And my name, the Lord, was not known to them.

But in the book of Genesis it appears that He did reveal Himself to the fathers by the name Hoya. This is why Rashi takes this out of context and refers to the attributes of God and not to the name by which He revealed Himself to the fathers.

Do you think the Torah was indeed compiled at a later time, weaving together earlier sources into one text?
And why is it necessary to need the Holy Spirit to edit the Torah? And if it was not compiled by the Holy Spirit, does that make any difference?

I understand. You are offering a solution to the contradiction between Vara and Hien in the Book of Genesis where there is a revelation in the name of Hoya. I do not see a decisive advantage to the critical solution (the certificates). The revelation in the name of Hoya until then is truly rare and it is quite clear that this is not a thorough acquaintance with the name of Hoya.
But it is certainly possible that this is a later editing.
If the editing was not done by the Holy Spirit, it is difficult to regard it as accurate and binding.

(Rabbi and Ramban also bothered with this question)

Oren, don't you think that if God says, "And my name God was not made known to them," it has a meaning a little beyond what the word he used? A little simple, the word itself is not what changes, but the form of God's revelation in the world.

To my Lord, it seems to me that the verse refers specifically to the purpose of revelation and not to the form of revelation of the Holy One.
To the Rabbi:
What is your opinion in general on the issue of editing? Which side do you lean more towards, that the Torah was edited or not?

Regarding the issue of the Holy Spirit, you have already said that authenticity is not a condition for commitment.

I assume it was edited, as I also wrote in the second book of the trilogy, but I am not clear to what extent.
Regarding authenticity, what I wrote concerned the Tosheva, where there is an interpretation of the verses and it is as binding as the verses themselves even if they were not intended. But such an argument can be made about laws, since it is possible to speak of a formal commitment to norms even if they are not correct (authentic). But here the question is about correctness and not about validity. When you demand a verse written by an ordinary person, it makes no sense to treat it as accurate and meticulous about every letter in it.

B”d y”d Benis P”b

Lauren -Shalom Rav,

‘It was known’, ‘I was made known’ etc. in the Bible means ‘it was made known. And so ‘It was made known in the gates of the house’,. And it was made known among the nations, ‘It was made known in Judah, God, and in Israel, His name is great’, ‘And I was made known in the eyes of many nations’ and in other sources, see Concordance.

Seeing the Lord is judgment, as ‘I will go down now and see’, ‘For the Lord saw In my affliction, and that He saw the afflicted, and furthermore, it seems to me that the name “A-L-S-D-I” expresses the reward with which He rewards the good and the deserving and turns them into the unworthy (this name appears frequently in Job, which deals with the question of reward). The fathers were rewarded for their righteousness, and to this extent they were protected by the Lord, who helped them as the only ones who succeeded in their deeds and were saved from their enemies.

But the name of the Lord as the Creator of the world and its only leader was not yet made known by the fathers. “I was not known to them,” that is, “I was not made known by them.” (‘To them’ in the sense of ‘For them’. Now the time has come for it to be known, for the name of the Lord to be proclaimed in His world through the miraculous redemption of Israel that proclaimed the name of the Lord in the world.

With blessings for a kosher and happy Passover, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”R

Regarding the issue of grammar in the verse, the editorial hypothesis does not mean that the verses were written by the editor, but that he interwoven earlier sources into one text (without changing the content). And beyond that, there is the method of Rabbi Yishmael, who spoke the Torah as if it were human language.

Regarding authenticity, you wrote that there is no point in being precise in the verse. But even if they were precise in it, that does not contradict the commitment to this grammar, does it? In other words, how is it different from just a misinterpretation of the verse?

Absolutely. This is the difference between editing and writing. Although the line is not sharp. The editor can change words according to his understanding and add linking words, omit parts or words, and so on. The accuracy of the letters and the proximity between verses or words certainly depends on the editing. The Gemara says that Esther was spoken by the Holy Spirit, and the nef”m that is cited there is the one that can be consulted. Sermons assume that a certain text was written by the Holy Spirit.

