: How does the Creator expect us to fulfill His will and warn us of severe punishments when the Bible alone is not clear enough?
Answer: Perhaps in addition to the Bible, the Creator also transmitted an oral tradition to understand its contents.
Assumption A: The Creator wants to convey messages to the creatures.
Assumption B: The Bible is the Creator's book of messages.
Assumption C: The Creator demands the fulfillment of the messages and severely threatens the transgressors.
Assumption D: The Bible is not clear enough to understand the messages.
Assumption E: The Creator wants the messages to be understood uniformly so that the entire Jewish people will be committed to the same legal system and the same tenets of faith and does not want a situation of anarchy in which "the righteous man in His eyes will do whatever he pleases."
Premise 6: The Bible itself directs us to clarify questions to the sages of every generation and obliges us to obey them (the commandment “You shall not deviate.”)

Conclusion: The Creator gave an oral Torah that explains the messages of the written Torah (the Bible).

I'll start by going straight to the bottom line: If your goal is to show that a Toshva'p was given, it would be a shame to go down that road. I agree. The question is what its content is and what it includes.
Furthermore, if your intention is to argue in favor of a Toshva'p that it is an interpretation of the laws of the Bible, we have no substantive debate (except perhaps on the scope of the Toshva'p compared to the component of interpretation that was added to it. That's not going to get into that). The main point of the discussion is about everything beyond the laws.

In the process itself, there are several fundamental holes:
1. It is not true that every factual or ethical detail in the Bible is serious and has penalties for it. Absolutely not. There are serious offenses and important commandments, and there are those for which there are no penalties at all. And all of this is in the laws. But with respect to values and facts, there is no measure of their importance, and of course no penalty is irrelevant with respect to them.
Although none of this is important to the process, since I agree that God probably wanted to convey all of these to us (even if they are not that important and certainly not punishable by punishment).
2. Not only are there different options for understanding the Bible, but it is clear that different thinkers put into it what they think and do not really learn anything from it. In other words, no single tradition is created that accompanies the text verbally.
3. The assumption that he wants a uniform understanding and uniform existence, I do not know where it comes from. On the contrary, if this is what he wants, then his pedagogical failure is even more serious. He has failed colossally.
Therefore, here arises the opposite possibility, contrary to your assumptions: Perhaps God does not want to convey messages to us at all, that is, a collection of bottom lines, but rather a framework within which we will formulate and choose our path. Perhaps he has an interest in reading the Bible and in it we will formulate our path and thoughts, whatever they may be, and not necessarily to reach his original intention.
I will repeat again that my fundamental assumption is the same as yours (which are supposed to be bottom-line messages), but if you are building an argument, this possibility must also be taken into account. Especially in light of the assumptions and in light of the facts (the failure to create any tradition around the Bible).
4. Your assumption is simply incorrect. God does not refer us to the sages of every generation, but only to the Sanhedrin, and only on halakhic matters. The verse that is the source of their authority is “You shall not turn aside”, and it deals only with the Sanhedrin and only with halakhic matters (between blood for blood, between law for law, and between wound for wound, the words of strife are in your gates). Although I will point out that the education system is unusual, and he believes that the sages of each generation do have authority, but of course it is not clear who determines who they are. In any case, this is a puzzling and unusual system. By the way, here itself you can see ambiguity and lack of clarity on the most fundamental issue in the Bible, contrary to your assumption discussed in my section 3.

To be honest, I would be happy to see what you are trying to prove here, because I am concerned that you will prove what I somehow agree with, and the rest you will not be able to prove. If so, then of course there is no point in the whole discussion. This could clarify the move, but of course if you want to continue like this without revealing the cards in advance – please.

Regarding 4, it depends on what stage we are at. If we are at the stage where we read the Torah to know the will of God, then the Torah says to go to the judge who will be in those days, that is, in every generation. If we have already convinced ourselves that we do not care what is written in the Torah but what the sages say, then they have really already changed it (allegedly by mistake).

Of course, I assume the tradition of the Sages here. Those who are preparing for life according to the written Torah are a completely different discussion, and I was not impressed that this is what is at issue.
I will just add that if, according to your theory, you are supposed to turn to the sages of every generation, I suggest that you do. They themselves tell you that the verse was only said about the Sanhedrin. Therefore, my conclusion is obvious.

By the way, I do not think that the Sages were wrong, or did not intend the meaning of this verse. But that is a different discussion and does not belong here (I think we have already discussed this here before. Maybe around IGOD).

I don't think they misunderstood the verse. I think they wanted to give it boundaries, and then without their intention it turned out that it didn't always apply, and that's what I call a mistake. They didn't want everyone to be the judge that was in those days, and that's why they imposed a regulation on it. Later on, the regulation said that it would only be in Israel, and that was done to concentrate authority against Babylon. In my opinion, if they had known that it would come and they would no longer be close and there would be no authority to which they had to listen, they wouldn't have done it, and that's what I called "by mistake."

