Help with the lesson on the status of Mount Sinai

Hello. Unfortunately, I only just got to the email and saw the questions. I’ll try to respond briefly.
The attitude towards the status of revelation as evidence is indeed excessive for the purpose of the argument, and therefore I wrote that it joins all the other arguments (the special history, the philosophical conclusion that there is a God even before I speak of revelation, and more, as I have detailed), and only by virtue of them can it gain meaning and validity.
The starting point for the discussion is David Hume’s miracle argument, according to which there are two interpretations of a tradition that tells of a miracle: 1. It is a myth that has become ingrained in the national consciousness, that it certainly happens and that there is no deviation from the laws of nature. 2. There was a real miracle, which is by definition a deviation from the laws of nature. Hume argues that interpretation 1 is preferable and therefore rejects traditions with an unusual content.

As far as I remember, I refer to this in my notebook, but if you wish, there is a more detailed and systematic discussion in my book “Truth and Unstable”. My discussion there and there explains why 1 is not necessarily the preferred interpretation, and I show that in other areas we choose 2 (the story of Amnon Yedidi, which is cited there).

But now you are making the claim that there are other parallel traditions, and for them too I must reject David Hume’s argument in the same way.

But if you follow the course of my argument, you will see that Hom’s argument is correct in principle (and therefore the status of revelation is not so strong). I reject it only in situations where I have confidence in the tradition that has come down to me. My argument is that this confidence is worth a lot and can stand up to Hom’s argument (see the example I gave there regarding my friend Amnon and his story about the dynamics he led in the Midwest of the United States). As I repeat, this argument (like its colleagues) cannot stand on its own. All the arguments must be seen as a whole and not examined individually.

How do I decide whether to trust tradition? I see that it is critical and willing to reconsider principles. I see that it is being passed on “on a broad front” and not just by an elitist group like the Druze, for example. This also adds to the consideration of our unique history: our survival despite dispersion and persecution, our influence and dominance and that of our values ​​and the Bible in world culture. Anti-Semitism, which is difficult to understand. The special talent of Jews in relation to other peoples. Their revolutionary spirit and involvement in any global change, and so on. Add to this the fact that Christianity and Islam also agree with our myth of revelation, meaning that there is a very broad front that embraces it.
None of this exists in the parallel traditions. There, the feeling is that these are inventions and myths and that there is no independent external backing for this (such as special history, etc.), and of course no broad global consensus either, so the argument of today stands.
For example, I will not relate to a story about a miracle that happened to so-and-so if I know so-and-so as a primitive who believes in all sorts of nonsense, but if a scientist who is accustomed to critical thinking tells it to me, and certainly if his story has support from an independent source (historical or otherwise), I will believe it more. This is the difference between alternative medicine and conventional medicine. That is why we accept quantum theory despite its absurdity, and we do not accept miracle stories from this or that tribe.

It is true that what I said suggests that much of this stands or falls on trust in tradition and its transmitters.

What the Torah says, “Show the Gentiles God,” in my opinion, is not necessarily meant to prove that there is a God. It is the perspective of a contemporary person who is looking for arguments to prove faith. It is meant to show believing people the close relationship of God to us. He reveals himself to us and guides us in the world (and we still remain alive), because we are important to Him.

This is about the Torah. What is written in various books of thought (like the Maimonides you quoted) that are based on revelation and its uniqueness does not convince me, and I do not feel obligated to explain them or agree with them. By the way, the same Amnon I mentioned, who went backpacking in Bolivia, told me about additional mass apparitions in the Indian villages there. I think I also mentioned Our Lady of Fatima (who you mentioned from Portugal) and more.

Regarding revelations and miracles among Christians and more, Rabbi Kook already addresses this question in his book On the Confusions of the Generation and writes (surprisingly) that they may have been true. He suggests seeing there revelations of God to Christians and Muslims as propagators of the belief in Oneness (as the Maimonides said about them). As mentioned, I do not think there is a need for this because the traditions there are not reliable and there is no supporting evidence, and more.

Therefore, in my opinion, the argument from Revelation is indeed reasonable, and I do not find myself forced to accept reports from other peoples (as you claim at the end of your remarks that you do believe them, and so does the Rabbis) because I was not convinced of the reliability of their tradition there.