This is a good argument, but I am not sure that it is correct. This grammar is based on a wrong assumption, and there is room to liken it to a law that is ruled on the basis of a wrong factual assumption. The obligation to make mistakes is when there are errors in judgment (to me this seems wrong), but in obvious errors, even if they are not factual, there is also no obligation to make Sanhedrin rulings (see Barish Horiyot: One who errs in the commandment to listen to the words of the sages).
By the way, in such a situation I may be bound by the decision of the sages, but I will not see it as Torah law because the accuracy of the Torah is incorrect. For example, we find in the Korban of the congregation regarding the sin of the deceased, which is one of the rabbinic laws that was forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. He writes that because of this, although the law is correct, it is not from the Torah but from the rabbinic law.
In our case, it is not necessary that any verse is a later addition, and therefore we will always be in doubt (perhaps with the exception of verses like “to this very day”).

I thought again about the issue of the Holy Spirit in editing, and I wanted to ask how it is possible that we learn the laws of the Torah from a source that is only at the level of the Holy Spirit? Apparently, these should be laws that are skeptical of the voice like other laws that are learned from prophets and scriptures (for some systems at least).

The editing is an organization of the Bible itself by the Holy Spirit, and therefore it has the same law as the Bible itself. In particular, we do not know what was added in the editing and what belongs to the original, and therefore the assumption is that everything has the law of the Bible itself.
If there is a halakha that you learn from a verse that you know was added in the editing, there may be room for discussion. And even there, I think it would be Torah.

What difference does it make if the editing conveys information to us through the linking of verses or through explicit writing? After all, if it is information that does not originate directly from God, why should its status be the same as information that came directly from Him?

Even in the Maimonides’ method, which believes that laws that emerge from sermons are the words of scribes, laws that arise from interpretation of the verses themselves are from Torah (I have expanded in my articles to the second root). The editing is no different from this. It does not add elements that draw from the spirit of the verse, but rather makes claims about the content of the verse itself. It reveals to us what the verse contains. In this sense, it differs from the verses of the Nakh, which are an addition to the five Pentateuch and not an interpretation of them.

So then why should we conclude that the editing was done by the Holy Spirit? After all, this is an interpretation of the verses of the Torah. How is it different from any other interpretation, such as the interpretation of the sages, which was not done by the Holy Spirit?

Except that it seems that the editing actually adds a double meaning and does not just interpret what appears in the verses themselves. For example, the Torah repeats the prohibition against cooking meat in milk three times, from which we learn the prohibition against eating. It is possible that the editor gathered various sources in all of which this prohibition appears and did not bother to delete the duplications. If we say that he intentionally edited the verses in this way from the perspective of the Holy Spirit in order to convey to us additional information beyond what is written in the verse itself, that not only cooking is forbidden but also eating, then there is really a new command here, like the command to read the scroll. Why would we attribute to such a prohibition a similar validity to the prohibition against cooking that appears in the verses?

I already said this above. Because it is an editing and not an interpretation. What I wrote here is just a similarity between one another. The editor arranged the verses or added words here and there, and this is added to the text itself. We demand a waiver by virtue of this editing, etc. There is no point in demanding words if they were not added by the Holy Spirit.
Now I remembered an example from my articles in Good Modem P’ Tzva. I showed there that there is a difference between a sermon on a verse and a sermon on the product of a midrash (which is not done). The difference is that the product of the midrash is not added to the text of the verses and therefore it should not be preached. Just as the LBM does not require it. Sermons are made on the biblical text. It also teaches about Esther that it was given to the sermon, after they reached the conclusion that it was said by the Holy Spirit (I think I mentioned this above).

But you are trying to grab the rope from both ends. That is, what do you mean, if the editing is not completely like a commentary, but only similar to it, then the additions it adds and the information learned from these additions should be on par with the other sources that were inspired by the Holy Spirit (Prophets and Scriptures). And if the similarity of the editing to the commentary is so strong that even the additions of the editing are considered commentary, then it does not need to be in the Holy Spirit, because in total it is an interpretive comment by the editor to the biblical text.

Correct. That is exactly what I argued. The editing is an addition to the text itself, and in that sense cannot be done by an ordinary commentator. But after it is done, it becomes a part of the text that can be demanded. It is similar to a sermon that reveals something in the text and does not expand on it like an ordinary sermon. An ordinary commentator can derive ideas from the text but not add to the text itself (the addition is itself something that can be demanded). For that, the Holy Spirit is needed.

I didn't understand what you were referring to when you said that this was exactly your claim?

Beyond that, why does the editing become part of the text after it has been done? After all, the editing is only at the level of the Holy Spirit, and the text itself is above that level.