Maybe so, maybe not. But if we turn to the sages of every generation, the sages of this generation also tell us that authority is vested only in the Sanhedrin.

Rabbi Shalom, I did not get the impression that there were any fundamental holes in the process.
1) If you look carefully at my words, you will notice that I wrote about “understanding the details of the laws for which the warnings and penalties are so severe”. That is, there are laws for which the warnings and penalties are so severe, and not all the laws, and I did not mention at all about warnings and penalties for the factual messages.
Therefore, in the question (“How does the Creator expect…”) I relied on the above understanding that belongs to the explanation of the background of the assumptions, and in the assumption itself, I wrote “existence of the messages”, meaning those messages that depend on the existence and are the specific laws that the Torah warns us about so severely.
2) I did not mention thinkers or specific opinions of thinkers or what the oral tradition is about the text.
3) Your conclusions about the assumption (the assumption of the uniformity of the constitutional messages) are based on an examination of Jewish history (an incorrect examination in my opinion, and I assume that it stems from a disagreement between us regarding the belief in understanding the Creator's providence over reality and without a vow we will get there), but in any case we have not yet reached this stage, but we are trying to examine things from the perspective of someone who is trying to understand the biblical text only.
This assumption (the assumption of the uniformity of the constitutional messages) is an assumption in the interpretation and not necessarily from the biblical text itself.
My explanation is that a wise person, reading a constitutional text by a wise legislator that is intended for an entire people, assumes that it is more logical that the legislator wants an orderly system of laws, by which the public will know clearly what is required of them and what they will be accused of and how they will be punished, and therefore there is a point in warning them, etc.
It is less logical for a wise person to think (to put it mildly) that the wise legislator prefers a state of anarchy in which each person is allowed to interpret the law however they please.
We have already stated that the biblical text is not clear enough for people to understand those constitutional messages, so the text itself is subject to various and varied interpretations. In any case, what point does the wise legislator have in warning and what opening would he have to punish the "criminals"? In such a situation (assuming he is moral and judges righteously) because the “criminals” can give their own interpretation of the constitutional messages and justify their actions based on reliance on the biblical text itself.
4) You are bringing the latter forward (there is a direction to my words).
We are still in the stage of studying the biblical text alone (where the interpretation of the verses is the sages of every generation without reservation {I mentioned the commandment “Do not turn aside” so that you understand which verses I meant when I claimed that the text itself refers us to the sages who will clarify our questions}). The interpretation of the sages is irrelevant to the process of stage D. (The purpose of this stage is to logically substantiate the conclusion that: It is more logical to think that the Creator transmitted an oral Torah (whatever it may be) whose function is to clarify the unclear messages of the written Torah, which also refers us to the sages for clarification of questions, and it is less logical {to put it mildly} that He demands observance of the laws and threatens severe punishments for some without these laws being explained at all {see my response in the section on the assumption of uniformity of messages).

Without a vow, I will continue the next step tomorrow.

It is clear that God expects us to keep His laws. It is clear that this requires that we understand them, whether there is a penalty for them or not (the question of punishment is not relevant at all in my opinion).
It is not true that the interpretation should be uniform, and in reality the fact is that it is not uniform. Therefore, if God expects uniformity, He has failed. Your assumption is absolutely not necessary for explanation and also fails the practical test.

In short, the suspicion I wrote in my previous message is greatly strengthened in me. If you intend to prove to me that there was a Toshab that explains the laws, the move seems unnecessary to me. I agree (again, within the limits of content and scope. No uniformity would have been expected there).
Therefore, now I am asking you to give me the bottom line: What exactly do you want to prove to me? Let's see if it is even worth continuing.

To my disappointment, you continue to criticize me for things I did not write, but for things you assume I meant (in light of your responses, I assume you assume I mean the absolute uniformity of oral messages from the Creator regarding all the written laws in all their interpretations, details, and grammar as they appear in the literature of the Sages, and that is not my intention) and ignore what I did write (the examination of history is irrelevant at this stage, since we are trying to get into the head of a person who received the written Torah at the time it was given. In addition, I did not write that this interpretation is necessary and uncertain, but rather that it is reasonable and plausible enough for you to join in weighing the assumptions of the person who must decide whether it is more likely that there are any oral messages {I did not refer at all to their quantity or quality, etc.} or more likely that the text alone was given to the people of Israel).
Blessed be God! I was exposed to it on your website called: “Article: Oral Torah – Philosophical, Historical and Biblical Foundation for Its Authority”, where the author wrote the same assumptions and explained them as I myself believe and not according to what you probably assumed I believe. Look there, and if you are still not convinced that this assumption (the assumption of some uniformity, even if only a little and not necessarily in every detail) is reasonable and plausible enough to join the weighing of the assumptions of the person who is hesitating (I repeat: this assumption is not necessary and uncertain, {as assumptions are}, but rather reasonable and plausible enough), then we will agree that we disagree. In any case, even without this assumption, the logical basis for belief in any messages (whatever their quantity and quality) orally by the Creator is still plausible.

