Halacha from Sinai

If I may 'jump in' and ask further on the answer.

If the Torah or parts of it are not authentic, why are they binding? Because Shaphan and Yashiyahu, or Ezra and his friends conveyed it that way, then they are the authority? If so, is part of the Torah itself actually from the rabbis?

Regarding reasonable interpretation, do you have to be authorized to interpret it? If so, then who are we to claim that the authorized interpretation is unreasonable. If not, then who are we to claim that any interpretation by any person is unreasonable?

Regarding the doctrine of Kabbalah, I understand that you believe that it is not from an authorized institution, is the consensus that exists for this not sufficient (individuals disputed the authenticity and most of the Orthodox world accepts it), and if they are right, it is also attributed to the conditions, then there is authority. And in general, it sounds like you don't object to acceptance, it's just 'voluntary', that is, for those who want to be polite, but there are esoteric ideas there that don't fit with your perception at all, so where exactly is the 'voluntary'?

Thank you very much.

You don't know what is authentic and what is not. The question arises only after you have come to a conclusion about some verse that is not authentic. As long as you haven't found out, there is a presumption that what we have is the Torah given at Sinai. And even if it is late, if it comes from a prophet, it is still the word of God. Even if the editing was late, it still edits sources that came from above.
Regarding interpretation, an authorized institution (Sanhedrin) has the authority to interpret. When there is no authorized interpretation, everyone can interpret for themselves.
I didn't understand the question. What if there is something there that doesn't fit with my perception of what I should commit to? It's not a question of editing, but whether you accept it or not.

Thank you very much.

According to you, the sanctity of the Torah and the Book of Mormon is equal? Also in the halakhic aspect (such as studies and sermons that teach from the books of the Book of Mormon)?

Regarding Kabbalah, if it doesn't fit with your perception, but it comes from a source of authority (Rashbhai and Tannaim, or at least parts of it without entering into a discussion about Ramdal and the Book of Zohar specifically) then you have to accept it, where is the limit?

I don't know what to say. If there is a sermon from the Nich, it is completely binding. There is only a rule that Torah words from Kabbalah words will not be changed. And no prophet is allowed to innovate anything from now on, since the Torah determines the laws. But these are technical rules that are not related to our discussion.

Rashbi is not a source of authority. The Talmud is a source of authority. If someone finds a manuscript of Rashbi or Re'a, it will not be binding.

A sermon from the Nakh is binding, but not as binding as from the Torah. For example, in Kiddushin, page 30, we learn that the father's obligation to marry his son a wife is from a verse in Jeremiah and to teach a trade from a verse in Ecclesiastes. It is indeed binding, the Mishnah wrote this, but it is not at all a part of the commandments, it is supposedly a commandment from the rabbis with support from the prophet (Nakh on the severity of the commandment, Adalat, etc.). After all, this is not written in the Torah, the prophet is not allowed to innovate, and yet it was accepted as an obligation on the father.

Another example, the customs of the prophets that took root, such as the custom of Chavitat Arava, is this an obligation from the Torah because it came from above through the prophets, or only from the rabbis because it was accepted in the Mishnah and Talmud, or something in between (or just a pagan custom that should be ignored).

And regarding Kabbalah, did the same reason (that it was accepted in most of the Diaspora Israel) that gave authority to the Talmud also give authority to the teachings of Kabbalah?

There is clearly a difference in validity. That is one of the technical differences I mentioned. So what?
The Kabbalah was not accepted like the Talmud. There is no agreement, and certainly not on a specific text. It also did not pass on a broad front like the Talmud.

I understand. The word of God in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Talmud. The validity is not the same. But it is wrong to say that there is no nefkm because of validity.

Regarding Kabbalah, why does it have to be a text? The Toshvaf had validity even before it was written. And regarding the agreement, what is meant? The fact that there are different interpretations and perceptions is no different from what happened and is happening with the Torah and the Toshvaf. The teachings of Kabbalah were accepted by the majority of the Jewish people, except for Maimonides and a few others who ignore it (and the Darda'im who have not heard of it), most of the early ones quite follow Kabbalistic paths (especially the Ramban and his group), later when the Zohar was 'revealed' it was accepted by a broad consensus and apart from a few opponents who were quite silenced (and the Ya'avtz who commented on parts of it) the book was accepted by a large majority of all of Israel. I will quote what you wrote above, "No one should discuss whether something is divine or not, and the question of authenticity is not a condition for commitment." Why wasn't the same said about Kabbalah?

To follow the paths of Kabbalah is an amorphous concept. And you yourself have brought several exceptions. Therefore, it is not binding. What is the point of Kabbalah having factual assumptions, and facts have no authority?

How do you know someone is a recognized halachic authority? With all the conflicting opinions in the Talmud? It seems that the sages as well as the rishonim and later halachic authorities continued the tradition of ruling since the days of Chazal, where presenting evidence and arguments and gaining public acceptance was the method. This brings me back to my point that Rav in his younger years issued a ruling that contradicted his predecessor, Ben Ish Chai, and was almost beaten for it, while popularity in later years caused his rulings to be halakhic to Moses from Sinai. Couldn’t such things have happened in the days of Chazal, where popularity eventually became authority? Also why were the Chazal so different in their opinions? If this was the halakhic to Moses, how could they have strayed so far from the original?

In response/question to Rabbi Michael:
There have always been exceptions, both Sadducees and Baytus, also Karaites, don't they follow the majority and the majority accepted Kabbalah (unfortunately)?
Why is Kabbalah an assumption of fact, unlike the Torah, which in your opinion is a source of authority and the assumption that it is a fact doesn't bother you?

Yoni, I lost you. What is the connection between this collection of questions and the discussion and between them?
There are interpretive disputes even in things that are the LBM. I have stated this more than once when I spoke about dynamic tradition. See the series of columns 622 onwards.
Anything can happen. And yet the public accepted the Talmud. It is possible that the acceptance of the Torah was also only because of the fear of God.

Israel, the Tosheva is also not binding. There is a text that was accepted and is binding: the Talmud. The matter is exhausted.

Thank you very much Rabbi Michael