My argument is that one should dance at both weddings.
That is why I gave the example of the two types of sermons. There is a sermon that interferes with the text (and it is the Torah) and there is a sermon that expands it (and it is the Rambam's rabbinate). As long as the editor does this to the divine text, then the additions in the editing are included in the text itself. It is not like writing a new text.

The Torah tells us that the Lord was revealed to them. But they did not know that it was the Lord.
For example, when Abraham speaks to the Lord about Sodom and Gomorrah, he does not know that it was the Lord.

Okay, so I understand that you claim that there are two types of sermons, where the type that interferes with the text is considered the same as the text itself, while the type that expands the text is not considered the same as the text itself. But why do you classify the editor's additions specifically as the first type of sermon and not the second? (Or at least some of it is this way and some of it is that way)

Because this is exactly what editing means. That is why he must do it in the Holy Spirit.

Regarding what you wrote above:
“Even according to the Maimonides, who believes that laws that emerge from sermons are the words of scribes, laws that arise from interpretation of the verses themselves are from the Torah ((I expanded on the second root in my articles).”

I looked at the article on the second root and saw that you wrote something different there:
“There are thousands of laws that arise from the various dimensions of sermons, and all of them, with a few exceptions (“only three or four things”), should be classified according to Maimonides as the words of scribes”

So what did you mean when you said above that laws that arise from interpretation of the verses themselves are from the Torah? Do you have an example of this?

First, I don't see why the number matters. As long as there are two such categories, I can make my case. Second, if I wrote such a thing, I was wrong. It's the other way around. The Maimonides himself in his rebuttal writes that there are like three or four that are classified as Torah. The most obvious example is the sanctification of money, which the Maimonides in his book The Law of the Lord refers to as the words of the scribes, but in the following halakha he requires the death of the one who comes upon it.

[Apparently, the products of sermons do enter sermons and are also made into explanations. The thing taught is repeated and taught, and so is the explanation made for the monk, who is indeed in the question, even though the rest of the vows are blooming in the air. This was stated in the response to the article in the commentary on the 16th chapter, in a good way, regarding the article in Parashat Shemini, in which the model of the two slides was presented.]

Only in logical dimensions and not in literal terms. The products of the sermon do not become a biblical text.

Does this correspond to what is written in the Talmudic Micropedia, the value of an equal division, “a thing taught in one of the virtues required by the Torah is repeated and taught in an equal division”?

Indeed, regarding the geza, they wrote that it is an exceptional measure, since it reveals something about the text itself. This is why a person does not demand a geza from himself, since a person cannot add to the biblical text himself. It is possible that this was said only about certain gezas, those that are similar to the revelation of a word, that is, whose product reflects the meaning of the text itself and does not add to it. According to this, the geza of a slave and a woman, for example, would probably not be repeated and taught. There it is not reasonable to see the geza as teaching something about the text itself. It is a teaching of law regarding a slave or a woman.

But what if the equal measure is the second step after a textual measure, meaning that what is taught (for example, in inference) is repeated and taught in an equal measure. Doesn't that mean that the product of the inference (what the same person demands of himself?) enters as the body of the text?

Sorry for the constant digression, but the hiksah is even more revealing of what is in the text than the gaz”sh. After all, the name of the text itself brought them closer together. I meant the measures such as the rule and the exception of various kinds. Perhaps that is why the hiksah does not appear in the R”sh's list (R”sh McKinnon wrote that one of the reasons why the measures do not appear in the R”sh's is because it is as if it is written in the commentary). Therefore, like the zain gaz”sh for half, there is also no hiksah for half (because it is not a derision but a revelation of what is said in the text itself).

[Thank you. I will try to become more familiar with the field of learning from the learned. There are many valuable Talmudic micropedias]

In terms of Ockham's razor, isn't it better to assume that the editing was not done by the Holy Spirit according to the method of Rabbi Ishmael, who spoke the Torah in the language of humans? In other words, such an assumption assumes fewer things and is still consistent with one of the methods in the Gemara.

The statement of Rish that the Torah spoke in the language of humans was interpreted by Heschel in a very expansive way. Even Debbie Rish gives sermons that do not really fit the language of humans.
But in principle you are right. It is possible to accept that the additions were not made by the Holy Spirit and then not demand them. Whether we base it on Rish or not.

That is, theoretically, if in the future pre-Biblical documents were found that contain different parts of the Bible, and each of them separately states the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother's milk only once, and the editor combined all of these documents into one document, thus creating a situation where the prohibition appears three times, would it be correct to say that in such a situation the prohibition of eating milk and meat is essentially null and void because the sermon was requested based on a false assumption?