I hope I helped because I don’t have much time to extend right now.
————————————-
Asks:

Thank you very much for the quick reply!! You have already helped me a lot.

A few comments following your words:

“Please ask for the first days…”
While I agree that it is reasonable to say that the main purpose of the Torah is not to prove the existence of God in the verses “Ask, please,” etc., ultimately, its words imply that it is impossible for there to be a story of mass revelation in addition to the story of the people of Israel.
Moreover – it is clear from the wording of the verse that not only will there not be an actual historical story of mass revelation = “Will we be like this great thing?” but that it is not even possible for there to be a fabricated story of mass revelation = “Or what is heard like it?” Which puts us in a certain problem even if the story of the Indian tribes is not historically accurate for the reasons you wrote.

Were the recipients of the Torah truly critical?
One of the reasons you wrote for trusting our tradition is that the group that transmits the tradition is ‘critical and willing to reconsider principles.’ And about these two things one must ask:
Is it really critical? Who said that even at the time of the events, this group was critical and not primitive (after all, we cannot use the stories in the Torah about not believing in Moses, etc., as evidence for this, because the Torah itself is part of what requires proof). It is more reasonable to assume that a people in ancient times would not be critical in today’s rational terms, but would be greatly influenced by a developed primitive imagination.. As you wrote: “For example, I would not relate to a story about a miracle that happened to so-and-so if I know so-and-so to be a primitive who believes in all sorts of nonsense.”
Likewise, how do we know that the transmitters of tradition were willing to reconsider principles in the very early periods of the Jewish people (near the time of the reception of the Torah)? After all, if we bring evidence from later periods (such as the Talmud period, etc.) about criticism, etc., seemingly there is no evidence in this, since even a modern Christian believer (and even in earlier periods when the influence of philosophy had already penetrated) knew how to be critical and think, and yet this does not mean that at the time of accepting the principle of the ‘Holy’ Trinity, which has many difficulties, those same people were critical.
In any case, it is more likely to assume that a myth took root and became a historical story as a result of primitive approaches, and then rational people had no choice but to justify this story and its implications.
(By the way, even during the Talmud and so on, do we see a style of thinking that is willing to question faith itself?? All critical abilities seemingly begin and end only after the point of departure in faith.)

Visions from the near future
Also in the above cases in Portugal less than a hundred years ago (the miracle with Mary and the sun), and in Zeytun about 40 years ago (a vision of Mary bowing to the cross),
In your opinion, is this an unreliable tradition despite the close time and the large number of people? (And in Zeytun, it even lasted for several years!).

Thank you very much!!

———————————-
Rabbi:

Hello.
I proposed a different interpretation of the Torah. After all, the verse ends with “and he lived,” meaning that what is not heard is not the encounter with God but that we survived it. No one met with Him directly and survived. Our Lady of Fatima did not have an encounter with God but with the “Holy Virgin” and so on. My argument is that seeing these verses as proof of the existence of God is an anachronism. The Torah does not intend this, but to show our affection for Him. And again, at Fatima, they did not meet God, and this does not indicate their affection for Him (but for His messenger). And even if that was an encounter with their God, it is not the right God. No one met with God and survived.

I don’t know who it was then, but later there was criticism. Therefore, a reasonable assumption is to go back and say that a reasonable generation would not have started such a tradition without criticism, and without examining whether the generation before it was trustworthy. and so on. And again, these are not arguments that stand alone (as they are far from decisive). But together with everything else, it certainly has reasonable weight. Of course, nothing is certain.
The Christian believer cannot and should not critically examine his tradition because from the outset it did not claim to be public historical claims but rather the revelation of individuals. But the first critical generation to whom someone explained that there was a mass revelation before the eyes of all Israel had to ask themselves all these questions and decide whether to accept it or not.
By the way, I don’t see the Trinity as something that problematic. It is completely parallel to the Kibbutz Yisrael and the Torah, and therefore I am far from mocking those who accept it. If it were a fundamental principle among us, they would accept it here too. There are things among us that are much more logically problematic that almost everyone accepts (such as everything being in the hands of God, private providence, the duty of effort, and many other nonsense that we were raised on, etc.).

