Clarification regarding the likelihood of incidents occurring in the country

Beyond that, to determine this more clearly (and still not unequivocally), one needs to put the history of all nations on an axis and see whether there is a reasonable pyramid with the people of Israel at the top or whether it is at an unusual peak. If the peak is unusual, then again it is not like a random result that comes out the highest. But as mentioned, it is difficult to argue with impressions, especially when there is no real possibility of calculating.

I understand. Thank you very much, Rabbi.

I didn't understand.

If there are independent reasons to believe in the existence of the Creator, and an educated, humble, and virtuous person comes along who has an ancient and coherent tradition of revelation with his words and claims to have been sent by that Creator, and due to these circumstances, the hypothesis has arisen, regardless of the prediction, that the prophet is telling the truth. On the surface, the very fact that he says in the name of the Creator a prediction that we would expect not to come true, and yet it happens exactly according to his words, constitutes confirmation of the hypothesis that the source of his messages is that Creator.

So what didn't you understand? You're repeating what I said. At most, you're adding that the mere taking of the risk, even without its realization, has weight in terms of the credibility of the text. I partially agree, and I've even written about it here in the past, but it doesn't have very much weight. What do you mean: If the move came true, then there's no need to take the risk, and if it didn't come true - then taking the risk won't mean anything. If there's doubt whether it came true or not - then there might be room for taking the risk. But even that's only if the prediction is very unambiguous (unlike the ancient oracles of their kind, or the modern futures contracts in academia - which are nothing but oracles in disguise).

I was only referring to what was said that ”it is difficult to argue with an impression of this kind”. It sounds like this is a matter of subjective assessment, but it seems obvious that the a priori likelihood of observational data that matches the detailed prophecy about the events of the people of Israel until the end of time in Deuteronomy is objectively greater in light of the hypothesis that Moses' claim to a reliable prophecy (h1 below) than its denial (h2) and this is not a matter of personal taste. You just take a people, uproot them from their land and scatter them throughout the world, this in itself is a recipe for extinction. There is no other people that has had something similar happen to them that has not become extinct. Certainly when you point out more and more additional details, for example that they will have to remain small, that they will be endlessly persecuted, that they will be expelled from everywhere, that the conqueror who discovers will take masses of captives to Egypt on ships for sale, that they will be unknown to previous Jewish history, that they will come from afar from the ends of the earth, and dozens of other different and strange details that they will eventually return to the land and everything will come true.

In general, when O expresses an observation, h1 hypothesis 1, h2 hypothesis 2, k background information
If
P(O|h1 & k’) > P(O|h2 & k’)
then O prefers/affirms h1 over h2

Regarding risk, it seems that the outcome is before the event. When a prophet takes a personal risk of being disgraced in front of the entire nation and also knows that the next day the king will rejoice at the opportunity to mistreat him and execute him (as in 1 Kings 22:1-22, “And Micaiah said, ‘If you return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me;’ and he said, ‘Hear, all you people.’”) this is a good reason to trust him already at the time of the prophecy. But even after confirmation, it is not entirely clear to me that there is no significance in taking the risk. Popper saw importance in the fact that theories face a high risk of refutation (according to the calculations resulting from the previous theory) even after they have been confirmed and in addition to the fact of confirmation.

I wrote that taking a risk is only about the situation before fulfillment or when there is doubt. In the prophecies of the Torah or the prophets for redemption or the distant future, no one takes a real risk, and therefore this has less weight.
Regarding general considerations, there is the matter of the amorphousness of the prophecy and the possibility of interpreting it in different ways (the oracles), and this reflects on all the calculations you brought here. And this is definitely a personal matter.
The question is to what extent it is special and how unambiguous the prophecy is and how many prophecies you predict (after all, if some come true and some are refuted, you can still come out okay), etc. etc. All of this has implications for both taking a risk and the possibility of refutation, and of course also for examining the actual results (what was realized and how much).
See very briefly here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A0%D7%91%D7%95%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-2/

It still seems that for most prophets who were considered figures during their lifetimes (like Ezekiel, for example), a clear refutation of a prophecy would have caused a loss of their status and esteem in the heritage of the people and therefore a kind of risk for them. In any case, what was mainly unclear to me was what the difference was between this and Popper, who seems to give significant weight to the very risk, and it is what distinguishes scientific theories from non-scientific ones from his point of view.