No. Only if you see that the editor did not do it in the Holy Spirit.

But you said earlier that in principle I am right that it is possible to accept that the additions were not made by the Holy Spirit (according to Ockham's razor)

It's possible, but then there's no justification for demanding it.

Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming, that the ruling on eating meat with milk is invalid in this case. The question is whether this is only a possibility, or according to Occam's razor, this is the preferred option?

Indeed, as is well known, Ockham did not strictly prohibit meat and milk, which has no place according to his doctrine, but according to Daki”n that it is forbidden to shave in the womb – it is a good idea to prohibit meat and milk, and the answer is B.

However, it must be said that according to Ockham's razor, it is appropriate to limit the number of entities, and it is better to assume that the Torah was composed by one entity 🙂

With the blessing ‘And on that day the Lord will shave with the razor of poetry… and you will be gathered one by one’, Dr. Schatzius von Loewenhausen

In the Book of Judges, the commandment, "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" is not redundant, but rather reflects the two meanings of the prohibition.

In Parashat Mishpatim, the commandment, "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" serves as the solemn conclusion of the "Book of the Covenant" that God made with His people following the event at Mount Sinai. It seems to be a guide to the proper way of worship as opposed to the improper way of worship. Bringing firstborn to the house of God is yes; boiling a kid in its mother's milk is no. Giving the firstborn of the fruit to God is no. Out of humility - yes; boundless hedonism as an expression of the pride of the farmer who felt that ’everything was his’ the kid and his mother together – no!

This verse – which praises the giving of the firstborn and condemns the cooking of the kid in its mother's milk – is also the end of the ‘Second Book of Covenants’ in the parashah of Ki Tisha, in which the ’and his people return and make a &#8216renewed covenant’ after the first covenant was broken in the act of the calf. And at the end, the proper way of worshiping the ’is emphasized, which involves humility and giving, as opposed to the improper way of worship –eating the kid in its mother's milk, whose entire existence is pride and hedonism.

In contrast, in Parashat Reah, the prohibition “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” does not appear among the ways of worship, but rather in the context of the prohibitions of eating. Along with the prohibition against eating unclean animals and the flesh of detestable animals, “For you are a holy people to your God,” the Torah also commands one to sanctify oneself “with what is permitted to you” by eating the flesh of a pure animal, not to eat it at the height of pleasure by cooking it in its mother’s milk, but to act with the restraint befitting a “holy people.”

The two faces of the prohibition “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” , an improper way of worship and eating without restraint , Invites both sides of the prohibition. On the part of ravenous eating – the prohibition of eating meat in milk is sufficient. But on the part of cooking in milk being an improper form of worship – the ritual cooking itself must be prohibited, and it must also be prohibited with pleasure, as one of the ways of idolatrous worship that the Torah abhors.

Chazal”s sermon on the three times that cooking with pleasure and eating – is a profound understanding of the essence of the prohibition in both its contexts – the prohibition of idolatrous worship in the Book of Exodus and the sanctity of eating in the Book of Deuteronomy.

With blessings, Yiftach Lahad Argamon-Bakshi

We have two options:
1. The editing was done without the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, the duplications should not be demanded.
2. The editing was done with the Holy Spirit, and then we can demand it.
Chazal and our entire tradition demanded and treated this as a unified text. Therefore, they are essentially conveying to us that it was edited with the Holy Spirit. The principle of the razor selects between two equal options, the simpler one. But here the option of the tradition is preferable, and the one who comes to extract the evidence from it must do so.

The sages assumed that the entire Torah (except perhaps the last 8 verses) was written by God. If you accept that the Torah was compiled by human agents, this assumption falls apart and therefore any reference that stems from this assumption is invalid.

First, it is not necessarily that the Sages thought so. When they say that everything is from Sinai, they mean that the text should be treated as if it were unified and from Sinai. And evidence for this is that they also say this about the Tosheva, and it is clear that they did not think so.
Secondly, if I have come to the conclusion that there are human additions, then they should not be demanded. What is the justification for demanding a human text? The assumption that a demand is justified only for a text in the Holy Spirit does not stem from the factual assumption that the Torah was not compiled by humans. This is simple logic.

Forgive me for the second (and last) pushback. Why not demand a human text? Formal authority (for the text, which would also apply to sermons) or the hermeneutics of canonical texts. It sounds like you're saying that such an addition has authority, but not over the merits of the sermon, but only over direct content (and interpretation). Why?