In the Talmud you find “Rabbi Hillel said, ‘They have no Messiah for Israel, so they ate him in the days of Hezekiah.'” And you also find disputes about whether the Torah is from Sinai or from the Tent of Meeting, against the principles of faith. You definitely see critical thinking there. It is true that there is an agreed framework (and I am not sure I accept it all), but all critical thinking is within a framework. Does science accept criticism of its basic assumptions?

I can bring you stories from the recent past about Oren Zarif and other “Kabbalists” or Kabbalists in whom I have no faith. Or stories about alternative medicine (a field that, to the best of my judgment, is all nonsense based on grandmother’s stories from beginning to end). The question is not the timing of the story but the credibility of those who transmit and contract it.

——————————-
Asks:

Thanks again for the answers! I really appreciate it!
A. Apparently even the Indians survived the encounter with God and remained alive?
And as I mentioned, a simple analysis of the Torah reveals that you will not find even a rumor about a story of a mass revelation whose participants survived it (and not just a story that has been historically verified (“it will come”).
What is your opinion on this?
on. On the surface, it seems more likely that the ancient generation was primitive and possessed myths and imaginations – in accordance with what was accepted at that time. The claim that they probably would not have accepted the tradition without criticism is seemingly anachronistic according to the concepts of criticism that began in much later periods, especially since myths and the like were accepted by all ancient peoples (i.e. the stories of Greek mythology).
Since, according to your words, even today many people (and even those considered educated) accept as truth delusional and unfounded things, then what can be said about antiquity??
Why would we distinguish the people of Israel from the entire cultural space in which they existed and claim that they alone were critical of mythological stories that also include various revelations?

—————————————-
Rabbi:

Hello.
A. Sorry, this is simply a misunderstanding. I will repeat what I wrote. Two answers to this:
1. They did not meet with God but with the “Holy Virgin.” A meeting with an angel, etc., is not a meeting with God. The Torah says that no one has met with God and survived.
2. They did not meet with God but with imaginations. The Torah says that there is no encounter with God from which one survives, and the Indians are not discouraged by this, since they did not meet with Him but with their imaginations. You can of course say that they would also say this about us, that our God is an imagination, and that is why I said that the Torah does not intend to bring evidence that we are right. It assumes that we are right, that is, our God is the true God. And under this assumption it says that there was no direct encounter with Him in a revelation (not in a dream) from which someone survived. You return again and again to the logic of proofs, and claim that there is no proof against the Indians. The Torah does not try to bring evidence against them.
on. Again, I think I answered. My impression is that our tradition indicates significant criticality (the Gemara and the Mishnah), a willingness to accommodate several opinions and also to pass them on (why did the words of the one who permits change with the words of the one who prohibits, in the Mishnah of Evidence). Even if the criticality appeared in a relatively late generation (I don’t know, but one could perhaps argue so), my argument was that this generation in which it appeared should have criticized the tradition that came to it from previous generations. After all, the Gemara constantly deals with the question of what the source of everything is, and certainly demonstrates impressive criticality. From the critical generation (for example, the Talmud) we go back to the generation that transmitted it, and after all, it received from them a sign that it was convinced. And so on until the generation of the giving of the Torah. I also wrote that criticality in itself is not decisive, but it joins the rest of the evidence and only the totality has significant weight. Criticality in itself is not enough.
Even today, when people accept strange things, it is almost always accompanied by criticism, and not everyone accepts it. There are quite a few Haredim who engage in the critique of Haredi myths.

The revelations in ancient myths could certainly be a copy of “myths” about real revelations (God to Noah and Shem and Eber, and to Abraham and Israel at Sinai).

It is impossible to find certainty, but in my opinion the overall picture (not one argument or another) does indicate plausibility.
———————————
Asks:
Hello Rabbi!

For further clarification: First of all, I apologize if I didn’t understand what you said properly. I hope you don’t feel that my continued questions are a repetition of what has already been said.

A. According to your statement that the verses of the Torah, even incidentally (and not as the main purpose!) do not prove anything about the mass revelation of Israel in relation to other peoples, but only assume that we are right, what is the meaning of the commandment “Ask”, etc.? – This means that if we ask and find out, from the answers of other cultures (even if they disagree), it seems that there was no status like the status of Mount Sinai.

on. What does it mean that the Indian tribes met with their imaginations? Did they dream a collective dream together? How can this be argued and explained?
[And in the meantime, how can we answer the claim that the people of Israel also imagined or experienced a powerful mystical experience (perhaps even caused by Moses) but an encounter with G-d was not there?]

third. What do we do with those few revelation stories in which the Indians claim that the Creator of the world appeared to them? (In most stories they actually admit that only one of the minor gods appeared to them).