Since you already want to get to the point of the discussion, I will skip the logical stage of establishing the priority of the oral tradition of the Sages over its competitors (assuming you have accepted the tradition of the Sages), and continue with the essential point of disagreement between us.

We are wasting our time. Whether I understood you or not, I asked you to say right now what point you want to prove and then we will see if there is an argument and if there is any point in continuing. So you didn't say it again, and again you just went back and ground flour again. We are grinding water without getting anywhere.
Therefore, please say in your next message (preferably in one sentence) what you want to prove and what you think I have an argument with you about. Before that, I have nothing to continue and I will stop this exhausting discussion here.

Assumption A: The Creator wants to convey messages to the creatures.
Assumption B: The Bible is the book of the Creator's true messages.
Assumption C: The Bible contains factual, metaphysical messages and prophecies.
Assumption D: Metaphysical facts and prophecies cannot truly be understood by reason, but only by a mystical connection with the spiritual world.
Assumption E: The prophets had a mystical connection with the spiritual world and understood the factual, metaphysical messages and prophecies as revealed to them by the Creator (as opposed to ordinary readers of the Bible).
Assumption F: The prophets transmitted their knowledge through tradition.
Assumption Z: The sources of the Sages contain factual, metaphysical messages and prophecies.
Assumption H: The Sages (at least some of them) had a mystical connection with the spiritual world (as documented in the sources of the Sages).
Assumption T: The honesty of the Sages is credible in our eyes and they did not deceive us and conjure up baseless speculations about metaphysics and prophecies.

Conclusion: The Sages did not deceive us and concoct metaphysics and prophecies from their hearts, but rather the factual, metaphysical messages and prophecies that appear in the sources of the Sages are the fruit of the tradition of the prophets according to what the Creator revealed to them and/or the fruit of their own mystical connection with the spiritual world according to what was revealed to them, therefore the metaphysical messages and prophecies in the sources of the Sages are true according to what they received in tradition from the prophets and according to what was revealed to them through their connection with the spiritual world.

If you believe in these assumptions and this conclusion, why do you disbelieve in private providence, reward and punishment in the spiritual world, G-d's knowledge of the future, etc. as appears in the Bible and in the literature of the Sages? Who exactly revealed to you that there is no private providence of G-d? On reality, there is no reward and punishment in the spiritual world, God does not know what will happen in the future, etc.? What do you rely on when you tell other people that there is no need to believe in the metaphysical messages that appear in the Bible and in the literature of the sages?
When a person believes in the metaphysical tradition of the Bible and in the literature of the sages, then his faith is logically based on the trust he places in the prophets who had a mystical connection with the spiritual world and in the sages (at least some of them) who had a mystical connection with the spiritual world, and therefore he relies on credible evidence from his point of view about heavenly messages from the spiritual world that were transmitted to them by the Creator.
But those who adopt your positions, what does he have to rely on? You do not claim to have a mystical connection with the spiritual world and have been given metaphysical messages, etc., and reason cannot attain the truth in these areas and is therefore irrelevant at all. So I ask you and anyone who reads this: Which way does logic lean more, believing in a metaphysical tradition of someone you do believe has received metaphysical messages from the Creator? Or believing in baseless beliefs of someone who has never received metaphysical messages from the Creator?
I am aware that the Bible and the words of the sages are not always clear and are open to different interpretations (which of the messages are literal? Which of the messages are parables? What is the parable? What do we do with apparent contradictions in metaphysical sources, etc.), but the starting point in relation to the sources is the important one that distinguishes between the believer in the tradition of the prophets and sages and the unbeliever in the tradition of the prophets and sages. It is this: When a person encounters strange or unclear sources, etc., does he believe that the sages faithfully transmitted the tradition of the prophets and/or discovered the metaphysical truths themselves and wrote them in their writings? And does he try to understand them to the best of his ability and trouble? And if he did not understand, then does he place the "blame" on the In his short-sightedness, whether due to a lack of theoretical talent or because not all messages have an answer that the human mind can achieve, and this is why the sages said: "Do not inquire into what is wonderful from you, and do not investigate what is hidden from you. In what you have been permitted to observe, you have no business with the hidden." (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Hagiga, page 13, page 1) Or is he accusing the sages of deceit, who concocted baseless inventions of metaphysics and prophecy from their hearts, and why this accusation? Because the Scriptures do not agree with his logic, he therefore disbelieves in some of the messages of the tradition of the prophets and sages, and thus he deviates from fulfilling the Creator's will for him to know and believe in these messages, and therefore he is revealed to his followers, the prophets and sages, and one must greatly fear what is written in the book of Proverbs: "There is a way that seems right before a man, but its end is the way of death."