It is agreed and clear that if there are amorphous things, they reduce the corroborative weight (if there is such a bias) of their fulfillment and that there is a matter for personal assessment. (In a situation where some details of the prophecy were fulfilled and some were refuted, the entire prophecy was refuted). But in the prophecy of Moses in question, things are simple and clear, and in particular, emphasis is repeatedly given there to the fact that the people of Israel will be scattered and will be wandering all over the world. Here, one really has to uproot the simple meanings of words in order to argue for non-fulfillment. I have gathered here a good portion of the details, though not all of them, and all of them without exception were fulfilled literally (some in a truly grotesque manner) in the period from the Roman conquest of Judea and its becoming a protectorate in 63 BC until the exile, the exile, and the dispersion among all the nations that followed:

1. For you shall beget sons and sons' sons, and you shall be fruitful in the land (this will happen a long time after entering the land)

2. The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth

3. A nation that you and your fathers have not known

4. A nation that you have not heard of To his tongue

5. A nation of fierce faces, which will not respect the face of the old man, nor respect the youth

6. Your ox shall be slaughtered before your eyes, your donkey a prey before your eyes, your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people. And you shall serve your enemies, and they shall put a brand of iron upon your neck.

7. The stranger that is near you shall come up against you from high to high, and you shall come down from low to high. He shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

8. And he shall besiege you in all your gates, until your high walls and your fortresses, in which you trusted, come down.

9. And you shall eat. The fruit of your womb is the flesh of your sons and daughters, in the strait and in the rock where your enemies will cast you.

10. The LORD will bring you and your king whom he will set over you, to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known. And ye shall be cut off from off the land, which ye went to possess it.

11. And the LORD shall bring thee back out of Egypt in ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again.

12. And there ye shall sell yourselves unto thine enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and there shall be no buyer.

13. And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth.

14. And you shall be left among the nations, whither the LORD shall drive you,

15. And among those nations thou shalt have no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of soul.

16. And thou shalt be a proverb, and a byword, and a byword among all the people, whither the LORD shall drive thee.

17. And there shalt thou serve him. Other gods whom you and your fathers have not known

18. And your life shall be filled with fear against you, and you shall fear day and night, and you shall have no confidence in your life

19. And the LORD your God shall turn your captivity, and have mercy on you, and shall gather you again from all the peoples… To the land that your fathers inherited and you will inherit it

There are also symbolic details such as “as the eagle knows” which means that the conquering nation will be noted for its speed, but this is also the specific symbol of the Roman legion in the period in question. They had 5 different symbols until the 1st century BC, but only the eagle remained in the first century.

In addition, anyone who analyzes the details will be able to notice that some of them drastically reduce the chance of other details on the list coming true. For example, a nation from afar cannot be Egypt – it is not far away, it has nothing to do with the eagle, its language is familiar to us and we and our fathers knew it (17), on the other hand, the captives must be led to Egypt. In order for this prophecy to come true, it must be ensured that the Romans first conquer Egypt (otherwise it would be logistically and politically impossible to send tens of thousands of slaves there on ships, certainly not in quantities they would not want to buy), and that they are persuaded to transport large quantities there instead of to another controlled country or to their own country, Rome.