D. I completely accept the essential distinction between an encounter with God and an encounter with an angel, and to distinguish between Mary, etc. My main question in the cases of these miracles and visions was not about the words of the Torah in the verses, but about a fundamental understanding of the reliability of historical stories:
What is our attitude towards the close testimony of a great many people about delusional things that every educated person naturally rejects? (There is no reason to say that such a large number of people includes only unreliable people, but rather a large public also includes educated people, and supposedly this testimony is also supposed to be reliable).
I will explain further: There is an argument that says that a foundational historical event that occurs after the nation actually exists (excluding myths about ancient periods), cannot be falsified historically! (This argument basically comes to strengthen the historical credibility of the Mount Sinai status).
Do you accept this argument? As I understand it, if we accept this argument, we must say that the stories of the revelations of the Indians actually happened (at least those attributed to a few hundred years ago and not to the beginning of creation), and the same applies to the stories of miracles and visions told in other religions that happened in large numbers, and so on when it comes to things that are said to have happened in the last hundred years in large numbers.
In almost all cases, I see no contradiction to Judaism at all, even if these stories actually happened. My main difficulty is that it puts the story about the Mount Sinai stand in the same ‘basket’ with stories that are perceived as historically unreliable but imaginary.
Did I understand correctly from your words that you do not accept this rule, and that in your opinion mass stories can be falsified? Then from your perspective, there is no advantage to the Mount Sinai story in itself over the stories of other cultures, and its entire advantage is only due to the external factors that support it (special history, critical transmitters, etc.).

Thank you very much!
—————————–
Rabbi:

Again and again we mix up the first argument, that is, the argument of the Torah (which, according to my suggestion, only serves to show God’s concern for us) and the second argument (of the Khozari) which proves His existence from revelation. Each time you must examine and define carefully which of the two we are talking about. In section 4 you distinguish between them clearly, but in the rest, in my opinion, there is confusion.

A. Here we are talking about the first. Ask yourself and see how much G-d loves you for having met Him face to face and remaining alive (surviving). The goal is to strengthen the connection with G-d and love for Him, not to prove His existence. At most, assuming He exists, there is an argument here in favor of His giving the Torah.
on. It is not clear whether you are talking about the first or the second. This is just a form of expression. The meaning is that the God they met with does not exist. It is an imaginary God. How did the story unfold? Assimilation of myths. Regarding Israel, I explained that the Torah did not intend to prove the existence of God. This is a conclusion that arises from other places. The Torah assumes His existence. Therefore, there is nothing to compare it to other revelations. Is it any wonder that the Indians met with a figure who is not God and yet survived (as you remember, the proof is of His good attitude and care for us, not of His very existence)?!

Regarding my trust in our tradition (I understand that there are two) as opposed to the Native American one, I have already explained. I do not understand what is added to this question.
third. We won’t do anything. These are fantasies, and in any case, at most it’s about an encounter with God that there’s no problem surviving.

D. My trust in such traditions is a weighting of the credibility of the story, the credibility of the narrators, a priori indications (there are philosophical proofs that there is a God) and a posteriori indications (the survival and dominance of the people of Israel and their credibility, the passing of the tradition on a broad front, etc.). Such traditions are certainly falsifiable, and therefore I repeat again and again that it gains significance in conjunction with the other arguments. It has non-zero weight but not decisive. Therefore, there is no point in repeating the comparisons to the Indians over and over again. I answered that. You may not agree, but to me it seems absolutely reasonable and I have nothing to add.

I’m just saying that my lack of faith in these stories is not because they contradict Judaism (as you implicitly assumed in your words). I simply don’t believe them because it’s not credible to me. Just like if someone came today and told me about miracles and wonders. I usually wouldn’t believe them. Even if a public figure told me, I would doubt it and would need additional indications to accept it.