You do not have to understand everything, and if some position is beyond your understanding, then it is not shameful to say to those who address you (in any knowledge in general and in metaphysics in particular, since as long as we have not experienced spiritual realizations, we have no way of understanding things, except according to what has been passed down to us in the tradition by those who have experienced spiritual realizations): I do not know what the meaning of things is, or how things work, or how things will happen, etc., and not to choose, because of the embarrassment of not understanding the sources, to reject the tradition of the prophets and sages.

The purpose of this response is to try to show you the logic of believing in the tradition of the prophets and sages, and that we have no other reliable sources to rely on in the fields of metaphysics and prophecy, and that we have nothing to lose at all if we believe in it, but either we were right and then fulfilled the Creator's will for us, or we were wrong, but then there is no opening here for anyone to accuse us of anything, because we searched and did not find other sources that are more reliable than them. But if we, God forbid, abandon the tradition of the prophets and sages, then if we were right, what did we get? Applause from the infidels who “discovered” the bluff, but if we were wrong, then we failed to fulfill the will of God for us without having a more justified and logical reason to abandon our accepted tradition.

Now the ball is in your hands, and you have to decide which of the options is more reliable and reasonable in your eyes?

I hope and wish that you will be blessed with making the right choice and that you will always aim for the will of the Creator in everything you do.

Assumption D is incorrect. Metaphysical conclusions can be reached from explanations: the existence of God and the survival of the soul, for example, are the result of logical consideration (of course, one can disagree, but there is no doubt that people can reach these conclusions from explanation alone).
Assumption F is inaccurate. Who said they passed on all their knowledge? What they command others to prophesy is a law that conquers his prophecy. But everything else can remain with them. Moses, for example, had some misconceptions that he did not pass on, otherwise he would not have been the greatest of the prophets. Beyond that, even if they passed on all the information, did they know all the information? Wasn’t there information that the prophets didn’t have? Isn’t there something that God knows that they didn’t know? So what if they pass on their science?
Assumption H really doesn’t seem right to me. Even the Rabbi who writes that the Holy Spirit appeared in his schoolhouse probably intended to use metaphor (see Rabbi Margaliot's introduction to the Psalms from Heaven).
Assumption 9 is correct in my opinion: the Sages are faithful to me in that they did not deceive me. But at the same time, they certainly drew their own conclusions about many things, in which they could be wrong like any other person (such as incorrect scientific facts). They also learn things from the Gentiles and their environment and the science of their time and the philosophies and spiritual concepts that prevailed in their time. They can also draw conclusions from the verses of the prophets, but this is their interpretation and not information that is passed on to them in tradition from the prophets. Even the information that is passed on to them undergoes interpretation (for example, even if information is passed on to them that there is private providence, they interpret it as always being true, but perhaps it has changed over the generations?). In your opinion, all of this cannot be wrong? Are the beliefs that the Rambal describes also a tradition from the prophets? He also did not rely on interpretations and commentaries? After all, he explicitly states that he does so. So why wouldn't the sages do this? Sages do it in every generation, so why wouldn't the sages do this? It is also documented in the Talmud in many places (conclusions that are based on interpretation, disputes, etc.). I must say that all of this is really delusional in my opinion.

So here your entire argument falls flat. And here is my alternative:

Assumption A: The sages have no sources of information beyond what I have and tradition. On the contrary, in the field of science and, in my estimation, also in philosophy, our generation probably knows and is more skilled than them.
Assumption B: What they conclude themselves can be wrong.
Assumption C: They can draw metaphysical and spiritual conclusions themselves.
Conclusion: There can certainly be erroneous things in their words, including metaphysical conclusions.
Another conclusion: In order to formulate a position, we must examine what they have accepted in tradition and what they have not. I believe in tradition and not necessarily in the rest. In addition, we must examine the arguments for and against their words. These two considerations should form the basis of my conclusion about their words.

The things that I doubt or disbelieve are things that there is good evidence that they are not true. Such as knowing the future (Newcomb's paradox), such as private providence (the scientific worldview and the laws of physics), etc.
It is true that scientists, unfortunately, have no connections to the worlds of the mystics (and neither do I), but to the best of my judgment they also teach us a few things, and I recommend listening to them with great attention (even if you don't automatically accept them).
Beyond that, I also proposed the thesis that reality has changed since the description of the Bible, the prophets, and even of Chazal.