I didn't quite understand the second part of your statement. I'll try to clarify my statement again:

The sages were not exposed to modern research methods of the biblical text, or of ancient texts in general. They probably simply assumed that the text was divine and from this assumption began to demand the Torah. If the sages had known what we know today, that the Torah was compiled by human agents, they would not necessarily have demanded the Torah, or at least not in the same way as they demanded. In many cases, they would have followed the path of the Rabbis, who spoke the Torah in the language of humans. That is, if we went back in time to the time of Chazal and knew that the Torah was compiled by human agents, we would have had to use the principle of Occam's razor even then, and avoid assuming that the Torah was compiled by the Holy Spirit, and therefore we would avoid asking for the Torah.

On the 25th of Nisan 5752

To Oren, Greetings,

The Sages were well acquainted with the methods of philological research, and used them in studying the Mishnah and the Baraita, in which they sometimes said, “Be created, for this is not the same as this.” And they were willing to assume that the Tanna combined two conflicting sources.

On the other hand, in the Holy Scriptures that represent the Word of God, there can be no contradictions. After all, both Moses and the other prophets represent the Word of God, which is one and His will is one. Therefore, even though they scrutinized every letter and letter in the scriptures and insisted on apparent contradictions between the sources, It was clear to them that scriptures that 'deny each other' must be 'explained' to harmonize them and clarify that they are two complementary sides of a comprehensive truth.

Moreover, phenomena of 'mixing sources' can be found in rumors that each 'message' came from different sources. Not in the biblical text, which was carefully preserved from change and addition. The biblical text was preserved in thousands of 'testimonies' by 'scribes', read and studied with meticulous care, and compiled according to accurate books that were kept in the Temple, and the scribes from all over the Diaspora who made the pilgrimage three times a year and could check every word and letter that was lacking.

The text was also secured by the Masoretic notes, which were handed down orally and clarified how exactly each word was written in the various places where it appears in the Bible. The text and tradition are meticulously preserved by thousands of ‘scribes’ in all corners of the world - it cannot be forged or distorted. Therefore, any attempt to disassemble and assemble biblical texts – is clearly devoid of plausibility.

Best regards, Hillel Feiner-Glossinos

Oren,
The authority of the Torah is from Sinai, and therefore what is included in the text can be required even if it was added later by an editor who thought it was important to include it (that same editor must have understood that this was part of the revelation at Sinai that was not sufficiently explained in the text given to Moses at Sinai). Just as the sages were given authority to interpret the Torah, so was the authority apparently given to edit it in a specific way by various editors. This authority apparently ended with the age of prophecy.

Tirgitz,
This is not a question of authority. There is no point in demanding a text that is not written in the Holy Spirit. For example, including the letter Y'Thira or making a gersh between words from a text that is not scrupulous is foolish. It has nothing to do with questions of authority.

Oren,
The Sages demanded the Torah because the Torah could be demanded. They did not decide this on their own. After all, the standards of the demand are the LBM. In addition, I have already written that the editing and additions seem on the surface to be quite minor, and therefore the assumption is that the text can be demanded until there is a place where it is proven otherwise.
If there is a place where you have a clear indication that this is an editorial addition, and you also come to the conclusion that it was not done in the Holy Spirit (and the gersh is not relevant here, as I explained above), then you can ignore this particular Sage's discourse. By the way, in a place where you yourself are skilled and demand a different Torah and it is clear to you that they were wrong - you can in principle demand a different one from them regardless of all your arguments here.

In the Bible, 26th of Nisan 2

One of the basic failures with which critics have filled the Bible with contradictions is the inability to understand that the Bible presents a complex concept. The critic assumes that an ancient primitive writer cannot hold a complex concept. He who reads in the name of ′′ Hoyah ′′ cannot read in the name of ′′ Elohim ′′ and therefore there is no escape from attributing each name to a different author, but what can we do? Moses taught us that ′′ The Lord our God is one ′′ and the children of Israel explicitly declared on Mount Carmel: ′′ The Lord ′′ is the God ′′

All the messages of the Bible lead to a complexity that balances the opposites. The Lord is jealous and avenges those who rebel against Him, but He is slow to anger and abundant in kindness to those who return to Him. The Torah teaches that in every place where I mention My name, Father, to you and your blessings, but the work of sacrifices must be dedicated to the place that the Lord chooses.