I really don’t understand your last question. It’s really pure logic, so how can you argue about it? The advantage of our tradition is certainly not in the story itself, because as you rightly wrote, there are other stories like this. So by definition, there is no advantage of one story over another, but rather because of support from the side (after all, you also agree with this, but in your opinion, because for some reason you don’t consider support from the side, then whoever believes us must believe them too). By definition, the advantage of our story will always be because of the side parameters (the credibility of the morals, our history, etc.). It’s impossible to argue about that, after all, we are talking about facts (that there are other stories. So clearly, the advantage is not actually that there is a story). Therefore, I don’t understand your question whether our story doesn’t have an advantage over others without the side supports. Of course not.

——————————
Asks:
Peace and blessings!

I will try to clarify my words better regarding the understanding of the verse (in the same way as the last attempt). ):
My main point in asking about the verse “Ask…” – even after I accept your words that the purpose of the verse is not to prove anything but only to express love, ultimately its words include the issue of the uniqueness of the status of Mount Sinai, even if we ask and inquire about it. (The issue of the existence of God is not the issue at the moment for me, but only the issue of the uniqueness of the revelation at Sinai).
Just like I say to someone: I love you so much that if you ask everyone, you’ll see that what I did to you a few days ago, I haven’t done to anyone else!!!
Although I come to express love towards him and not to prove anything else, my words still include the fact that if that person does ask and inquire, he will discover that I did something unique to him that has not been done to anyone else. If the inquiry yields a different result, there is a problem here.
(And according to your explanation of the verse: If we ask everyone and find among them a people who claim to have met with God, the Creator of the world, and remained alive, there is a problem here.)

Regarding the Indians – I’ll make sure I understood what you said correctly:
According to you, there are two possibilities: 1. The Indians did not experience any revelation, but rather it is a myth that was assimilated and turned into a ‘historical’ story (which means that they encountered imaginations – because there was no actual revelation).
2. The Indians did indeed experience an apparition of one of the angels, etc., and it is possible that they survived it. (In this case, it is not just imagination but reality, but perhaps they imagined it by thinking that it was the Creator of the world, even though it was only one of the angels).

[I also think that this does not contradict Judaism. I was even told that the book Sha’arei Ora states that there may be revelations of the ‘ministers’ to the nations of the world].

Explain how there can be an advantage in the story of Revelation itself:
For the record, apart from the side parameters, there are indeed advantages to the story of the revelation at Sinai that are not found in other cultures (according to conversations I had with a person who has researched revelation stories from nearly 2,000 cultures):
1. The number of people – millions among the people of Israel, compared to thousands – at maximum estimates – among the Indians.
(Although thousands is also a large quantity, the gap is still huge, and it can be said that quantity becomes quality in terms of the ability to forge, etc.).
2. Who appeared – among the Israelites, it is a transcendent G-d without a body, and in other cultures it is always said that a physical factor appeared. Even the Indians who claim that the Creator of the world appeared to them, attribute to him actual physical attributes and include him in the conduct of the world – he has children, he lives in a cabin, etc. (A. If it is a physical factor, perhaps it is just a sorcerer who simply caused some kind of spell and performed miracles, and in any case he has no advantage over Jesus and Muhammad.
on. As you wrote in the fifth booklet – a distinct and spiritual revelation of God does not correspond to the nature of the period, and thus the chance of falsification and assimilation is also reduced. I heard from one of my rabbis who went so far as to say: that in ancient culture, the revelation of the distinct God is a story that cannot be invented, because it was not at all in the world of concepts at that time, and in any case, whoever tells it must be telling the truth.
3. When was it revealed – the people of Israel speak of a revelation within the days of history, in contrast to many revelation stories (though not all) that speak of the time immediately after creation – that is, myths like in Greek mythology, and in any case they have no real historical basis.

You may not believe that these differences constitute an advantage (and I would also like to know why), but I explained by asking whether you think that the advantage of Mount Sinai’s status is only due to external factors and not in the content of the story itself.