On Pascal's wager that you propose at the end of your remarks, allow me not to comment. You can see my opinion on it in the book God Plays Dice.

Thank you for the wishes. I hope that we all make the right and sensible choices.

Since the focus of your argument is the assumption that statements about metaphysics are necessarily the product of tradition and not of reason, I will refer you to the Rambam's Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah. Four chapters there are devoted to metaphysical assertions. The first two are the products of reason and interpretation that Rambam offers of the verses of the prophets, and not at all to tradition. The next two chapters are devoted to a collection of bizarre Aristotelian statements about distinct minds, wheels that move without ceasing, souls of stars, objects made of wind, earth, and fire, and the nature of all of these, and more.
Did Aristotle have such a tradition? Where did he invent it? And the Rambam? He did rely on a tradition that bypassed Aristotle and came directly to him and happened to say exactly Aristotle's teaching? Tell me, do you really accept the claim that the stars have souls and consciousness and know their Creator? Because as far as I know, Neil Armstrong, who returned from the moon, did not say that when he first stepped on it, the moon rolled with laughter and said to him: “Enough, stop, you're tickling me”. And what about the transparent wheels that move in the sky constantly? (Which are all round, of course, as we have received from tradition, and not ellipses, as the scientific sceptics believe)
By the way, the fundamentals of faith that he lists in chapters 1-2 there are also the result of philosophical sceptics and his interpretation of the words of the prophets. Despite this, from his point of view, these are principles of faith, and he does not mind that they came from his own understanding and interpretations of the verses. He does not present this there as a tradition at all, and it is quite clear that it is not. On the contrary, in the second part of the book he concludes that because of his interpretations, one should say that everything said in the verses of the prophets is a parable and a proverb, meaning that he takes his interpretation and pushes the prophets to fit it. Sound familiar to you?
By the way, this is exactly the same as what he does with the evil eye and demons in Chazal, although all of these are of course tradition straight from Sinai, he throws them out of the way and simply omits them from his book, including in practical law. And the words of the Gra in his glosses on the Shul Yod are well known, where he wrote that the damned philosophy was misleading. Not to mention the Maimonides' interpretation of the various prohibitions of the Proverbs, which for him are all just one prohibition: to be a fool. And again, all the spells described in the Bible and the Sages are simply eye-catching. Let us remember that other rishonim explain differently. So what did tradition say about all these metaphysical matters? And did they derive their interpretations from their own understanding? No, that cannot be... There was a tradition that said that these prohibitions were prohibitions against being foolish and included literal meaning in them, and at the same time that there was literal meaning in them. There was a tradition that said that the wheels have souls and that all kinds of distinct minds revolve in the heavens, only for some reason it reached the Rambam (who happens to be closely connected to Aristotle's teachings), and for some reason many others (who are less connected to Aristotle) have not heard of it.
And what about the Rambam's insights into the essence of the timeline? Such metaphysical statements must have reached him through tradition, right?

And what about his statements about providence and miracles? He claims in several places that there is no involvement of the Almighty in nature, and that everything is inherent in creation from its creation (there are sources for this in the Sages). This is also a tradition? So why didn't the rest of the Rishonim hear about it? And if they didn't hear (Ishtamit Minyahu), let them accept the Rambam who did hear. By the way, this is exactly my assumption in light of the scientific worldview. That is, the same assumption and from the same source, and I do something with it slightly different from what the Rambam does. But in your opinion, I am a heretic who doesn't believe in tradition and is proud to think that he understands everything, and the Rambam is the great father of tradition.

Well, that's enough for me, and I won't elaborate on it because it's a peddler.

Assumption D: Let me clarify my words: I meant specific, not general, metaphysical facts. Example: It is possible to arrive at an explanation that there is a Creator of the world and that He is good, but this is general and does not allow us to know His specific will for us (are there laws that we are obligated to follow? And if so, what are they?) and additional questions related to the behind-the-scenes of visible reality (the purpose of creation, the roles of angels, the ways in which He watches over and guides the world, the places of reward and punishment, the meaning of His various names, etc.). Therefore, there is a need for spiritual revelation, and this is the condition for the transition from deism (which is possible from metaphysical explanations) to theism (from spiritual revelation only).

Assumption F: I did not say that they transmitted all their information, but that they transmitted metaphysical information, whatever was oral in the tradition. It is certainly reasonable and acceptable (not necessary and not certain as assumptions are) that the Creator wants us to know the metaphysical messages and therefore He revealed them to them and conveyed them to the prophets, and they in turn conveyed, in addition to what is said in the Bible, an explanation of their words to the sages of their generation (the prophets mainly conveyed their prophecies orally to their contemporaries and not only gave them written texts {the Bible is the book of prophecies that were needed for generations} and obviously, the people asked them questions, etc. about their prophecies and the word of God, and they explained God's messages to them so that they would understand exactly what God requires of them and would not be dissatisfied with the messages) and so on until they were put into writing by the sages. I also believe that the Knows things that the prophets did not know, but only what the Creator revealed to them (“Eye has not seen God besides You…”).