You are optimistic. Pock predicted the accepted ”prophets” today who prophesy and fail and no one loses faith in them.
Regarding the fulfillment of prophecies, in order to examine this seriously, one must go through all the prophecies and not just one or another example. In the examples you gave, there are indeed some details that came true in a clear and even surprising way. But even here there are points with quite a bit of ambiguity:
1. What is the Gentile that we and our ancestors did not know. Were the Romans unknown to us? Of course, it can be explained that they did not exist in the time of our ancestors, but in our time (=of the generation of destruction)?
2. What is the language that you will not hear? In fact, Roman was not commonly spoken in our mouths, unlike other languages?
3. What is the measure of boldness? Were the Romans more cruel than any other power? I don't think so.
4. Did they serve other gods in exile? More than in the land?
As is known, the Rishonim disagree about which of the curses was uttered on the exile of the First Temple and which on the exile of the Second Temple. If the fulfillment is so clear, what is the room for disagreement?

By the way, you did a reconstruction here, where you put together verses from different places and built a story about the Roman exile from them. I have to say that it's a bit of a dishonest trick.

Just in relation to the Romans, then, military historian John Keegan writes in his book "History of Warfare" that Roman cruelty was quite exceptional in history.

The business with the “prophecies” of Kabbalists is not serious in so many ways compared to biblical prophecies that there is no room for comparison here, except for the sharing of the name only.

Regarding all the prophecies of Moses, as far as I know, everything that should have come true up to now has come true. Does the rabbi have an example of a prophecy that did not?

1. The people of Israel knew the neighboring peoples, Moab, Edom, Egypt, and more. However, the Roman people were created from a mixture of tribes, quite close to the exile of Aristobulus and the time of slavery. Our ancestors could not really know it. If the conqueror was Egypt, Edom, Moab, the Phoenicians in Tyre and Sidon or Babylon that strikes again and so on – the prophecy would not have come true.

2. The Semitic languages of the neighboring peoples were not foreign to the people of Israel. The language of the Egyptian people was known to us and our ancestors, Greek was known as an international language and Jews studied the Bible translated into Greek and Torah scrolls were also written in Greek. But Latin? The people never knew it and it is not foreign to the structure and nature of the Hebrew language.

3. In addition to Y.D.'s comment, if you read a little of Josephus, the questions regarding the intensity and dimensions of cruelty, which even a slaver up to the Holocaust was unable to recreate, cease. The gap between them and the Babylonians in terms of quantity and quality, or even the soldiers of Antiochus, who if you were a Jew who was suspected of being Greek, would really be gentle with you, leaves no room for doubt.

4. The worship of other gods is presented as a punishment. And it did indeed exist in exile in a way that did not exist in the land.

Most traditional commentators I have seen recognize the fact that chapter 28 and some of the chapters that follow describe the Roman exile. Leviticus 26 also describes an exile, but it is limited in time to the number of shemitts that were not kept (later Jeremiah specifies the number 70 years, which was indeed fulfilled precisely with the end of the Babylonian exile, but in any case it had to be a more or less order of magnitude and could not be more than around 100 years). In Leviticus 26 it is written “And I will scatter you among the nations” meaning a dispersion that could be local, but here it is about a movement “from one end of the earth to the other” and there are other observations that specifically link the prophecy there to the exile in Babylon and our prophecy to the exile in Rome.

I did not understand where the accusation comes from. Most of them (16 out of 19) are from the same chapter (28) of Deuteronomy. Of the 3 that are not, two are taken from the same context in Deuteronomy 4 where Moses speaks of the exact same matter – leaving the Lord’ Exile and distribution among the nations, which he will return to in chapter 28 and the chapters that follow. And the rest is nothing but from chapter 30, which is bound up with the general motif woven throughout all chapters 28-31, in which the subject is the same state of hiding one's face in exile from one end of the earth to the other, ending with the gathering of the exiles and the end of days.

The prophecies of the Kabbalists were not brought here to be compared to the Torah. This is an example of a prophet who can prophesy and his prophecies are unfounded and yet nothing happens to him. He need not fear.