Thank you very much!
——————————
Rabbi:

I understood what you said very well and I can’t figure out what’s unclear in what I said. You’re simply wrong.
I repeat and explain: God reveals himself to us and says that he himself (!) never revealed himself to another people who later remained alive. This is not an argument that comes to prove something, but a simple statement of fact. The fact that others tell grandmother’s stories about revelations they had does not contradict this in any way. Think of a situation where I am talking to you and telling you that I have never met someone else without giving them a slap in the face. Now another person comes and says that someone else revealed himself to him or he even claims that I revealed myself to him and he did not receive a slap. Is there a contradiction here? Absolutely not. I did not claim that another would not come and say that he experienced a revelation, but I claimed that there was no revelation. After all, I told you that I did not reveal myself without a slap, so that person is lying or imagining.
Note, the verse does not come to prove anything. It assumes that God is God and that He is without exception and expresses love for us. If I had doubts and needed proof, then the other testimonies would really have weight. But the verse does not say that there will not be others who say they experienced a revelation, but rather that there was no revelation.
[In a footnote, the verse also does not say that there will be no revelation, only that there has not been one by then. Therefore, later evidence does not mean much]

Regarding the Indians, that is indeed what I wrote.

Explain how there can be an advantage in the story of Revelation itself:
I’m willing to accept some advantage of our story, and yet without the support from the outside, it’s not really decisive. None of the three arguments you’ve put forward are really strong.
1. The number of people – I don’t see a significant difference between thousands and millions. Beyond that, the story is being adapted, and it’s not certain that what has come down to us is indeed what it was. Perhaps the revelation was small or not, and the story that has come down to us speaks of millions. There is no difference between creating a lie about thousands and creating a lie about millions. The paper/mouth tolerates everything.

2. Who was revealed – A. Why can’t a revelation without a figure be a manipulation by a sorcerer? Can’t he hide and make sounds? on. I agree, but it’s not really decisive. “Cannot be invented” is a wild drift. You can invent many miracles and wonders, as we see to this day.

3. When was it discovered – there are later revelations, as you yourself mentioned, even in our day.

——————————
Asks:

Have a good and blessed week!
I really appreciate your quick and detailed answers!! Thank you very much!
* As I wrote in one of the previous emails – the verse means that no one will come who falsely claims to have experienced such a revelation (“the one who sounds like him,” which is also written about “let it be like this thing”).
Why don’t you accept this accuracy in the verse? How do you explain the simple difference between being like this and being heard like that?
(And as I emphasized – not that the purpose of the verse is to prove this, but that it is ultimately included in its words!).
* And while we’re on the subject of explaining verses, how do you explain God’s words to Moses that, by virtue of the revelation at Mount Sinai, “and in you they will believe forever” – meaning that the Mount Sinai event indeed constitutes an eternal foundation for faith in the Torah even without historical confirmation.
* It seems to me that the claim for witchcraft, etc., is stronger when the entity speaking is physical – the voice heard is physical (the sorcerer is the one who speaks or makes the voice heard through the figure he created through witchcraft), and the various miracles are also in witchcraft. In other words, since it is about attainment through the physical senses, the possibility of forgery in witchcraft is greater.
In contrast, the people of Israel do not claim that they heard a physical voice, but rather that it was a prophecy – that is, a certain internal realization. From the outset, the claim is essentially different.
And in the meantime, I really ask: What is your response to the claim that the status did exist, but perhaps Moses was a sorcerer who created this voice/it was a mystical experience but not a divine revelation/those were just imaginations?
Apart from the external evidence about the unique history of the people of Israel, etc., do you have any other answer to these kinds of claims?
* According to your statement that the reliability of the revelation at Sinai is only due to external reinforcements from history, etc., it follows that during the exile it was much more difficult to believe in Judaism – most of the prophecies had not yet been fulfilled. Perhaps the survival of the people of Israel in terrible humiliation is only because they killed the Christian ‘Messiah’.
So many factors were missing in relation to today, how were Jews expected to believe, since the status of Mount Sinai in itself is not enough?
* What do you think about the following claim I heard:
Since every natural event repeats itself in history in similar ways, if the Mount Sinai event is another myth that was assimilated (intentionally or accidentally) – why is there no equivalent to it in the stories of revelation. That is, why is there no other story of revelation (even a false one!) that tells of the distinct Godhead speaking to a number of millions (or even something approaching these numbers). If this is a deliberate lie, the obvious thing is that more religions will lie about this lie – after all, it gives their religion much more credible validity (this is especially noticeable in Christianity and Islam, which claim to have replaced Judaism, but their claim is extremely weak – a revelation to one person that came to replace a revelation to millions who also admit that it occurred). And if this is a myth that was assimilated naturally, why does it have no equal in any natural event that has its likes?
Thank you very much!!