Assumption: The assumption depends on the level of trust you have in the sources of the Sages. The Bible teaches us that there is a possibility of a real mystical connection with the spiritual world and not just a metaphor (I assume that is why you believe in the Torah of Israel {in part}) and in many places in the literature of the Sages it is told about mystical revelations of the Sages with the spiritual world (such as: the revelation of Elijah and Bat Kol) and the things are written in such a way that I do not have to assume that this is a metaphor, but a literal mystical connection with the spiritual world and I have no reason to suspect the Sages that they lied to us, but rather told us their true experiences. Regarding the late Rav, believe what you want (the Holy Spirit literally or metaphorically), the faith of Israel does not depend on what you believe he meant, but on the Bible and the tradition of the Sages, and this single sentence of his is not a measure for me to test the reliability of the Holy Spirit literally of the Sages.

Assumption 9: To my disappointment, you do not distinguish between two types of Torah tradition (the laws and factual information in the Bible, and correspondingly, the laws and haggadahs in the literature of the Sages). 1) The constitutional type which is purely logical {after the spiritual revelation to Moses our Lord} which is: the laws of the Torah and external wisdom that is required for study for the laws of the Torah {arithmetic, botany, anatomy, etc.) in which the sages must decide solely by reason in explanations and reasons and are forbidden to look into spiritual revelations (“Achnai's oven” etc.), therefore in this area, there is no need to believe that the sages could not have made a mistake, because “a judge has nothing but what his eyes see” and they are commanded to decide solely according to explanations and reasons and the scientific, technological and cultural reality of their time. 2) The factual type which also contains specific metaphysical facts, and there (in metaphysics) there is no place for baseless explanations. Since I believe that the prophets who were possessed of the Holy Spirit transmitted metaphysical information in tradition to the sages throughout the generations until the sages who put what they received into writing, and I also believe, based on the testimony of the sages, that they themselves were possessed of the Holy Spirit in a literal sense, I believe that the metaphysical facts in their writings are either the fruit of the Holy Spirit of the prophets or of themselves and are true and not mistaken, because it was from God. Therefore, I have no need to believe that they merely raised metaphysical speculations that originated from the influences of foreign peoples. Regarding the late Rambam (and all the sages after the time of Chazal), as you said, those who did not testify about themselves or their contemporaries did not testify about them, that they had a mystical connection with the spiritual world, I have no reason to believe that all their words are true, because if they did not receive the information from a higher source, then they are speculations. And regarding speculations, I have no need to believe that there were no mistakes, etc., therefore I do not rely on them in the metaphysical realm. In addition, even if you believe that only the prophets received the metaphysical truth through the Holy Spirit and everyone else only philosophized, then here too logic says that you should only rely on the Bible in metaphysics, because they (the prophets) are the only faithful source of the word of God. Really, then you have nothing but to study the Bible alone, and if you study the Bible literally and carefully, you will see that its positions are the opposite of your metaphysical positions (God's care for reality, God's knowledge of the future, etc.).

Regarding science: I am surprised that you believe that what you cannot understand with your logic, whether philosophical or scientific, also applies to the Creator.
The Bible (even if you believe in it alone) and the sages warn us so many times not to project our human abilities onto the abilities of God. Carefully examine the plainness of the Bible verses (such as Isaiah, Psalms, etc.) and tell me whether you think the message of the Bible is that God is limited to the laws of nature or that He controls and directs nature (He who said to oil and burn, let him say to vinegar and burn).
I have great respect for the scientific method (have we advanced enough for that?), but we must understand that logic is subject to the laws of nature and has nothing to do with the occult and certainly not with the abilities of God; and that is what we are talking about.
It is so bizarre to me that a person who claims to be a rational being limits the Creator to laws that he himself created out of nothing.

Regarding your claim that metaphysical facts may have changed since the time of the Bible, etc., my response is: How do you know? Ah! You just believe that they have changed. Well, I have credible testimonies of prophets who spoke in the name of God, and since then there have been no people who have come in the name of God and told us that the facts have changed, so why should I accept your thesis that it is based on nothing and reject my belief in the words of the prophets (I both believe in the sages and in certain Kabbalists that I am convinced are true, and I can logically base my belief in these Kabbalists).

Regarding the choice of faith: Call it what you want in the name of whoever you want. The fact is: the Torah of Israel is a mystical Torah (I define it as rational mysticism), therefore, as long as you have not experienced spiritual realizations, your belief depends on a combination of the criticism of reason and the degree of trust you give to the tradition of its transmitters and you have to decide in favor of the one to whom logic inclines more (both in the criticism of reason and in whom you give trust).