I do not have an example of a prophecy that clearly did not come true in ”H (although I have not systematically examined it). There are examples of vague prophecies (most of them are like that). The fulfillment also happened in forms that were not entirely unambiguous. Each verse was fulfilled at a different stage or period. There are arguments about the periods and fulfillments (some prophecies are planted for the future). And so on. In order to formulate a systematic position, one must do systematic research, which I did not do.
1. There were conquerors of all kinds, and among them were the distant Romans. This is not an unambiguous fulfillment.
2. Greek was known as an international language after Greece became an empire. I assume that after the conquests, Latin was also like that.
4. Interpretation is far from necessary. You did not point out where this was realized and how it was different. This (like everything else here) is an example of the ambiguity I was talking about.

A majority, a minority of a majority. Hence, even if this did not happen in any way, you would find an interpretation that brings the Torah out of existence. We are back to the question of refutation.

True, in our day a false prophet has nothing to fear, but it is not clear whether someone like Ezekiel could have known that we would come to such disgrace.
I do not see how the existence of vague prophecies could affect the possibility that other, not vague, prophecies would confirm the authenticity of a prophet.

1. I did not understand what the problem is. What is needed is that out of the two exiles in the history of our people, everything said in this prophecy will be fulfilled by a distant conqueror unknown to us and our ancestors, and who will fulfill the rest of its conditions. As mentioned, the prophecy in Leviticus 26 cannot deal with the Roman exile, since it is limited in time, while our current prophecy is not limited in time and ends only with the events of the end of days. (In general, the fact that there is an exile relevant to the same order of magnitude of the number of shemitts that were not kept also constitutes confirmation of Moses' prophecy. If, for example, it were an exile of 200 years, the prophecy there would clearly not have been fulfilled, and this would be a huge question mark over the hypothesis that Moses was a true prophet when there is almost no connection between what he describes and the actual exile, but that is not the issue here.)

The Babylonian exile was not by a conqueror from the "end of the earth" like the Roman exile. Its language was not completely foreign to us, and it is not correct to say verses like "Your sons and daughters shall be given to another people" For the Babylonians took entire families (unlike the Romans who took the boys to die in gladiatorial battles or into slavery), and there was no taking them on ships to be sold into slavery in Egypt (which was our ally at the time). In other words, after the Babylonian exile fulfilled the rebuke of Leviticus, the only conqueror who could come for our prophecy to be fulfilled is one who is very similar to Rome. He could not be one like nearby Seleucid Greece, or any one of the neighboring kingdoms of Judah. Who prevented someone like Antiochus from being the conquering conqueror? But Zechariah and Daniel already predict the defeat of the Greeks.

2. What is needed is that *at the time of the conquest* he will be a “nation whose language will not be heard”. If Latin were to become spoken afterwards, this is irrelevant. At the time of Antiochus, we knew Greek (the Bible had already been translated into this language in the previous century, and it seems that the people of Israel spoke the language about as well as an American Jew speaks English). If someone like him had been the revealer, the prophecy would not have been fulfilled. In any case, Latin was always foreign to the Jewish people, and later became the technical language of scholars and remained foreign to the European peoples as well.

4. I think that biblical critics would say that the simple fact that the people of Israel were enslaved abroad to another people meant that we were in service to the God of the enslaving people. And there are biblical sources for this. If they are right, then the specific was fulfilled by the very fact that we were in exile among foreign peoples and does not add to the evidentiary weight of the general prophecy. In any case, the prophecy was also fulfilled in its literal form, since already in very ancient centuries and in fact in quite a few periods the people of Israel were forced to choose between expulsion and forced religious conversion. Most forced conversions in Christian countries were done by Catholics, where a Jew had to demonstrate loyalty by kneeling before a cross (wooden) and praying before a statue of Mary (stone) – Holy Rosary. In my opinion, it is reasonable that from a biblical perspective, forced religious conversions are also considered worship of other gods in Islamic countries, but I will not go into this.