——————————
Rabbi:
No one claims to have met our God in person (but other gods or angels). And even if he does, he is a liar. And I have already added that the verse is talking about the past, not the future.
What is the problem with believing in Moses? Indeed, by virtue of revelation, one believes in him because one believes in revelation. Where does it say that this is without reinforcement?
Prophecies are the easiest thing to fake. I have no answer to the claim that Moses was a forger, just as I have no reason to believe that you might be a demon and not a human. It is impossible to answer skeptical claims. Either you find them plausible or you don’t. In general, I personally don’t tend to believe claims about the existence of sorcerers. And besides, what’s wrong with adding external support?
I don’t know the mindset of years past, and the fact that it was enough for them. It’s not enough for me. But there were reinforcements even then. The miracles and the prophets, and the contribution to humanity and the Bible, etc. A significant portion of the external support was already there then.
* What do you think about the following claim I heard:
A rather weak argument. Explain to me why there is no such argument? After all, there are stories of the Arabian Nights of all kinds. So why doesn’t it come back again? At most, it just proves that people don’t just repeat myths.
—————————–
Asks:
Peace and blessings!
There are myths about revelations that preceded the revelation of the people of Israel at Sinai. Some of them claim to have met the God who created the world.
According to you, they are lying – that’s fine, I accept that assumption. But I still don’t understand what you mean by the specific problem I mentioned:
The verse suggests that not even such a lie will be found – “or what sounds like it.” I would be very happy to know your response to this specific difficulty.
Regarding Moses – it emerges from the words of the Torah that what causes “they will also believe in you forever” is by virtue of “and the people will hear the words of your people” and nothing else on top of that. It is difficult to say that this is also built on other reinforcements from factors external to revelation. Whoever claims this for the sake of justice is the one who needs to bring evidence.
In general, I certainly don’t see any problem with adding external supports. Obviously, when I try to convince someone of the correctness of Judaism, I will also use these good arguments. But nevertheless, I ‘insist’ on my discussion with you for several reasons:
A. The more stable each detail of the proof is, the more it adds to the whole of the proof – thus also strengthening the uniqueness and credibility of the story of the revelation at Sinai itself as much as possible.
on. As I have already written, there is a problem with the verses if the story of the Mount Sinai event itself is on the same level as all the stories (“He who is heard like him” + “And in you they will believe forever,” as above).
third. I see the importance of explaining the words of the Maimonides, which he certainly believes in regarding the strong validity of revelation. (Especially since the lesson I am currently teaching deals with the study of the Epistle of the Yemenite Maimonides).
Thank you very much!
————————–
Rabbi:
I think we’ve pretty much exhausted ourselves. I’ll try to address the points you raised, but I suggest we end here.
There are many stories that have been written and unwritten. Tradition does not mean myth. Tradition is a myth (in some sense) that is passed down from generation to generation and reaches us. How many do you know that began before Mount Sinai and reached us? Or until the tenth century? The fact that there is a story somewhere does not mean anything.
I answered “sounds like him.” It doesn’t sound like someone is talking about a meeting with God (=God) that he survived. I also don’t really understand why it’s so important to you. Do you think the verse doesn’t stand the test of reality? So one of two things: either the writer thought so and was mistaken (even God himself can be mistaken when he talks about human choices that depend only on us). Or this verse is a late and incorrect addition.
Regarding Moshe, we have exhausted it.
Regarding Maimonides, I think I’ve already written that I have no interest in showing that he was always right, if only because he wasn’t.
—————————-
Asks:
Peace and blessings!
I agree that the discussion has been exhausted. I apologize if you felt that some of the questions were too ‘spread out’, especially around our different approaches to explaining the verses. (I was very hesitant to ask a question that I felt I had not received an answer to, or to give up and let it go. I went with the ‘Torah is Torah and I need to study’ approach, even if I was a little uncomfortable with it. Still, sorry).
For my part, it was important to me to clarify your method on all these points as much as possible, precisely out of my great appreciation for your rational and innovative approach – I knew that I probably wouldn’t get your style of answers on a certain issue from anyone else.

I really, really thank you for taking the time to provide your detailed and insightful answers. You have clarified and refined many principles for me on this fundamental issue. This has also helped me a lot in structuring the lessons on the subject.
Good news,

———————————-

Rabbi:
Very well. Good luck.