In conclusion:
We have three gates that only by combining them together can we understand the Creator's will for us, and they are: the gate of the written Torah, the gate of the oral Torah, and the gate of our intellect. I recommend that you not give up even one of them, whether in norms or in facts.
I hope that a wise person, who will examine the grammar of our correspondence, your understandings and my answers, etc., will notice where logic leans more, in my words or in your words (in my words).
May you choose the right opinions and good deeds and bring joy to the Creator, the Blessed One.
May the name of the Blessed One be blessed from now on and forever.
Shabbat Shalom.

We have indeed exhausted ourselves. Everything repeats itself.

To Rabbi Shalom,

I apologize for my various statements in my last response. I hope you were not offended, and if so, I ask for your forgiveness.

I imagine that your misunderstandings about assumption D are no longer valid, because my explanation of it in my last response was probably accepted by you, and I only needed to emphasize that these are specific and detailed metaphysical positions and not general metaphysical positions.
I want to further substantiate assumption V and assumptions H – I, so that I will clarify that these assumptions are the more reasonable and more acceptable assumptions for the believing and intelligent person.

Assumption 6: There is no logical reason to believe that the prophets orally transmitted metaphysical/prophetic information (whatever it may be) to the sages of their time (in addition to the Bible) and so on until the sages put down in writing traditions from the prophets that they had. On the contrary, this is the more obvious explanation, since the Bible itself is not always clear, so it is logical that the prophets orally transmitted metaphysical facts to the sages of their time, etc. In addition, I want to show from the sources that the sages used metaphysical information they received in tradition. In the Gemara in Tractate Gitin (No. 122), it is told of Rivaz who met with Vespasian and addressed him as a Roman king. Vespasianus told Rivaz that he was to die, because he was not a king, and Rivaz explained that Jerusalem would not be handed over, but to the king, and because Jerusalem was being handed over to him, then he was certainly a king. And he explained this by interpreting verses so far from the literal meaning of the Bible, such as “And Lebanon shall fall with a mighty hand,” etc. Question: Do we believe that Rivaz was so foolish that he relied on the superficial interpretations of verses so far from the literal meaning of the Bible and was willing to commit to death for them (his goal was actually to live and restore Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple). Answer: Apparently, Rivaz accepted the interpretations of these verses in tradition and was therefore so confident in them and did not fear for his life. So far, the interpretation from the commentary on Rivaz’s words. In the Midrash “Avot Darbi Natan” (compiled during the Tannaitic period and the later edition that we have is estimated to be from the middle of the Geonimic period), this event is also recorded, and the exchange between Rivaz and Vespasianus is presented as follows:
“He said to him: You are Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, ask what I will give you. He said to him: I do not ask you except that it be built. I will go and teach it to my disciples, and I will establish a prayer in it, and I will perform in it all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. He said to him: Go, and do whatever you want to do. He said to him: Do you want me to say one thing before you? He said to him: Say it. He said to him: You stand in the kingdom. – How do you know? He said to him: Thus it is told to us that the Temple was not delivered into the hands of a layman, but into the hands of the king. As it is said: And the thickets of the forest shall be cut down with iron, and Lebanon shall fall with a mighty fall.
It should be noted that Rivaz “Z “replies to Vespasianus “Thus it is delivered to us”. For we have evidence from a literary source of Chazal (and not just a necessary explanation), that Rivaz testified that the sages had prophetic information that was received in tradition about the identity of the title of the destroyer of the Temple.

Assumptions 8; – 9: As stated, it is possible to speculate on explanations about general metaphysical facts, but it is very foolish to rely on these explanations, because they cannot be verified, but rather on a mystical revelation of the spiritual world. This is especially true of specific and detailed metaphysical facts, where even an explanation has no legitimacy, because there is no basis on which to base explanations. There are many metaphysical facts (general and specific) in the literature of the Sages, and the question arises: How did the Sages know these metaphysical and prophetic facts? Answer: There are four possibilities for the metaphysical and prophetic information that appears in the sources of the Sages, and they are:

1) Inventions and lies

2) Interpretive explanations from the Bible

3) Oral tradition from the prophets

4) The Holy Spirit of the Sages

I would like to address section 2 and find out whether this is really a legitimate possibility, if we truly believe in the honesty of the Sages. In the literature of the Sages, there are very specific metaphysical and prophetic messages that do not appear in the Bible, such as: what a person will be asked in the court of heaven, the roles and names of angels, various descriptions of heaven and hell, etc. Question: Did the Sages just make up these facts? Answer: It is difficult to believe, because even if one believes in the metaphysical realm, one still needs some kind of background to establish explanations and not just invent metaphysical facts out of thin air. The sources of the Sages are full of metaphysical and prophetic information that has no mention in the Bible, and this metaphysical information is very specific and detailed, so the question arises: On what could they base these explanations when they are so specific and detailed and have no mention in the Bible? Answer: Anyone who truly believes in the honesty of the sages has no reason to assume this possibility. The sages, in their honesty, even if they gave us interpretations of the Bible according to their own interpretations, probably would not have wasted time on superficial interpretations without a biblical basis, and certainly not in a factual, specific, and detailed manner as it appears in their sources, because then it would no longer be about interpretive interpretations according to the biblical verses (because there is no basis), but rather baseless inventions without a basis in biblical truth, therefore such facts are tantamount to inventions and lies of the sages.

Which means that we are left with the three options of:

1) Inventions and lies

2) Oral tradition from the prophets
3) The Holy Spirit of the Sages

Someone who believes in the oral Torah tradition of the Sages will certainly not accept the first option of inventions and lies, because his faith relies on the credibility of the Sages' honesty, and therefore this option is also not legitimate from his perspective.

Which means that we are left with the two options of:

1) Oral tradition from the prophets
2) The Holy Spirit of the Sages

Someone who believes in the honesty of the Sages will have no difficulty accepting these two options, because these two options are plausible from the Sabra and are also documented in the Sage sources, and in any case he will accept them without reason to doubt.
1) The metaphysical oral tradition of the sages from the prophets makes sense both from the explanation and from evidence from their sources. 2) The Holy Spirit of the sages is documented in their sources and we know that there is a possibility of the Holy Spirit simply from the Bible (this is why we believe in the Torah of Israel) and the stories about the spiritual attainments of the sages are written in such a way that we have no reason to assume that this is a metaphor, but rather an authentic record of the spiritual attainments of the sages.

Therefore, the assumptions of Ch’ – T’ are the assumptions required of someone who truly believes in the honesty of the sages. As mentioned, if we believe in the honesty of the sages, then we believe that they possessed a metaphysical tradition from the prophets and also possessed the Holy Spirit in their own right, therefore there is no logical reason for us to believe that both the general metaphysical facts and the specific and detailed metaphysical facts that appear in their sources are the fruit of the metaphysical tradition from the prophets and the fruit of their own Holy Spirit, and therefore are the correct and true facts.

I wasn't offended at all, and everything is fine. I didn't see any offensive expression either.
But as I said, I can't continue a fragmented discussion with such gaps. I explained my position, and the voter will choose. All the best.

Summary:

1) Human beliefs are limited and often turn out to be wrong, especially in the field of metaphysics and prophecy, where the human mind (philosophical and scientific) does not have the ability to verify spiritual facts, therefore the command of reason guides us not to rely on beliefs in metaphysical and prophetic positions.

2) The Creator, blessed be He, is above all human perception in His essence and abilities, and we have nothing but what He has revealed to us in His messages that appear in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, any position that originates in philosophy or science against what He has revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures is fundamentally invalid.

3) The command of reason guides us to choose metaphysical positions that were achieved by the Holy Spirit alone.

4) Whoever believes in the Holy Spirit of the Prophets alone, then the command of reason guides him that the only source of authority relevant to him in choosing metaphysical positions is the Bible, and their traditional metaphysical positions are the opposite of your new metaphysical positions.

5) Whoever believes in the Holy Spirit of the Prophets and the Sages alone, then the command of reason guides him that the only sources of authority relevant to him in choosing metaphysical positions are the Bible and the literature of the Sages, and their traditional metaphysical positions are the opposite of your new metaphysical positions.

6) Whoever believes in the Holy Spirit of the Prophets, the Sages, and the Kabbalists (this is my group), then the command of reason guides him that the only sources of authority relevant to him in choosing metaphysical positions are: the Bible, the literature of the Sages, and the books of Kabbalah, and their traditional metaphysical positions are the opposite of your new metaphysical positions.

When you examine these six sections carefully, and understand that they are the command of reason of the believing and intelligent person, then you must ask yourself: On what do you rely in your new metaphysical positions, when your new positions have no basis in the Holy Spirit and your reliance on philosophy and science is essentially null?

The purpose of my correspondence with you was to show you that there is no logic in your new metaphysical positions, if you are a rational person who truly believes in the Torah of Israel.
I hope you will be honest enough to accept the truth, and change your new, baseless metaphysical positions to the traditional, logical, and true positions of the Torah of Israel, and thus you will be able to turn many from sin and sanctify the name of the Blessed One.

With the blessing of your “skill in the Torah” and sincere wishes that you will succeed in doing the will of the Lord in everything you turn to, both materially and spiritually, and that all your wishes will come true for good,

So-and-so