By minority, I mean that there are some commentators who attribute certain phenomena from the events of the Babylonian exile to some of the verses here. But this does not detract from the significance of the prophecy to say that there are principles both here and in the rebuke of Leviticus that are fulfilled in both exiles. For example, we see that the verse “And your land shall be desolate, and your people shall be desolate” (Leviticus 26:33) was also fulfilled in our current exile. I don't see how this possibility is related to the actual fulfillment of the prophecy as confirmation. In general, the rabbi demands from confirmations here what he does not demand from almost any other theory. When there are good reasons for a theory and things that clearly confirm it, even if some experiment is done in which it is apparently refuted, you first try to attribute the problem not to the theory but to a non-optimal measuring device, to frictional forces, and so on. The mere possibility that at first glance a theory will be refuted and you still won't throw the theory away does not undermine the principle of refutation. The philosopher Hilary Putnam dealt with this in several of his articles (for example, The Collapse of the Fact Value Dichotomy).

Take, for example, the theory of evolution. We would expect from it the absence of unnecessary features in animals, such as humps or peacock tails. But no one says that the theory is disproven because of them, but rather tries to find answers that will accommodate it, such as mate selection or the “honor principle”. And by the way, this really seems to be a bad answer, since if the female wants to see that the male is able to survive despite having a huge tail, evolution would still be content with simply having a large tail without the need for complex DNA specifications that are unclear where they came from that cause a tail that is amazing in its beauty with its myriad colors and symmetrical shapes. Similarly, even if there were one verse that seemed to be unfulfilled, the mere fact that it would not necessarily cause me to immediately abandon the theory does not undermine the validity of the affirmation. In any case, from a review of historical sources, I find that all the verses without exception were fulfilled literally and clearly in the Roman exile.

We don't have a real debate, only about the certainty. In my opinion, the fulfillment is not so unequivocal, certainly not about all the prophecies.

Kenpangen, the symbol of the Romans was not an eagle but a vulture. This is a common mistake

The question is, what is called an eagle in the Bible? Isn't it an eagle?

No…
The Bible also writes many times about an eagle and not just an eagle:
“And the eagle came down upon the carcasses, and Abram returned to them”

I agree. But what is important in terms of the evidential weight of the fulfillment of prophecy is not what is standard, but whether it is a standard biblical teaching of the term. I will quote:

“Already in the Bible we find the interchanges between the eagle and the vulture. Although both are huge birds of prey, only the eagle has a bald neck, as Micah says. On the other hand, when the prophet Ezekiel mentions the eagle as having large wings and ”full of feathers” (17b), there is no doubt that the reference is to the eagle and not to the vulture. And when it is said: And the eagle came down upon the carcasses (Genesis 15:11), the reference is probably to a general term for a large bird of prey, and not to the name of a specific bird.

And there are other verses that mention the eagle, but the description corresponds to the eagle and not to the vulture.
For example, the verse "Your eyes have grown weary of him, and they are not: For I will make him wings; like an eagle of the heavens" (Proverbs 23:5), is appropriate for the vulture of the rocks, which disappears from view as it flies toward the sun: the vulture is equipped with a membrane over its eyes that allows it to fly in the direction of the sun.
Also, the verses "I will bear you on eagles' wings" (Exodus 19:4), and "As an eagle of the forest makes its nest... it carries it on its wing" (Deuteronomy 23:11) cannot refer to the bird we call an eagle, because it does not carry its young on its back. Only the rock eagle carries its young on its back and wings, when it teaches them to fly.
In contrast, the sun eagle is heavy and slow in flight, while when the Scriptures speak of the eagle's swift flight (2 Samuel 1:23; Jeremiah 4:13; Lamentations 4:19), they are probably indeed speaking of an eagle. ”

https://www.safa-ivrit.org/fauna/nesher.php