The royal tribe will be in the hands of the tribe of Judah, but they will learn the ways of holiness from Joseph. The sons of Levi will not receive an inheritance in the land, but they will be dedicated to the service of the Lord and to teaching the Torah and its laws to Israel. And in this way, each tribe will be blessed with its unique blessing and contribution to the entire people.

On the one hand, Israel is commanded to do work on the six days of work, and on the other hand, Israel is commanded to sanctify the Sabbaths and the festivals for the work of the Spirit. On the one hand, they must give a tithe to the Levites, the teachers of the Torah, and on the other hand, they must set aside an additional tithe that will require them to stay in Jerusalem for a tenth of the year so that the farmer and his household can also charge their ‘spiritual reserves’ in the holy place.

On the one hand, they are commanded to act with kindness and compassion toward the poor and the weak, and on the other hand, the judges are commanded to ‘a poor man shall not boast in his wealth’ and justice must not be perverted in favor of the weak. On the one hand, the Torah imposes severe penalties for serious offenses, and on the other hand, it requires strict evidentiary laws, two witnesses, and requirements and investigations, which in most cases prevent the imposition of the maximum penalty.

In short:
The Torah is the ‘order of the world’ Brings balance to the world, a balance between kindness and justice, a balance between security and effort, a balance between centralization and tribal devotion, and a balance between mundane life and sacred life. The balancing complexity is built on the fact that the Torah is the guidance of the one Creator of the world and unites all opposites into harmonious wholeness.

With blessings, Yiftach Lahad Argamon-Bakshi

I checked again what you wrote in the second book about the hypothesis of the documents, and there I saw that you wrote things in a different spirit. There you wrote as follows:

"Let us now return to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael that I mentioned earlier. Rabbi Ishmael truly rejects Rabbi Akiva's approach and in his opinion there is no place for sermons that are based on thin multiplications of letters and unnecessary words and letter tags. According to his method, "the Torah spoke like the language of humans", meaning that this text should be treated as a human text that presents its contents as humans speak. If so, the problem exists only with Rabbi Akiva's method, and it is not necessary to accept his method specifically. We can also say that following the findings of modern biblical research, we must adopt Rabbi Ishmael's method. Even so, it is certainly not a theological "death blow". I would also add that even if the Talmudic sages believed otherwise, there is their assumption here that the source of the entire text is divine, but it is certainly possible in light of the information we have today that we will conclude that they were wrong in this and will not accept their words in this regard. I will mention here what we have already seen before, that it is impossible to accept a claim to authority with respect to facts, unless these facts originate in the Sinaitic tradition. Now we see that even the Sinaitic tradition could have gone astray along the way. If we want to determine the minimal theological framework, the picture described here will force us at most to forgo sermons on unnecessary letter markers or letters (and even that is not certain).

Now if we return to the principle of Ockham's razor that I mentioned above, it seems that it can help us choose the more correct method between the methods of R"A" and R"S. R"S's method refines fewer assumptions (that the Torah was compiled by the Holy Spirit), and is therefore preferable. Isn't that so?

I don't see anything there that is different from what I wrote here. My argument there is built on several levels. My argument in this section is that even if we are convinced that there are later additions by an ordinary person (not the Holy Spirit), this does not harm the principled tradition. But as I wrote here, since we have received a different tradition - the burden of proof is on the one who claims that there are later additions not by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the razor principle is not relevant here.

Why make excuses to reconcile the words of Ramada in his book with his words on his website? Isn't it more likely that there are different submissions and edits of the author's words here? Is it by chance that he sometimes signs himself ‘Miki’ and sometimes ‘mikyab’ and sometimes ‘Michael Abraham’?

There are also different versions regarding the man's location. The northern tribes describe his location between Haifa and Pardes-Hannah; the southern tribes place him in ’Yeruham’, while the Deuteronomists place him between Lod and Ramat-Gan, which is in the center of the country.

Even his monikers describe him sometimes as full and sometimes as ’the wise man of the thin’, and surprisingly, his theology also matches his appearance. Being fat – His doctrine was fat, and being thin, he developed a thin theology.

I think that the perception that Abraham was one stems from the failure to internalize the methods of scientific-critical research that know how to separate the glues and break everything down into elements.

With analytical and electrolytic greetings,
Dr. Schatzius von Lewinhausen, Yitzcham Pirukia Institute